I was reading the description of the system, and thinking I would never be able to operate it as I am such a dinosaur until I saw the above line. My response is: "This is Unix, I know this!"
Apple had a choice, release the new OS X later, and the iPhone when they did, or, delay the iPhone.
I think it should be obvious with the hype that still surrounds that device that Apple made the right choice. Yes, they could have gained some more marketshare, but probably not by much. After all, OS X is already here, just not the latest version.
Apple is entering a market (handhelds) that is likely to be a much larger market than laptops/desktops over the next few years. The iPhone stands a good chance of becoming the market leader in a particular segment. OS X will still be (mostly) a niche player. I hope to see adoption of mac's increase - after all, I own one.
But given the choice, I would opt for the iPhone over OS X just like they did.
Ah, yes, you are correct. It has been ages since I read those in Asimov. I remember the "robot must know it is a robot" from an essay I think... IIRC, the humankind part was from the last of the foundation novels....
I like this guy, he is willing to admit he made a mistake, furthermore, he made it in print. Albeit online print.
If we only had more journalists willing to do this about other things... Like Iraq, WMD etc. It takes courage to admit you were taken in, I applaud this.
CHAIRMAN:...Which brings us once again to the urgent realization of just how much there is still left to own. Item six on the agenda: the meaning of life. Now, uh, Harry, you've had some thoughts on this. HARRY:
That's right. Yeah, I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and, uh, what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: people are not wearing enough hats. Two: matter is energy. In the universe, there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this soul does not exist ab initio, as orthodox Christianity teaches. It has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved, owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
[pause] BERT:
What was that about hats, again? HARRY:
Oh, uh, people aren't wearing enough. CHAIRMAN:
Is this true?
EDMUND:
Certainly. Hat sales have increased, but not pari passu, as our research initially-- BERT:
But when you say 'enough', enough for what purpose? GUNTHER:
Can I just ask, with reference to your second point, when you say souls don't develop because people become distracted,...
[rumble]...has anyone noticed that building there before?
it must be so thankless being a cop. you're there to protect people, and all they can do is reflexively depart negativity at you
A few of my friends are cops. I will never forget something one of them said to me. The conversation had something to do with someone complaining about him arresting/ticketing people. His response was: "I don't write the fucking laws! You do! You are a citizen, it is your job to change the laws if you don't like them! It is my job to enforce them!"
A real Rolex usually beats the crap out of one of those cheap imitations in reliability, accuracy and longevity. A real shirt of some brand was usually much more resilient and had better seams than the rip offs.
This is true to some degree. I inherited a real Rolex made in 1974. The problem is, it now is in need of repair, and that repair will cost $200.00 I found I could buy 3 Phillip Persio Rolex imitations for $30 outside Vegas - and granted, that they don't stand the test of time as well as that Rolex, they have lasted 5 years. The sad part is that they look better than the real Rolex due to the wear on the Rolex. That, and no one can even tell the difference unless they get close enough to read the logo.
So, I personally won't purchase a real rolex because I just need a watch that tells me the time. Not one that shows how much bling I can buy. In my line of work, the watch does have to be business acceptable. The Rolex knockoff for $10 covers that.
(But then again, I am wearing a Thinkgeek Binary watch now anyways, I got it as a birthday gift...)
So I wonder how long it will be before the source is out on the Pirate Bay...
Re:"The silent majority" is uninformed.
on
Storm Worm Rising
·
· Score: 2, Funny
With all the past outbreaks on Windows machines, anyone who wanted to migrate has already started their migration. This won't change anything for anyone else.
Well, it is changing it for me! I got an ecard from "friend" and I downloaded the exe on my iMac, and it won't work. I could not see the card. I tried again on my Red Hat Enterprise 4 server, and even after chmod +x *AND* running as root with X windows going, the card would not open.
That is the last straw for me! I can't get cards from my "friend". I am going back to Windows where I can open cards.
I think the Slashdot world ought to have a serious discussion of this kind of jerk. I think Congress might to. If what he's doing isn't illegal now, maybe it should be.
I agree. We should also question the ethics of Theo de Raadt. After all, this guy published an exploit for OpenSSH. Who does this guy think he is? Hell, he should have given the problem to the developers of OpenSSH to fix it, not be out there releasing exploits and stuff.
Mrs. Hurdicure: [looking at drug] What will this do?
Dr. Cooper: Well, it reaches into your brain "chemically," and then it locates your happiest memory "chemically," then it locks onto that emotion and freezes it "chemically," and then it keeps you happy, happy.
I would also like to point out a few things relating to this #1 position of world's richest man. It's obvious in (at least America) you often need money to make money. More money you have, the easier it seems to be to make money.
This can be true, however, it need not be *YOUR* money. This is known as leverage.
It is not that it is illegal per say - but the SERVICE is almost so. So, basically you can't pay for service in Canada if you want to, because the option barely exists. You must go through the system. There is only one private clinic in the entire city of Vancouver as far as I am aware. As you might guess, it is busy. People are also angry that it exists at all, which confuses me.
It is not really a free market for Health Care in the US. The reason that the US pays twice per capita for health care of any other industrialized nation and gets the WORST healthcare out of those, is that the system is broken.
It is not free market - it is regulated in the wrong way. The incentives in place are designed to make the system break in the US. That is the problem in a nutshell.
That said, true free market health care may not be a good idea. I believe that things such as healthcare are a market-failure system to a degree. Thus, IMO, my solution would again be a base health care level, and anything beyond that is free market. This way, EVERYONE gets healthcare, and more money ends up in the system as a whole from those who wish to pay for more.
You miss my point. If there is a basic level - the same as we have now. Then I have no problem with someone paying more. If everone gets the same government mandated meals on their table, to the same level so they don't starve I have no problem with someone paying MORE to get a more exotic meal on their table.
I am NOT suggesting the abandonment of health care. I am suggesting that the status quo be maintained at the current level. However, someone wishing to inject more money above and beyond that into the system should be allowed to do so. I am suggesting something that results in BETTER health care for everyone.
I don't see how people can object to a better health care system.
With health care you're not "jumping the line"; you're endangering someone else's welfare for the chance to benefit your own.
Actually, by jumping the line, you have freed up someone else a place in that same line that was occupied. By paying more for services, you encourage more people to take jobs to become doctors - and thus more doctors enter the marketplace. This means wait times for health care, and available doctor time per paitent goes up.
So, personal issues aside - more doctors and more money entering the system == a good thing.
Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse.
Everyone has the same service; this guarantees that the rich will not gut the service.
But you are missing what I am saying with that. I am *OK* with someone who has more money than me being more "important" in that context. After all, that is what money really is - more power in the form of trade stored as what we call "money". Again, as long as there is a BASIC level - a ground level of healthcare - then what is wrong with someone being able to pay more for above and beyond? Why can't someone pay extra to get more?
Imagine if everyone was given a car via taxes. Everyone gets the same car, and everyone is allowed the same car. Now, the rich person pays the same taxes as everyone else - and pays into the same system. Thus, supporting the ownership of cars for everyone. Now, if the rich person wants a BETTER car than what is government mandated - they have already paid for the basic car, but don't want it. What is wrong with them buying a Ferrari as opposed to the goverment car? In my mind, nothing.
Again, as long as the basic standard is held to the current level, I have no objection with someone who wants to pump more money into the system. After all, this just means that MORE money ends up in health care, and that the less wealthy people have shorter lines to obtain the same level of health care as before. Everyone wins this way. A slippery slope argument is a logical fallicy though.
Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse.
Everyone has the same service; this guarantees that the rich will not gut the service.
As a Canadian, who has this same service, I have a problem with it.
The problem is that there are waiting lists for many health care services. What it amounts to is that if say, my mother is sick, and put on a waiting list - yet a private clinic has the space, I am FORBIDDEN from paying to help my mother. What this amounts to, is that someone who works hard all their life to aquire money is forbidden from using it to help their family. Do I think universal healthcare is a good idea and a right? Yes. Do I believe that it should be forced so that those who have the means and the funds to help their family should be denied that right? No.
This is why many Canadians who can afford it go to the states for certain procedures. The waiting lists can get in the way. While it is true that most procedures that are considered threat to life are generally fast, not all are. A friend of mine has been on a waiting list for gall bladder surgery for six months. With the money to pay, the only option is to go to the US for the operation as you can't jump the line here. You just have to sit and suffer. Is that fair to someone who has worked hard to aquire their money and status? Is that a fair picture of freedom to say "oh, you may be able to afford it, but we won't let you buy it."?
So, I believe that universal healthcare is a right - but if you have the funds to get faster or better service than the basic care, that should be available to you. To "level" the playing field, you make the lines longer... If my friend gets surgery in the US - then she gets what she needs - and there is one *LESS* person in the waiting line for gall bladder surgery in Canada - meaning someone here gets moved up the list. I see that as a good thing for both people.
I think it's quite clear that many judges and politicians are doing their job without necessarily understanding the consequences of rulings or laws that they are implementing due to a lack of understanding when it comes to technology. It is far better for them to admit a lack of understanding and allow that to be rectified.
Nonsense! Politicians are well versed on how the series of tubes is not like a truck!
I am currently using Digital Voice here in BC. They are acceptable, I have had one outage so far on a weekend for about 30 min. They only support SIP, not IAX. (In actuallity they CAN support IAX, but they just refuse to) However, other than that, I have not had any problems with them.
I just need to find a cheap FXO port for my Apartment buzzer system. (I want to route the buzzer to my cell phone) I should have bought the higher end linksys 3000 instead of the PAP2-NA. Live and learn.
Slashdot Mirror
I was reading the description of the system, and thinking I would never be able to operate it as I am such a dinosaur until I saw the above line. My response is: "This is Unix, I know this!"
Apple had a choice, release the new OS X later, and the iPhone when they did, or, delay the iPhone.
I think it should be obvious with the hype that still surrounds that device that Apple made the right choice. Yes, they could have gained some more marketshare, but probably not by much. After all, OS X is already here, just not the latest version.
Apple is entering a market (handhelds) that is likely to be a much larger market than laptops/desktops over the next few years. The iPhone stands a good chance of becoming the market leader in a particular segment. OS X will still be (mostly) a niche player. I hope to see adoption of mac's increase - after all, I own one.
But given the choice, I would opt for the iPhone over OS X just like they did.
Ah, yes, you are correct. It has been ages since I read those in Asimov. I remember the "robot must know it is a robot" from an essay I think... IIRC, the humankind part was from the last of the foundation novels....
But then you got the geek points, not I.
The "Zeroth" law:
0. A robot must know it is a robot.
Uh, this looks like the same thing that came out from Spheral Solar Power, that was bought (and later divested) by Automation Tooling Systems:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn3380
It belongs in a museum!
I like this guy, he is willing to admit he made a mistake, furthermore, he made it in print. Albeit online print.
If we only had more journalists willing to do this about other things... Like Iraq, WMD etc. It takes courage to admit you were taken in, I applaud this.
For those of you who remember this tired old phrase:
SHORT SCO NOW! *
* this, for anyone who remembers just how long ago that was first heard on slashdot...
CHAIRMAN: ...Which brings us once again to the urgent realization of just how much there is still left to own. Item six on the agenda: the meaning of life. Now, uh, Harry, you've had some thoughts on this.
...has anyone noticed that building there before?
HARRY:
That's right. Yeah, I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and, uh, what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: people are not wearing enough hats. Two: matter is energy. In the universe, there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this soul does not exist ab initio, as orthodox Christianity teaches. It has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved, owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
[pause]
BERT:
What was that about hats, again?
HARRY:
Oh, uh, people aren't wearing enough.
CHAIRMAN:
Is this true?
EDMUND:
Certainly. Hat sales have increased, but not pari passu, as our research initially--
BERT:
But when you say 'enough', enough for what purpose?
GUNTHER:
Can I just ask, with reference to your second point, when you say souls don't develop because people become distracted,...
[rumble]
A few of my friends are cops. I will never forget something one of them said to me. The conversation had something to do with someone complaining about him arresting/ticketing people. His response was: "I don't write the fucking laws! You do! You are a citizen, it is your job to change the laws if you don't like them! It is my job to enforce them!"
I think he had a fairly good point on that.
This is true to some degree. I inherited a real Rolex made in 1974. The problem is, it now is in need of repair, and that repair will cost $200.00 I found I could buy 3 Phillip Persio Rolex imitations for $30 outside Vegas - and granted, that they don't stand the test of time as well as that Rolex, they have lasted 5 years. The sad part is that they look better than the real Rolex due to the wear on the Rolex. That, and no one can even tell the difference unless they get close enough to read the logo.
So, I personally won't purchase a real rolex because I just need a watch that tells me the time. Not one that shows how much bling I can buy. In my line of work, the watch does have to be business acceptable. The Rolex knockoff for $10 covers that.
(But then again, I am wearing a Thinkgeek Binary watch now anyways, I got it as a birthday gift...)
So I wonder how long it will be before the source is out on the Pirate Bay...
Well, it is changing it for me! I got an ecard from "friend" and I downloaded the exe on my iMac, and it won't work. I could not see the card. I tried again on my Red Hat Enterprise 4 server, and even after chmod +x *AND* running as root with X windows going, the card would not open.
That is the last straw for me! I can't get cards from my "friend". I am going back to Windows where I can open cards.
I agree. We should also question the ethics of Theo de Raadt. After all, this guy published an exploit for OpenSSH. Who does this guy think he is? Hell, he should have given the problem to the developers of OpenSSH to fix it, not be out there releasing exploits and stuff.
Mrs. Hurdicure: [looking at drug] What will this do?
Dr. Cooper: Well, it reaches into your brain "chemically," and then it locates your happiest memory "chemically," then it locks onto that emotion and freezes it "chemically," and then it keeps you happy, happy.
Baxter: Chris? She's depressed, not stupid!
This can be true, however, it need not be *YOUR* money. This is known as leverage.
It is not that it is illegal per say - but the SERVICE is almost so. So, basically you can't pay for service in Canada if you want to, because the option barely exists. You must go through the system. There is only one private clinic in the entire city of Vancouver as far as I am aware. As you might guess, it is busy. People are also angry that it exists at all, which confuses me.
Private clinics are very rare here, and there is a push on to prevent them from being opened at all.
It is not really a free market for Health Care in the US. The reason that the US pays twice per capita for health care of any other industrialized nation and gets the WORST healthcare out of those, is that the system is broken.
It is not free market - it is regulated in the wrong way. The incentives in place are designed to make the system break in the US. That is the problem in a nutshell.
That said, true free market health care may not be a good idea. I believe that things such as healthcare are a market-failure system to a degree. Thus, IMO, my solution would again be a base health care level, and anything beyond that is free market. This way, EVERYONE gets healthcare, and more money ends up in the system as a whole from those who wish to pay for more.
You miss my point. If there is a basic level - the same as we have now. Then I have no problem with someone paying more. If everone gets the same government mandated meals on their table, to the same level so they don't starve I have no problem with someone paying MORE to get a more exotic meal on their table.
I am NOT suggesting the abandonment of health care. I am suggesting that the status quo be maintained at the current level. However, someone wishing to inject more money above and beyond that into the system should be allowed to do so. I am suggesting something that results in BETTER health care for everyone.
I don't see how people can object to a better health care system.
Actually, by jumping the line, you have freed up someone else a place in that same line that was occupied. By paying more for services, you encourage more people to take jobs to become doctors - and thus more doctors enter the marketplace. This means wait times for health care, and available doctor time per paitent goes up.
So, personal issues aside - more doctors and more money entering the system == a good thing.
But you are missing what I am saying with that. I am *OK* with someone who has more money than me being more "important" in that context. After all, that is what money really is - more power in the form of trade stored as what we call "money". Again, as long as there is a BASIC level - a ground level of healthcare - then what is wrong with someone being able to pay more for above and beyond? Why can't someone pay extra to get more?
Imagine if everyone was given a car via taxes. Everyone gets the same car, and everyone is allowed the same car. Now, the rich person pays the same taxes as everyone else - and pays into the same system. Thus, supporting the ownership of cars for everyone. Now, if the rich person wants a BETTER car than what is government mandated - they have already paid for the basic car, but don't want it. What is wrong with them buying a Ferrari as opposed to the goverment car? In my mind, nothing.
Again, as long as the basic standard is held to the current level, I have no objection with someone who wants to pump more money into the system. After all, this just means that MORE money ends up in health care, and that the less wealthy people have shorter lines to obtain the same level of health care as before. Everyone wins this way. A slippery slope argument is a logical fallicy though.
Canadians have decided long ago that it is not right for a rich man to have better service when it means that everyone else will have worse.
Everyone has the same service; this guarantees that the rich will not gut the service.
As a Canadian, who has this same service, I have a problem with it.
The problem is that there are waiting lists for many health care services. What it amounts to is that if say, my mother is sick, and put on a waiting list - yet a private clinic has the space, I am FORBIDDEN from paying to help my mother. What this amounts to, is that someone who works hard all their life to aquire money is forbidden from using it to help their family. Do I think universal healthcare is a good idea and a right? Yes. Do I believe that it should be forced so that those who have the means and the funds to help their family should be denied that right? No.
This is why many Canadians who can afford it go to the states for certain procedures. The waiting lists can get in the way. While it is true that most procedures that are considered threat to life are generally fast, not all are. A friend of mine has been on a waiting list for gall bladder surgery for six months. With the money to pay, the only option is to go to the US for the operation as you can't jump the line here. You just have to sit and suffer. Is that fair to someone who has worked hard to aquire their money and status? Is that a fair picture of freedom to say "oh, you may be able to afford it, but we won't let you buy it."?
So, I believe that universal healthcare is a right - but if you have the funds to get faster or better service than the basic care, that should be available to you. To "level" the playing field, you make the lines longer... If my friend gets surgery in the US - then she gets what she needs - and there is one *LESS* person in the waiting line for gall bladder surgery in Canada - meaning someone here gets moved up the list. I see that as a good thing for both people.
Nonsense! Politicians are well versed on how the series of tubes is not like a truck!
I am currently using Digital Voice here in BC. They are acceptable, I have had one outage so far on a weekend for about 30 min. They only support SIP, not IAX. (In actuallity they CAN support IAX, but they just refuse to) However, other than that, I have not had any problems with them.
I just need to find a cheap FXO port for my Apartment buzzer system. (I want to route the buzzer to my cell phone) I should have bought the higher end linksys 3000 instead of the PAP2-NA. Live and learn.