Is this still the country that Jefferson and the Adamses risked their "lives, fortunes, and scared honors" for, or some European-style feudalism with the thieving rich taking the place of an idle aristocracy?
Seriously, how do you think the European aristocracy came into being? It was rich and wealthy merchants using their money and power to buy themselves rights and more power. America is not a classless society, it just defines its classes differently. Your powerful families are growing just as they did in Europe hundreds of years ago - basically same system, different part of the curve.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I suspect your test cases involved standard PC's which was *not* the problem. Most of the real y2k problems (rather than the ones picked up on by the media) involved mainframes running programs written in Cobol - and there were many many examples in the Finance industry. The reason Joe Public didn't notice anything was a) because the serious issues *were* fixed and b) it was never really a PC problem anyway. How do I know? Because I did tech support for a Y2K team in 1999 - no I wasn't a y2k "consultant". But I saw the very real problems that were being worked on and fixed.
Of course - because for the majority of people it's good to take your stronger, dominant hand off the wheel to change gear. Oh, and there's the issue of meeting oncoming horsemen shield-to-shield rather than sword-to-sword, because that's the way the French who chose riding/marching on the right like it.
You might be interested to know that all this was possible before processors surpassed 1GHz. It could be done on a 350MHz P2 without problems. Sure, Photoshop would have taken longer, but then that's the same for any speed increase. When processors reach 10GHz do you think it will mean it wasn't possibly to do with 2GHz now?
Funny, I don't know a single wheat farmer in Kasnas thats getting any goverment money for growing wheat. The US wheat farmers get paid not to plant some areas.
It seems that someone has difficulty in reading the disclaimer at the bottom of my message. No, I don't like these "developers" either. The fact that they can't find their heads from their asses is a sign that they shouldn't be hired in the first place. The core of that problem is a boss who thinks warm bodies == productivity.
But you admit they exist, and given they exist and can't be trusted that means developers as a whole can't be treated differently than any other group of users. Just because you know what you are talking about doesn't help the SysAdmins because, guess what, all the loser developers say the same thing.
Few minutes? I'm losing HOURS of work every day thanks to these stupid scanners. Normally I'd be able to run Netbeans, DataDino, JEdit, Cygwin, Mozilla, and the occasional utility like NSIS, Acrobat, OpenOffice, FileZilla, and GIMP. I'm instead forced to wait several minutes every time a file is touched, the swap is accessed, or a network connection is opened. It takes forever just to type 10 lines of f***ing code, much less run more than one program!
Then something is seriously wrong with your network setup, I guess you have some loser SysAdmins as well as loser developers in your company.
I've been an admin myself. It's very easy to fall into the trap of "everyone else is stupid".
But you seem to have this view of other developers, and presumably your SysAdmins for not recognising you are not part of that group. Seriously - how can they tell. Here are a couple of examples from my experience:
Developers: "Fix the network. Our new system doesn't work, but it works at home."
Support: "Does your PC at home run on a network, what network stack is loaded" (this is Win3.1/Win95 changeover era).
Developers: "Urm, none"
Support: "Then it's not a fair comparison. Fix your application to work on a networked system"
Or:
Developers: "Give me Win NT, this doesn't work on Win95, NT will fix all our problems"
Support: (installs NT... 1 week passes)
Developers: "Give me Win 95, this doesn't work on NT, 95 will fix all our problems"
Support: (installs 95... 1 week passes)
[at this point loop back to the start]
Because HTML and HTTP defined the World Wide Web. Note: the www is *not* the internet. Gopher is not the WWW. TCP/IP is not the WWW. Routers are not the WWW. The first people to set up the network helped invent the internet. Not the WWW.
As has been stated elsewhere, this isn't about whether or not Google's policies state what they are doing, it is about whether such a policy breaks European privacy laws. Would you let a European company offer a service in the US that was illegal, as long as it wasn't compulsory to use it?
I'm not sure why the hatred existed back then, really, other than it was something "new" and folks are typically afraid of the unknown.
Microsoft's dodgy business practises were known before NT saw the light of day - have a look for the history of Stacker/Doublespace and Microsoft's tactics then. Read this document, in particular sections 17-20 under Factual Background.
Yes, but until recently, even if you bought that PC without windows, Microsoft got paid for a copy of Windows due to the contract they had with the PC manufacturers. Now before you say this is the fault of the manufacturers, Microsoft forced this on them by saying if they didn't agree to this clause, then they would charge more for each individual copy of Windows. Because there are/were no real alternatives to Windows, the manufacturers had a choice of a) making their Windows loaded PC's more expensive but offering PC's without Windows slightly cheaper or b) keeping the cost of PC's with Windows down, but not being able to sell an OS-less PC cheaper. Given the market for PC's without Windows at the time, if they wanted to stay competetive then a) was the only sensible option. Note it is Microsoft's monopoly that made this possible, and it is this sort of action that is illegal when you have a monopoly.
But it has to be future profits. and there are both a hard cost of selling that $100 per pc (manuals, cd, etc) and then other costs
True, but business PC's are licensed for Windows 2K, and Office in general - that's about 400 pounds, $700 per PC. They generally don't come with manuals and often without media, so the production and distribution costs are very low. Microsoft's support in the UK is very little for the cost of the product - generally it is palmed off on the PC manufacturer or you pay per incident (or for a support contract). Sales force? Again most of this is resellers. And we are talking just about the UK - Europe has a population of somewhere around 350 million people - so you could multiply the figures by 6. European profit for Microsoft? If it's not at least $1,000,000,000 a year they are screwing up somewhere!
Considering the population of the UK is 60 million, or at least 10 million households, the number of active computers in the UK has got to be at least 10 million (total of home PC's and work PC's). Now $1,000,000,000 is $100 per PC. Or about 60 - less than a copy of Windows each, so I would say Microsoft's profits in the UK are in the order of serveral billion dollars.
No, it's because we prefer a more flexible system of law that means that judges interpret the law. This means (in theory if not always in practise) that laws should reflect society more accurately rather than being bound by a possibly out of date statute interpretation. Sometimes it works out better than having more rigid laws, sometimes it works out worse. Law is in no way a precise science, it is the enforcement of the (changing) will of the people.
Whilst Germany may be more pro-Linux than the UK (in general the German market seems to be more technology focussed than ours), it is certainly not the case that the UK ignores Linux. I have had the pleasure in my last 3 jobs (over 4 1/2 years or so) of using a Linux desktop. Sure, I still have to deal with Windows servers and desktops, but there is a growing push towards Linux and/or Open Office etc.
Ahhh, but you don't have a King or Queen to rule that the land you have discovered is uninhabited (natives don't count you see), and therefore available to be claimed. I suggest the American people quickly choose a royal family, to legitimise this colonisation effort.
OK, genius. Try going to the web-site and reading the information about the landing sequence. You will find that the parachute and airbag deployment do not rely upon external communications or control. That is why it is an "automatic" landing sequence, not a remote landing sequence. It appears I do know and you don't...
Easy. Go read about it. The lander is called Beagle 2. The website is at www.beagle2.com. It's not exactly rocket science to find out all the articles saying otherwise are bollocks.
For the lazy, the relevant paragraph says: "The solar cells are mounted on four deployable panels that fold out from within the lander as part of the automatic landing sequence."
Slashdot Mirror
Is this still the country that Jefferson and the Adamses risked their "lives, fortunes, and scared honors" for, or some European-style feudalism with the thieving rich taking the place of an idle aristocracy?
Seriously, how do you think the European aristocracy came into being? It was rich and wealthy merchants using their money and power to buy themselves rights and more power. America is not a classless society, it just defines its classes differently. Your powerful families are growing just as they did in Europe hundreds of years ago - basically same system, different part of the curve.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I suspect your test cases involved standard PC's which was *not* the problem. Most of the real y2k problems (rather than the ones picked up on by the media) involved mainframes running programs written in Cobol - and there were many many examples in the Finance industry. The reason Joe Public didn't notice anything was a) because the serious issues *were* fixed and b) it was never really a PC problem anyway. How do I know? Because I did tech support for a Y2K team in 1999 - no I wasn't a y2k "consultant". But I saw the very real problems that were being worked on and fixed.
Cars belong on the right side of the road.
Of course - because for the majority of people it's good to take your stronger, dominant hand off the wheel to change gear. Oh, and there's the issue of meeting oncoming horsemen shield-to-shield rather than sword-to-sword, because that's the way the French who chose riding/marching on the right like it.
You might be interested to know that all this was possible before processors surpassed 1GHz. It could be done on a 350MHz P2 without problems. Sure, Photoshop would have taken longer, but then that's the same for any speed increase. When processors reach 10GHz do you think it will mean it wasn't possibly to do with 2GHz now?
Funny, I don't know a single wheat farmer in Kasnas thats getting any goverment money for growing wheat. The US wheat farmers get paid not to plant some areas.
And you think this isn't a farming subsidy?
It seems that someone has difficulty in reading the disclaimer at the bottom of my message. No, I don't like these "developers" either. The fact that they can't find their heads from their asses is a sign that they shouldn't be hired in the first place. The core of that problem is a boss who thinks warm bodies == productivity.
But you admit they exist, and given they exist and can't be trusted that means developers as a whole can't be treated differently than any other group of users. Just because you know what you are talking about doesn't help the SysAdmins because, guess what, all the loser developers say the same thing.
Few minutes? I'm losing HOURS of work every day thanks to these stupid scanners. Normally I'd be able to run Netbeans, DataDino, JEdit, Cygwin, Mozilla, and the occasional utility like NSIS, Acrobat, OpenOffice, FileZilla, and GIMP. I'm instead forced to wait several minutes every time a file is touched, the swap is accessed, or a network connection is opened. It takes forever just to type 10 lines of f***ing code, much less run more than one program!
Then something is seriously wrong with your network setup, I guess you have some loser SysAdmins as well as loser developers in your company.
I've been an admin myself. It's very easy to fall into the trap of "everyone else is stupid".
But you seem to have this view of other developers, and presumably your SysAdmins for not recognising you are not part of that group. Seriously - how can they tell. Here are a couple of examples from my experience:
Developers: "Fix the network. Our new system doesn't work, but it works at home."
Support: "Does your PC at home run on a network, what network stack is loaded" (this is Win3.1/Win95 changeover era).
Developers: "Urm, none"
Support: "Then it's not a fair comparison. Fix your application to work on a networked system"
Or:
Developers: "Give me Win NT, this doesn't work on Win95, NT will fix all our problems"
Support: (installs NT... 1 week passes)
Developers: "Give me Win 95, this doesn't work on NT, 95 will fix all our problems"
Support: (installs 95... 1 week passes)
[at this point loop back to the start]
Microsoft Windows is on 80% of desktops or thereabouts. Microsoft Windows is responsible for 80% of spam. Seems fairly obvious to me.
Two words: "network kickstart".
so as not to incentivise the police to plant evidence
I think the word you are looking for is encourage.
Because HTML and HTTP defined the World Wide Web. Note: the www is *not* the internet. Gopher is not the WWW. TCP/IP is not the WWW. Routers are not the WWW. The first people to set up the network helped invent the internet. Not the WWW.
As has been stated elsewhere, this isn't about whether or not Google's policies state what they are doing, it is about whether such a policy breaks European privacy laws. Would you let a European company offer a service in the US that was illegal, as long as it wasn't compulsory to use it?
I'm not sure why the hatred existed back then, really, other than it was something "new" and folks are typically afraid of the unknown.
Microsoft's dodgy business practises were known before NT saw the light of day - have a look for the history of Stacker/Doublespace and Microsoft's tactics then. Read this document, in particular sections 17-20 under Factual Background.
Yes, but until recently, even if you bought that PC without windows, Microsoft got paid for a copy of Windows due to the contract they had with the PC manufacturers. Now before you say this is the fault of the manufacturers, Microsoft forced this on them by saying if they didn't agree to this clause, then they would charge more for each individual copy of Windows. Because there are/were no real alternatives to Windows, the manufacturers had a choice of a) making their Windows loaded PC's more expensive but offering PC's without Windows slightly cheaper or b) keeping the cost of PC's with Windows down, but not being able to sell an OS-less PC cheaper. Given the market for PC's without Windows at the time, if they wanted to stay competetive then a) was the only sensible option. Note it is Microsoft's monopoly that made this possible, and it is this sort of action that is illegal when you have a monopoly.
But it has to be future profits. and there are both a hard cost of selling that $100 per pc (manuals, cd, etc) and then other costs
True, but business PC's are licensed for Windows 2K, and Office in general - that's about 400 pounds, $700 per PC. They generally don't come with manuals and often without media, so the production and distribution costs are very low. Microsoft's support in the UK is very little for the cost of the product - generally it is palmed off on the PC manufacturer or you pay per incident (or for a support contract). Sales force? Again most of this is resellers. And we are talking just about the UK - Europe has a population of somewhere around 350 million people - so you could multiply the figures by 6. European profit for Microsoft? If it's not at least $1,000,000,000 a year they are screwing up somewhere!
Why? ...
Because it doesn't break the existing, understood hierachy.
Considering the population of the UK is 60 million, or at least 10 million households, the number of active computers in the UK has got to be at least 10 million (total of home PC's and work PC's). Now $1,000,000,000 is $100 per PC. Or about 60 - less than a copy of Windows each, so I would say Microsoft's profits in the UK are in the order of serveral billion dollars.
So use dk.yahoo.com
No, it's because we prefer a more flexible system of law that means that judges interpret the law. This means (in theory if not always in practise) that laws should reflect society more accurately rather than being bound by a possibly out of date statute interpretation. Sometimes it works out better than having more rigid laws, sometimes it works out worse. Law is in no way a precise science, it is the enforcement of the (changing) will of the people.
A quick google seems to refute this, amongst various links: The History and Origin of Pizza
Dear USA,
Hey, we are here, and here, and over here, and oooh, here's another piece of Beagle over here!
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Whilst Germany may be more pro-Linux than the UK (in general the German market seems to be more technology focussed than ours), it is certainly not the case that the UK ignores Linux. I have had the pleasure in my last 3 jobs (over 4 1/2 years or so) of using a Linux desktop. Sure, I still have to deal with Windows servers and desktops, but there is a growing push towards Linux and/or Open Office etc.
I can also name a couple what about COBOL when was the last time your wrote a COBOL program for Windows??
Let me see, COBOL... runs under VMS, DOS, Unix, Linux, and yes, there are even versions for Windows.
Ahhh, but you don't have a King or Queen to rule that the land you have discovered is uninhabited (natives don't count you see), and therefore available to be claimed. I suggest the American people quickly choose a royal family, to legitimise this colonisation effort.
OK, genius. Try going to the web-site and reading the information about the landing sequence. You will find that the parachute and airbag deployment do not rely upon external communications or control. That is why it is an "automatic" landing sequence, not a remote landing sequence. It appears I do know and you don't...
Easy. Go read about it. The lander is called Beagle 2. The website is at www.beagle2.com. It's not exactly rocket science to find out all the articles saying otherwise are bollocks.
For the lazy, the relevant paragraph says: "The solar cells are mounted on four deployable panels that fold out from within the lander as part of the automatic landing sequence."