Jobs didn't say "Apple won't sell porn" he said "We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone". He's mad.
He is not mad. He is quite smart. He knows that you can get porn on the iphone. He knows that lots of people are doing it now. He also knows that if parents are going to buy a phone for their children, that the "porn free iphone" will win out against the "Android porn phone".
He is selling the illusion of a "porn free phone" so it has a wholesome image, so more people will be comfortable buying it than a "porn phone". Even if they secretly look at porn on the iphone - and know they can, consumers don't want the stigma of having a porn phone. That is what Steve is selling here, the apparent illusion of wholesomeness without actually selling that at all. The iphone is a great piece of hardware, but a huge selling feature of it apart from the hardware and interface is the apparent image.
People don't buy the phones for features alone. They buy them for basic features that all phones have now, and as a status symbol. It is the same thing with a Ferrari. No one NEEDS a Ferrari to get around in - but lots of people want them. It is the same with the iphone. Steve has crafted a mythos around the iphone, and he wants to keep it "Ferrari" like.
I find it funny when gaming execs (or music, or movie) go on about how much money they are "losing" to piracy. I know a 100% sure fire way they could defeat the pirates. Make really cool games, advertise them massively, then just keep them in house and never release them..
Shhh! I am playing a pirated copy of Duke Nukem Forever right now! Don't let the secret out!
Given that the Kindle's target market is book readers, I don't think tablets like this will have much effect. It's more of a laptop replacement than a book reader; eInk is way more readable, and requires charging far less often. Yes, multiple single-purpose devices can get bulky, but then, I was already carrying around my books anyway. If I wanted a laptop, I'd look at the iPad as an alternative (just like I'd look at a netbook), but if I want to read books and newspapers, I'll stick with paper or eInk.
I'm not saying it will fail, I'm saying it will take market share from laptops far more than eBook readers.
I am not so sure about this. I see eBook readers often on the plane. I remember going around with an MP3 Player, Cell phone and Palm pilot, and wishing that these things could all be combined into one device. I disliked carrying multiple devices. On many levels, my Palm Pilot was better than a iPhone for business tasks - but the iPhone integrates all those 3 features well so I don't have to carry all 3 devices (I actually use a work supplied blackberry curve, but I digress).
The iPad removes the need for a kindle+netbook+itouch, just like the iphone eliminated the need for carrying 3 devices, in a similar way, this combines features in the niche. It does not remove the laptop requirement. As an ebook reader it is "good enough" for most people. And that is all that most non-geeks want. They just care that it looks cool so they can be seen with the device and not look geeky. That the interface of the device is dead-simple to use, so they don't have to spend time trying to learn it (that is what geeks like to do).
The iPad is not the best at the things that it does - the iPhone is not the best at the things that it does - they are all just "good enough" but at the same time just easy enough to use. And that is the secret that Apple is REALLY offering with these devices - "easy enough to use".
This is why Commander Taco's infamous "no wireless, less space than a nomad, lame" comment is funny. The iPod took off mainly because it was the easiest MP3 player to use for most people. The secret weapon is the ease of use.
This will not get the space program funded despite your trolling. Yeah, I will bite.
Even if the cost of diamonds were not not due to artificial controls by the cartels - the cost of sending a mission to the outer planets to retrieve diamonds would be insanely expensive. The price per carat would be many orders of magnitude more than they are now. A complete guess, I would venture 100 million per carat.
In order to do myself some damage with it, I would have to remove it from the plastic casing, crush the glass vial in my teeth, while carefully keeping my mouth closed (as tritium gas is lighter than air) then swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down.
Wow... that sounds a lot like what would happen if your water supply was contaminated by tritium.
Yes, except for the amount of tritium I have it would be a few orders of magnitude in terms of parts per million beyond the current leak. And yet, it would still not be all that harmful.
We're talking about *tritium* here, not plutonium. It's just not all that dangerous as far as radioactive materials go. You might well be *WEARING* some right now if you have a watch that glows in the dark. Unless they're releasing hundreds of pounds of it at a time here (they aren't, there's ~165lbs of the stuff in the US right now) , any farm even a kilometer away is not a real health hazard.
Absolutely correct! I am in fact wearing some right now! I have a necklace that has a "beta light" or as it is called in the UK a "Tritium Kit Marker". I carry this as it is part of my survival kit (I spend a good deal of time out doors) and having it in a necklace as a pendant always keeps it with me for emergencies.
Why do I carry it? Because it will stay glowing for roughly 15 years. The half-life of this gas is 12.3 years, and that is round about enough to keep the pendant glowing for 15 years or so. I can read by it in complete darkness, and almost hike by it in total darkness (as in a cave).
Now, before people freak out - Tritium is a beta emitter. Barely any electrons make it through the boro-silicate glass or plastic secondary container. Those that do are unlikely to penetrate my first layer of skin.
In order to do myself some damage with it, I would have to remove it from the plastic casing, crush the glass vial in my teeth, while carefully keeping my mouth closed (as tritium gas is lighter than air) then swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down. Even then, after I pee it out in about 1-2 weeks time, I will have received a dosage roughly equivalent to a chest X-Ray.
For those of you who are still skeptical, I had the vial tested by some Physicists from Alamogordo at the Trinity Test Site this year, and in Los Alamos with Geiger counters. It registers as radioactive... but then again, so does a banana. I forget how many rems it gives off, but it was not much higher than normal background radiation, and far lower than may other common things such as a smoke detector.
We would not need to constantly feed a river of water into the volcano, while that would work, and all that water would be evaporated.
If a closed loop system was built - just like any other power plant using heat (as opposed to a dam) driving the turbines will extract heat from the steam and convert it to electricity - the now cooled water can be reintroduced to the volcano to complete the cycle.
Granted, as you mention, with a trillion watts required, this would require a massive amount of construction and powerplants to be able to handle this load. It would however, be possible to remove the energy and generate power at the same time, as opposed to diverting rivers and wasting the heat as steam to the atmosphere.
As the author of the introduction, Zee notes: "According to Feynman, to learn QED you have two choices: you can go through seven years of physics education or read this book"
This is the best book there is that I know of that will give you the grounding to get Quantum Electrodynamics. You will discover that particles do in fact, exist in a vacuum. The quantum world does not work anything like the macro world that we are used to. You have to get used to ideas like electrons traveling back in time and emitting a photon before they actually received a photon that caused them to emit said photon.
If you don't want to read that, then at the very least, read this: Vacuum Energy
If the designers of X-Windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same principles -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful feature, that.
Theory is so nice isn't it, in practice those 10 servers will be sharing about 2 megs of pages, really useful isn't it!
Given that the ESXi server that I personally have as my own test bed, which has dual 3.0 Ghz Xeons and 8 GB of RAM, yes that is a hell of a lot.
The VMware lic's are not NEARLY as much as the cost of new hardware. The ESXi box I have is 4 years old. And, FYI, it is the licensed version of ESXi installable 3.5, not the free version.
Don't forget, depending on the type of windows licenses you have, if it is per-processor based, this means I can run all 10 of my VMs on only 2 lic's from Microsoft. (Because each VM only uses 1 of the 2 cores). Getting 8 "free" Windows 2003 server lic's is a pretty damn good deal.
Don't disparage Vmware just because the sell a product for money. In most cases where I have seen it used it has resulted in a savings overall. Yes, you can screw it up and cause it to cost you more, but that goes for pretty much everything.
I have done consulting for a number of $LARGE_BANKS and seen exactly what you describe. I am dealing with one large company now that has 3 servers allocated to run a SINGLE piece of software. They don't need 3 servers to run it, and I suggested that they incorporate these 3 machines into their ESX network, but like you just mentioned, they want "failover" and "enough resources". Never mind that I have the same software running now on a single lower server that is running ESXi 3.5 with 9 other VMs on the same machine.
So we go back to where we started from: chroot and jails. What really is the benefit of extended virtualization? I haven't "embraced" it as I am supposed to do.
I can see where it makes sense if you want to merge several servers that do absolutely nothing all day into a single machine but a decent migration plan will run all those services on a single 'non-virtual' server. Especially when those machines are getting loaded, the benefits of virtualization quickly break down and you'll have to pay for more capacity anyway.
This is exactly what VMware lists as best practice for using virtualization. If a server is maxing out, it should not be virtualized as it is not a good candidate. However, if you have a number of servers that are under utilized, then the advantage of turning them into VMs become clear. VMware has a neat feature called Transparent Page Sharing, where VMs using the same sections of memory with the same bitmaps across the same images are all condensed down into the same single pages of memory in the ESX server. This means that your 10 (or more) windows 2003 server images "share" the same section of RAM, this frees up the "duplicate" RAM across those images. I have seen 20% of RAM saved by this, IIRC it can go above 40%.
As far as high availability goes: again, low cost HA doesn't work that well. I guess it's beneficial to management types that count the costs of but don't see the benefit in leaving a few idle machines running.
If you mean VMware HA, I find it works quite well, granted the new version in Vsphere (aka Virtual Center 4) is much better as it supports full redundancy.
Then you have virtualized your whole rack of servers into a quarter rack single blade solution and a SAN that costs about the same than just a rack of single servers but you can't fill the rack because the density is too high. And like something that recently happened at my place: the redundant SAN system stops communicating with the blades because of a driver issue and the whole thing comes crashing down.
You are assuming that the people don't have this already. I have been to a number of data centers that have racks and racks of under-utilized machines that also have SAN storage. VMware Consolidation is a way of consolidating the hardware you already have to run your ESX hosts. You use a program called VMware Conveter to do P2V (Physical to Virtual) to convert the real hardware machines to VMs, then you reclaim that hardware and install ESX on it, freeing up more resources. You don't always have to run out and buy new hardware!
VMs are great when the hardware is under-utilized, I do not recommend VMs that max out, and neither does VMware.
How can you compare something that costs $80,000 (plus running costs) to something that costs $800?
The other big difference is that this thing will be "normal" in a couple of years and only cost $100. Mid-range PCs will have this as standard.
A Hummer, OTOH, will still be just as expensive and just as stupid.
His analogy with the offroad makes sense... If you are familiar with off roading. My old First Generation 1989 4Runner will destroy a Hummer H2 offroad, and I am in the process of buying another rolling chassis for it today. Total cost? $500.00 off of Craigslist.
A H2 is something that APPEARS to do well off road, but in reality it does not. Plus, when parts come flying off of your offroading vehicle (and if you are doing real off roading, THEY WILL FLY OFF) replacing those parts on a old 4Runner is cheaper than a H2.
So, his analogy is valid. A offroad nerd can get much more out of a 1st gen 4Runner than an H2, in the same way an IT nerd can get more out of a non-4GB card than the twit that likes to drop $800/month on his gaming system.
Hey guys, I found the latest windows iso with google just like the parent poster mentioned! I decided to post it here for everyone else. I hope/. does not get shut down for it.
This new version is pretty slick, much much faster than previous versions, and it seems incredibly stable, unlike any version of Windows I have ever used before. Only problem is the command line makes no sense. Must be that new powershell thing? Anyways, here is the download:
The stock market, had I got in 10 years ago and invested in a safe S&P 500 index fund, has done absolutely nothing. Zero return in ten years. Ten years is pretty close to "long term" in my book.
However, if your S&P 500 Index fund has been paying dividends, and you are reinvesting those dividends, while your total price per share on the Exchange Traded Funds might show no gain, you should show a large increase in the number of shares you hold.
During down times like these it is precisely the time when dividend reinvestment purchases you more shares of your stock and increases your total holdings.
For the record, 3/4 of my holdings are paying strong dividends, and I expect all of them will be within the next 2-5 years. My goal is to compound the dividend interest until retirement. At that point I will hold the principal, and use the dividends as income. So, even if there is a down market, my stocks will continue payouts.
This of course, is all predicated on whether or not I have selected strong companies with good long term outlooks. (And I believe I have).
One of the things I liked in a very old DOS version of HACK (It was not called nethack in the 80's IIRC) were the bugs.
If you started on beginner mode, all your items were identified for you. And, if you selected a wizard class, and then immediately left the dungeon then started a new wizard and left the dungeon. Then you repeated this process over and over your characters would gain an extra wand or 2 over time as you created each new character.
After enough iterations, your character would be carrying (32) wands - and all of them would be identified. At this point though, the game bugged out. The game was not designed for a character to have 32 wands. So, you would select your items to wear, and one of the wands you carried would be overflowed to be treated as a piece of clothing. The value for the charge was taken as the value for the armor class. And, since you were carrying so many wands, one of them was bound to be a wand of charging. This would allow you to start the game with somewhere around a -66 AC with your elven cloak and your wand.
Another great thing was sometimes you one item would overflow and become a 'Glorkum.S" I don't know what that is, but you could wear it, and it had around a -45 AC as well. It appeared to be as a result of an overflow as well.
Finally, the best trick was the wand of wishing. You could not wish for more wands of wishing, but you COULD wish for a wand of cancellation. You used the wands 3 wishes, and then kept trying to zap the wand over and over again. After a while, you would get the message "you wrest one more spell from the worn out wand, what do you want to wish for?" Then the wand would go to -1 charges. Then you could zap it with the wand of cancellation and bring it back to 0 charges and start again...
Suffice it to say I managed to ascend with the real amulet of yendor many times due to these bugs. I wish the team had never fixed those ones....
Slashdot Mirror
Jobs didn't say "Apple won't sell porn" he said "We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone". He's mad.
He is not mad. He is quite smart. He knows that you can get porn on the iphone. He knows that lots of people are doing it now. He also knows that if parents are going to buy a phone for their children, that the "porn free iphone" will win out against the "Android porn phone".
He is selling the illusion of a "porn free phone" so it has a wholesome image, so more people will be comfortable buying it than a "porn phone". Even if they secretly look at porn on the iphone - and know they can, consumers don't want the stigma of having a porn phone. That is what Steve is selling here, the apparent illusion of wholesomeness without actually selling that at all. The iphone is a great piece of hardware, but a huge selling feature of it apart from the hardware and interface is the apparent image.
People don't buy the phones for features alone. They buy them for basic features that all phones have now, and as a status symbol. It is the same thing with a Ferrari. No one NEEDS a Ferrari to get around in - but lots of people want them. It is the same with the iphone. Steve has crafted a mythos around the iphone, and he wants to keep it "Ferrari" like.
I find it funny when gaming execs (or music, or movie) go on about how much money they are "losing" to piracy. I know a 100% sure fire way they could defeat the pirates. Make really cool games, advertise them massively, then just keep them in house and never release them..
Shhh! I am playing a pirated copy of Duke Nukem Forever right now! Don't let the secret out!
Given that the Kindle's target market is book readers, I don't think tablets like this will have much effect. It's more of a laptop replacement than a book reader; eInk is way more readable, and requires charging far less often. Yes, multiple single-purpose devices can get bulky, but then, I was already carrying around my books anyway. If I wanted a laptop, I'd look at the iPad as an alternative (just like I'd look at a netbook), but if I want to read books and newspapers, I'll stick with paper or eInk.
I'm not saying it will fail, I'm saying it will take market share from laptops far more than eBook readers.
I am not so sure about this. I see eBook readers often on the plane. I remember going around with an MP3 Player, Cell phone and Palm pilot, and wishing that these things could all be combined into one device. I disliked carrying multiple devices. On many levels, my Palm Pilot was better than a iPhone for business tasks - but the iPhone integrates all those 3 features well so I don't have to carry all 3 devices (I actually use a work supplied blackberry curve, but I digress).
The iPad removes the need for a kindle+netbook+itouch, just like the iphone eliminated the need for carrying 3 devices, in a similar way, this combines features in the niche. It does not remove the laptop requirement. As an ebook reader it is "good enough" for most people. And that is all that most non-geeks want. They just care that it looks cool so they can be seen with the device and not look geeky. That the interface of the device is dead-simple to use, so they don't have to spend time trying to learn it (that is what geeks like to do).
The iPad is not the best at the things that it does - the iPhone is not the best at the things that it does - they are all just "good enough" but at the same time just easy enough to use. And that is the secret that Apple is REALLY offering with these devices - "easy enough to use".
This is why Commander Taco's infamous "no wireless, less space than a nomad, lame" comment is funny. The iPod took off mainly because it was the easiest MP3 player to use for most people. The secret weapon is the ease of use.
Ipad?? That sounds retarded... seriously. Even the Islate is better than that
Well, you see, this version with the 10" screen is the iPad. The newer version, with a larger screen will be called the Maxipad.
This will not get the space program funded despite your trolling. Yeah, I will bite.
Even if the cost of diamonds were not not due to artificial controls by the cartels - the cost of sending a mission to the outer planets to retrieve diamonds would be insanely expensive. The price per carat would be many orders of magnitude more than they are now. A complete guess, I would venture 100 million per carat.
In order to do myself some damage with it, I would have to remove it from the plastic casing, crush the glass vial in my teeth, while carefully keeping my mouth closed (as tritium gas is lighter than air) then swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down.
Wow... that sounds a lot like what would happen if your water supply was contaminated by tritium.
Yes, except for the amount of tritium I have it would be a few orders of magnitude in terms of parts per million beyond the current leak. And yet, it would still not be all that harmful.
We're talking about *tritium* here, not plutonium. It's just not all that dangerous as far as radioactive materials go. You might well be *WEARING* some right now if you have a watch that glows in the dark. Unless they're releasing hundreds of pounds of it at a time here (they aren't, there's ~165lbs of the stuff in the US right now) , any farm even a kilometer away is not a real health hazard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium
Absolutely correct! I am in fact wearing some right now! I have a necklace that has a "beta light" or as it is called in the UK a "Tritium Kit Marker". I carry this as it is part of my survival kit (I spend a good deal of time out doors) and having it in a necklace as a pendant always keeps it with me for emergencies.
Why do I carry it? Because it will stay glowing for roughly 15 years. The half-life of this gas is 12.3 years, and that is round about enough to keep the pendant glowing for 15 years or so. I can read by it in complete darkness, and almost hike by it in total darkness (as in a cave).
Now, before people freak out - Tritium is a beta emitter. Barely any electrons make it through the boro-silicate glass or plastic secondary container. Those that do are unlikely to penetrate my first layer of skin.
In order to do myself some damage with it, I would have to remove it from the plastic casing, crush the glass vial in my teeth, while carefully keeping my mouth closed (as tritium gas is lighter than air) then swallow the lot with some water to make certain it all goes down. Even then, after I pee it out in about 1-2 weeks time, I will have received a dosage roughly equivalent to a chest X-Ray.
For those of you who are still skeptical, I had the vial tested by some Physicists from Alamogordo at the Trinity Test Site this year, and in Los Alamos with Geiger counters. It registers as radioactive... but then again, so does a banana. I forget how many rems it gives off, but it was not much higher than normal background radiation, and far lower than may other common things such as a smoke detector.
We would not need to constantly feed a river of water into the volcano, while that would work, and all that water would be evaporated.
If a closed loop system was built - just like any other power plant using heat (as opposed to a dam) driving the turbines will extract heat from the steam and convert it to electricity - the now cooled water can be reintroduced to the volcano to complete the cycle.
Granted, as you mention, with a trillion watts required, this would require a massive amount of construction and powerplants to be able to handle this load. It would however, be possible to remove the energy and generate power at the same time, as opposed to diverting rivers and wasting the heat as steam to the atmosphere.
The existence of particles in a vacuum? That sounds exactly like the aether, a scientific theory that was abandoned about 200 years ago!
I suggest you read this book: QED The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
As the author of the introduction, Zee notes: "According to Feynman, to learn QED you have two choices: you can go through seven years of physics education or read this book"
This is the best book there is that I know of that will give you the grounding to get Quantum Electrodynamics. You will discover that particles do in fact, exist in a vacuum. The quantum world does not work anything like the macro world that we are used to. You have to get used to ideas like electrons traveling back in time and emitting a photon before they actually received a photon that caused them to emit said photon.
If you don't want to read that, then at the very least, read this: Vacuum Energy
With a name like "Cheesetrap" I don't think you have the right to go "Eeewwwwwwww"...
Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but the "worlds oldest profession" probably needs its own holiday too.
It is a holiday that has been a long time in coming.
Bakers? Why not! Without bakers, we wouldn't have bread which led to beer!
Let's hear it for Mr. Flibble for sticking up for the bakers!!
I was referring to a profession involving a different kind of yeast.
Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but the "worlds oldest profession" probably needs its own holiday too.
It is a holiday that has been a long time in coming.
If the designers of X-Windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same principles -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful feature, that.
- Marus J. Ranum, Digital Equipment Corporation
(Stolen from: http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html)
*Ducks and runs*
Theory is so nice isn't it, in practice those 10 servers will be sharing about 2 megs of pages, really useful isn't it!
Given that the ESXi server that I personally have as my own test bed, which has dual 3.0 Ghz Xeons and 8 GB of RAM, yes that is a hell of a lot.
The VMware lic's are not NEARLY as much as the cost of new hardware. The ESXi box I have is 4 years old.
And, FYI, it is the licensed version of ESXi installable 3.5, not the free version.
Don't forget, depending on the type of windows licenses you have, if it is per-processor based, this means I can run all 10 of my VMs on only 2 lic's from Microsoft. (Because each VM only uses 1 of the 2 cores). Getting 8 "free" Windows 2003 server lic's is a pretty damn good deal.
Don't disparage Vmware just because the sell a product for money. In most cases where I have seen it used it has resulted in a savings overall. Yes, you can screw it up and cause it to cost you more, but that goes for pretty much everything.
I have done consulting for a number of $LARGE_BANKS and seen exactly what you describe. I am dealing with one large company now that has 3 servers allocated to run a SINGLE piece of software. They don't need 3 servers to run it, and I suggested that they incorporate these 3 machines into their ESX network, but like you just mentioned, they want "failover" and "enough resources". Never mind that I have the same software running now on a single lower server that is running ESXi 3.5 with 9 other VMs on the same machine.
So we go back to where we started from: chroot and jails. What really is the benefit of extended virtualization? I haven't "embraced" it as I am supposed to do.
I can see where it makes sense if you want to merge several servers that do absolutely nothing all day into a single machine but a decent migration plan will run all those services on a single 'non-virtual' server. Especially when those machines are getting loaded, the benefits of virtualization quickly break down and you'll have to pay for more capacity anyway.
This is exactly what VMware lists as best practice for using virtualization. If a server is maxing out, it should not be virtualized as it is not a good candidate. However, if you have a number of servers that are under utilized, then the advantage of turning them into VMs become clear. VMware has a neat feature called Transparent Page Sharing, where VMs using the same sections of memory with the same bitmaps across the same images are all condensed down into the same single pages of memory in the ESX server. This means that your 10 (or more) windows 2003 server images "share" the same section of RAM, this frees up the "duplicate" RAM across those images. I have seen 20% of RAM saved by this, IIRC it can go above 40%.
As far as high availability goes: again, low cost HA doesn't work that well. I guess it's beneficial to management types that count the costs of but don't see the benefit in leaving a few idle machines running.
If you mean VMware HA, I find it works quite well, granted the new version in Vsphere (aka Virtual Center 4) is much better as it supports full redundancy.
Then you have virtualized your whole rack of servers into a quarter rack single blade solution and a SAN that costs about the same than just a rack of single servers but you can't fill the rack because the density is too high. And like something that recently happened at my place: the redundant SAN system stops communicating with the blades because of a driver issue and the whole thing comes crashing down.
You are assuming that the people don't have this already. I have been to a number of data centers that have racks and racks of under-utilized machines that also have SAN storage. VMware Consolidation is a way of consolidating the hardware you already have to run your ESX hosts. You use a program called VMware Conveter to do P2V (Physical to Virtual) to convert the real hardware machines to VMs, then you reclaim that hardware and install ESX on it, freeing up more resources. You don't always have to run out and buy new hardware!
VMs are great when the hardware is under-utilized, I do not recommend VMs that max out, and neither does VMware.
How can you compare something that costs $80,000 (plus running costs) to something that costs $800?
The other big difference is that this thing will be "normal" in a couple of years and only cost $100. Mid-range PCs will have this as standard.
A Hummer, OTOH, will still be just as expensive and just as stupid.
His analogy with the offroad makes sense... If you are familiar with off roading. My old First Generation 1989 4Runner will destroy a Hummer H2 offroad, and I am in the process of buying another rolling chassis for it today. Total cost? $500.00 off of Craigslist.
A H2 is something that APPEARS to do well off road, but in reality it does not. Plus, when parts come flying off of your offroading vehicle (and if you are doing real off roading, THEY WILL FLY OFF) replacing those parts on a old 4Runner is cheaper than a H2.
So, his analogy is valid. A offroad nerd can get much more out of a 1st gen 4Runner than an H2, in the same way an IT nerd can get more out of a non-4GB card than the twit that likes to drop $800/month on his gaming system.
I guess I forgot what day it was, but the title article made me spew my coffee in laughter.
As an aside, remember kids, don't do this:
cat foo | grep bar
It is bad Unix! (If you don't know why, read the non-existent book on cat...) ;)
Quod erat demonstrandum.
How do you say 'WOOOSH!' in Latin?
And you sir, just epic failed in understanding his use of the word "fsck".
Hey guys, I found the latest windows iso with google just like the parent poster mentioned! I decided to post it here for everyone else. I hope /. does not get shut down for it.
This new version is pretty slick, much much faster than previous versions, and it seems incredibly stable, unlike any version of Windows I have ever used before. Only problem is the command line makes no sense. Must be that new powershell thing? Anyways, here is the download:
New Windows ISO
You are wrong.
Now I am angry, very angry.
The stock market, had I got in 10 years ago and invested in a safe S&P 500 index fund, has done absolutely nothing. Zero return in ten years. Ten years is pretty close to "long term" in my book.
However, if your S&P 500 Index fund has been paying dividends, and you are reinvesting those dividends, while your total price per share on the Exchange Traded Funds might show no gain, you should show a large increase in the number of shares you hold.
During down times like these it is precisely the time when dividend reinvestment purchases you more shares of your stock and increases your total holdings.
For the record, 3/4 of my holdings are paying strong dividends, and I expect all of them will be within the next 2-5 years. My goal is to compound the dividend interest until retirement. At that point I will hold the principal, and use the dividends as income. So, even if there is a down market, my stocks will continue payouts.
This of course, is all predicated on whether or not I have selected strong companies with good long term outlooks. (And I believe I have).
Of course we should clone one...
How else am I going to get a date?
One of the things I liked in a very old DOS version of HACK (It was not called nethack in the 80's IIRC) were the bugs.
If you started on beginner mode, all your items were identified for you. And, if you selected a wizard class, and then immediately left the dungeon then started a new wizard and left the dungeon. Then you repeated this process over and over your characters would gain an extra wand or 2 over time as you created each new character.
After enough iterations, your character would be carrying (32) wands - and all of them would be identified. At this point though, the game bugged out. The game was not designed for a character to have 32 wands. So, you would select your items to wear, and one of the wands you carried would be overflowed to be treated as a piece of clothing. The value for the charge was taken as the value for the armor class. And, since you were carrying so many wands, one of them was bound to be a wand of charging. This would allow you to start the game with somewhere around a -66 AC with your elven cloak and your wand.
Another great thing was sometimes you one item would overflow and become a 'Glorkum.S" I don't know what that is, but you could wear it, and it had around a -45 AC as well. It appeared to be as a result of an overflow as well.
Finally, the best trick was the wand of wishing. You could not wish for more wands of wishing, but you COULD wish for a wand of cancellation. You used the wands 3 wishes, and then kept trying to zap the wand over and over again. After a while, you would get the message "you wrest one more spell from the worn out wand, what do you want to wish for?" Then the wand would go to -1 charges. Then you could zap it with the wand of cancellation and bring it back to 0 charges and start again...
Suffice it to say I managed to ascend with the real amulet of yendor many times due to these bugs. I wish the team had never fixed those ones....