Even if the G5 was king for a short while, they still dismissed it.
When was the G5 king? Performance is measured in units of Speed/Cost, unless you're working on the Manhattan project. You don't compare a 1GHz A-brand to a 1GHz B-brand, but instead you compare the performance of a $1000 A-brand computer to a $1000 B-brand computer. In that metric, I don't think Macs have ever taken the lead.
It's one of the few survival choices Apple can make, given their declining popularity due to relative high cost.
It also follows their transition nicely, in sequence with their switch to the BSD core. With the Apple BSD core, intel hardware, and the same industry standard components as everyone else, they essentially place themselves as a user-friendly proprietary alternative to Linux, with high Linux compatability. This moves them from a shrinking market into potentially a growing one.
So is highlighting passages in a book you purchased illegal? By the way you're interpreting "derivative works" it would be.
How is changing a few bytes on your own copy of XP any different from highlighting a passage in a textbook? They're both fair use, as there is no redistribution occurring.
(The real difference is, in the XP case someone thinks they could make more money if they stop you from doing it. But there is no formal "right to profit" in U.S. law, only an implied one which is being pressed upon us by corporate interests.)
An example I found a couple of years ago : I ordered a flat panel from Dell. When I shopped on their "Home User" site, I got a price that was $300 more than if I put in some bogus corporation name and shopped the "Small Business" site.
So thwart them and everyone else who uses a similar tactic. Check fatwallet.org before making any such purpose, and you'll see all those tactics listed out for you, guaranteeing you the low price.
Have any of you expressing surprise and outrage ever shopped in a grocery store? Let's see...
Almost every item is listed as a "regular price" and a "club price".
Actually, I try to avoid grocery stores which do this.
It just adds an extra level of pain to what should otherwise be a simple process, and there's no good reason to support it. If they want my business, they can just offer me a good rate without trying to make me fill out forms.
Whoops. Ignore everything but the first sentence of the above. Turns out, the later questions were only asked of people who thought there was intelligent life.
There may be LOTS of life out there, but we could still be alone, if none of it is intelligent.
Well, 76% of the people polled think that there is at least "somewhat likely" to be intelligent life out there. Compare this to the 60% who think there is life on other planets, and that means at least 16% think there is no life, but that it's intelligent.
(Or in other words, as you keep asking people more questions about it as a poll goes on, their willingness to believe increases. This, of course, being why we turn to the majority opinion for all of our wisdom.)
Fifty to one says he's got no idea what this whole argument is about. Do you really thing George W. Bush understands this debate?
Bush probably thinks this is about InternetS Providers.
But seriously, the man may have a small mind, but he also has a large staff. And ultimately, as the one who was elected to tell them what to do, he is responsible for the actions they do under him, and the decisions they make under him.
This idea that he can dodge responsibility for the executive branch's actions by acting like an idiot goes a bit far.
Having a few highly trained armed guards in each and every flight... this isn't cheap. Now imagine you are a commercial American airline. Who would pay for that?
The same people who pay for two pilots, four or five flight attendants, and a plethora of ground crew: The customers. Would you rather have some disreputable person in a uniform staring at your exposed private parts and have illusory security, or pay $5 more for your airplane ticket and have real security?
Okay, lets say for a moment that there are 6 billion people on the planet, and each one is going to consume 4 liters of ocean water every MINUTE for purpose of cooling, which would be like trying to cool yourself off by running a shower 24/7 at full blast. Then, considering that there are about 1.34x10^21 liters of ocean water in the oceans, this is about 0.001% of the ocean's water being cycled through in an entire year. And that's about as extreme as it could possibly get.
In reality, this would only be practical for a portion of the population, and so its usage would never reach this.
Well, we kind of cheat in a way. The thing that makes water so awesome is that we have a crap ton of it available. The many uses for water arise and are paid attention to precisely because there is so much of it. We humans are pretty clever, and I bet we'd find a similar number of uses for whatever compound happened to be sloshing about in our oceans.
And so it would be, because it directly corroborates the state's theory of the case! It may not be highly probabative as to guilt - but it is in fact relevant, because it strengthens, however incrementally, the state's interpretation of the facts.
As long as this is only used to this extent as a component, then yes, it sounds like valid evidence. If the state's theory were that pictures were being hidden in a bookshelf, and there were no bookshelf, then this would be good evidence that the theory is wrong. However, similarly, if there were a bookshelf and searching through it yielded no such pictures, that would also be evidence. It sounds from the short summaries here like there were no encrypted files found (which would be an important additional component to finding encryption software), but perhaps there were more significant details to this than have been presented here.
You could think of encrypted data in a case of someone already found guilty of something by other means as equivalent to finding a big pile of burnt paper ashes outside of Enron headquarters. Ashes don't make Enron guilty, and having ashes doesn't say what was burnt. But if someone is guilty by other means, and an important piece of paper is missing and a pile of ashes is in its place, then the absence of that piece of paper is not much of a defense. Its absence is also not much of a case alone either, but it can be a component of forming a cohesively whole theory.
If you have a secure system somewhere, you can use CFS, an encrypted filesystem, to store your passwords for various other systems. Then you can memorize a good password for the CFS system, and refer to it if you forget the password you're using for some other system.
This is fairly secure as long as the system CFS is accessed from is not compromised with a key logger. It has the advantages of paper, but with the capability of accessing it from remote with ssh. It also has the bonus of being harder to lose and easier to back up than a bunch of paper, and the backups of CFS are unreadable without the password, unlike extra paper copies.
The following code prints out the ratio of boys (out of 10 million) in the scenario being discussed. It's fluctuates very closely to 50%, corresponding nicely to the analytical argument that each kid is an independent event, regardless of the reason for that kid. But if you trace through the code perhaps that will make more sense.
int main() { int i, kid_count, num_runs; int children_per_couple, max_children, got_boy, boy_count; double ratio_of_boys; struct timeval tv; unsigned long seed;
/* Flip coin until you get a boy. */ for (i=0; i<num_runs; i++) { children_per_couple = 0; got_boy = 0; /* Loop for four kids while having girls. */ do { kid_count++; children_per_couple++; if (random() < (RAND_MAX/2)) { got_boy = 1; } } while (children_per_couple < max_children && got_boy == 0); boy_count += got_boy; }
ratio_of_boys = ((double)boy_count) / kid_count;
printf ("%f%% were boys, while selectively waiting until a boy.\n", ratio_of_boys*100); }
Finally, why should countries be the relevant units? Why is it that other americans should have the right to this knowledge but not Indians or Iraqis? Is there something special that makes americans more worthy?
For the same reason people root for the local sports team. Self-identity by geographic proximity. No one thinks of themself as a Utahian or Floridian because there is so much free movement across the state borders. But because the inter-country borders are more restricted, it forms a border for psychological self-identity.
On the more objective side, it does make a bit of difference whether opportunity is available in America or India because people from America can't freely go to India to work just because they want to. (And vice versa, people from India have trouble going to America to work.) So it doesn't quite work to treat them as completely open economies unless freedom of travel and employment is open.
So for real globalization, freedom of residency and employment must also be globalized. Otherwise, your jobs can move into areas where you can't reach them, and that presents a large burden on workers.
Marketing is an unproductive parasite on the economy, where consumers get to pay extra for the privilidge of supporting the production of something they'd have to be forced to watch, resulting in nothing but damage to the free market.
Yeah. Advertising has very little to do with informing the public, and is now basically about persuading or coercing the public. As a result, the capitalistic forces no longer encourage success of the best value/cost ratio, but the best advertisement_impression/cost ratio. This causes society to consume a lot of inferior products that it wouldn't otherwise want (fast-food, shoes with planned obsolescence, etc), instead of the corresponding better products.
Now it seems that advertising is so successful that it will continue anyway with or without TV, but it can certainly be said that TV has presented a particularly potent medium for this. I don't think we as a society need to jump through huge hoops to encourage this as a funding mechanism for TV, if the technology starts to flow more naturally in a different direction.
Well, it doesn't work particularly well to clump Slashdotters into a single demographic as if they represent a single unified worldview. But, if we're going to do inaccurate clumping like that, we might as well look at the most fundamental thing in common. The actual principle in common between these two views is the principle of open access, or "information should be openly available". Then what you see is a variety of different reasonings from different groups of people which have led to views which match this in specific cases.
Doesn't that just pre-suppose that Somebody Is Trying To Steal The Election in the first place? The assumption is paranoid.
Why is that the least bit paranoid? There are probably at LEAST a million citizens in the U.S. who would swing an election by fraudulent means if they had the capability and could get away with it. Our election system has to be intrinsically designed for this to be as close to impossible as we can make it, or it WILL happen. Believing this will never happen is like believing crime won't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the G5 was king for a short while, they still dismissed it.
When was the G5 king? Performance is measured in units of Speed/Cost, unless you're working on the Manhattan project. You don't compare a 1GHz A-brand to a 1GHz B-brand, but instead you compare the performance of a $1000 A-brand computer to a $1000 B-brand computer. In that metric, I don't think Macs have ever taken the lead.
It's one of the few survival choices Apple can make, given their declining popularity due to relative high cost.
It also follows their transition nicely, in sequence with their switch to the BSD core. With the Apple BSD core, intel hardware, and the same industry standard components as everyone else, they essentially place themselves as a user-friendly proprietary alternative to Linux, with high Linux compatability. This moves them from a shrinking market into potentially a growing one.
So is highlighting passages in a book you purchased illegal? By the way you're interpreting "derivative works" it would be.
How is changing a few bytes on your own copy of XP any different from highlighting a passage in a textbook? They're both fair use, as there is no redistribution occurring.
(The real difference is, in the XP case someone thinks they could make more money if they stop you from doing it. But there is no formal "right to profit" in U.S. law, only an implied one which is being pressed upon us by corporate interests.)
Not to mention, now they have something to spray all those Free Speech Zones with.
Remember Netscape?
;)
Yeah, but didn't we assimilate that into our nefarious purposes?
An example I found a couple of years ago : I ordered a flat panel from Dell. When I shopped on their "Home User" site, I got a price that was $300 more than if I put in some bogus corporation name and shopped the "Small Business" site.
So thwart them and everyone else who uses a similar tactic. Check fatwallet.org before making any such purpose, and you'll see all those tactics listed out for you, guaranteeing you the low price.
Have any of you expressing surprise and outrage ever shopped in a grocery store? Let's see...
Almost every item is listed as a "regular price" and a "club price".
Actually, I try to avoid grocery stores which do this.
It just adds an extra level of pain to what should otherwise be a simple process, and there's no good reason to support it. If they want my business, they can just offer me a good rate without trying to make me fill out forms.
Whoops. Ignore everything but the first sentence of the above. Turns out, the later questions were only asked of people who thought there was intelligent life.
There may be LOTS of life out there, but we could still be alone, if none of it is intelligent.
Well, 76% of the people polled think that there is at least "somewhat likely" to be intelligent life out there. Compare this to the 60% who think there is life on other planets, and that means at least 16% think there is no life, but that it's intelligent.
(Or in other words, as you keep asking people more questions about it as a poll goes on, their willingness to believe increases. This, of course, being why we turn to the majority opinion for all of our wisdom.)
Fifty to one says he's got no idea what this whole argument is about. Do you really thing George W. Bush understands this debate?
Bush probably thinks this is about InternetS Providers.
But seriously, the man may have a small mind, but he also has a large staff. And ultimately, as the one who was elected to tell them what to do, he is responsible for the actions they do under him, and the decisions they make under him.
This idea that he can dodge responsibility for the executive branch's actions by acting like an idiot goes a bit far.
If everyone got in the habbit of at least writing code that doesn't use system specific includes (linux developers seem the worst at this)
Point me to the webpage that lists the "standard" portable includes.
Having a few highly trained armed guards in each and every flight... this isn't cheap. Now imagine you are a commercial American airline. Who would pay for that?
The same people who pay for two pilots, four or five flight attendants, and a plethora of ground crew: The customers. Would you rather have some disreputable person in a uniform staring at your exposed private parts and have illusory security, or pay $5 more for your airplane ticket and have real security?
Okay, lets say for a moment that there are 6 billion people on the planet, and each one is going to consume 4 liters of ocean water every MINUTE for purpose of cooling, which would be like trying to cool yourself off by running a shower 24/7 at full blast. Then, considering that there are about 1.34x10^21 liters of ocean water in the oceans, this is about 0.001% of the ocean's water being cycled through in an entire year. And that's about as extreme as it could possibly get.
In reality, this would only be practical for a portion of the population, and so its usage would never reach this.
Well, we kind of cheat in a way. The thing that makes water so awesome is that we have a crap ton of it available. The many uses for water arise and are paid attention to precisely because there is so much of it. We humans are pretty clever, and I bet we'd find a similar number of uses for whatever compound happened to be sloshing about in our oceans.
*reaches for a drink of water*
And so it would be, because it directly corroborates the state's theory of the case! It may not be highly probabative as to guilt - but it is in fact relevant, because it strengthens, however incrementally, the state's interpretation of the facts.
As long as this is only used to this extent as a component, then yes, it sounds like valid evidence. If the state's theory were that pictures were being hidden in a bookshelf, and there were no bookshelf, then this would be good evidence that the theory is wrong. However, similarly, if there were a bookshelf and searching through it yielded no such pictures, that would also be evidence. It sounds from the short summaries here like there were no encrypted files found (which would be an important additional component to finding encryption software), but perhaps there were more significant details to this than have been presented here.
You could think of encrypted data in a case of someone already found guilty of something by other means as equivalent to finding a big pile of burnt paper ashes outside of Enron headquarters. Ashes don't make Enron guilty, and having ashes doesn't say what was burnt. But if someone is guilty by other means, and an important piece of paper is missing and a pile of ashes is in its place, then the absence of that piece of paper is not much of a defense. Its absence is also not much of a case alone either, but it can be a component of forming a cohesively whole theory.
Microsoft is looking for true stories about people using Windows computers to pursue a passion or hobby. (Emphasis mine)
It sounds like they're looking for people who have been motivated by the experience of Microsoft products to participate in open source development.
*note to self: arminw's password is a square root of something...* ;)
And so begin the "my UID is smaller than your UID" posts...
If you have a secure system somewhere, you can use CFS, an encrypted filesystem, to store your passwords for various other systems. Then you can memorize a good password for the CFS system, and refer to it if you forget the password you're using for some other system.
This is fairly secure as long as the system CFS is accessed from is not compromised with a key logger. It has the advantages of paper, but with the capability of accessing it from remote with ssh. It also has the bonus of being harder to lose and easier to back up than a bunch of paper, and the backups of CFS are unreadable without the password, unlike extra paper copies.
The following code prints out the ratio of boys (out of 10 million) in the scenario being discussed. It's fluctuates very closely to 50%, corresponding nicely to the analytical argument that each kid is an independent event, regardless of the reason for that kid. But if you trace through the code perhaps that will make more sense.
/* Flip coin until you get a boy. */
/* Loop for four kids while having girls. */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <time.h>
int main() {
int i, kid_count, num_runs;
int children_per_couple, max_children, got_boy, boy_count;
double ratio_of_boys;
struct timeval tv;
unsigned long seed;
gettimeofday(&tv, NULL);
seed = (unsigned long)(tv.tv_sec + (tv.tv_usec << (sizeof(seed)*8-20)));
srandom(seed);
kid_count = 0;
boy_count = 0;
num_runs = 10000000;
max_children = 4;
for (i=0; i<num_runs; i++) {
children_per_couple = 0;
got_boy = 0;
do {
kid_count++;
children_per_couple++;
if (random() < (RAND_MAX/2)) {
got_boy = 1;
}
} while (children_per_couple < max_children && got_boy == 0);
boy_count += got_boy;
}
ratio_of_boys = ((double)boy_count) / kid_count;
printf ("%f%% were boys, while selectively waiting until a boy.\n", ratio_of_boys*100);
}
Finally, why should countries be the relevant units? Why is it that other americans should have the right to this knowledge but not Indians or Iraqis? Is there something special that makes americans more worthy?
For the same reason people root for the local sports team. Self-identity by geographic proximity. No one thinks of themself as a Utahian or Floridian because there is so much free movement across the state borders. But because the inter-country borders are more restricted, it forms a border for psychological self-identity.
On the more objective side, it does make a bit of difference whether opportunity is available in America or India because people from America can't freely go to India to work just because they want to. (And vice versa, people from India have trouble going to America to work.) So it doesn't quite work to treat them as completely open economies unless freedom of travel and employment is open.
So for real globalization, freedom of residency and employment must also be globalized. Otherwise, your jobs can move into areas where you can't reach them, and that presents a large burden on workers.
Marketing is an unproductive parasite on the economy, where consumers get to pay extra for the privilidge of supporting the production of something they'd have to be forced to watch, resulting in nothing but damage to the free market.
Yeah. Advertising has very little to do with informing the public, and is now basically about persuading or coercing the public. As a result, the capitalistic forces no longer encourage success of the best value/cost ratio, but the best advertisement_impression/cost ratio. This causes society to consume a lot of inferior products that it wouldn't otherwise want (fast-food, shoes with planned obsolescence, etc), instead of the corresponding better products.
Now it seems that advertising is so successful that it will continue anyway with or without TV, but it can certainly be said that TV has presented a particularly potent medium for this. I don't think we as a society need to jump through huge hoops to encourage this as a funding mechanism for TV, if the technology starts to flow more naturally in a different direction.
Well, it doesn't work particularly well to clump Slashdotters into a single demographic as if they represent a single unified worldview. But, if we're going to do inaccurate clumping like that, we might as well look at the most fundamental thing in common. The actual principle in common between these two views is the principle of open access, or "information should be openly available". Then what you see is a variety of different reasonings from different groups of people which have led to views which match this in specific cases.
And when the printer malfunctions or runs out of paper?
Here's a thought, maybe refill it?
Doesn't that just pre-suppose that Somebody Is Trying To Steal The Election in the first place? The assumption is paranoid.
Why is that the least bit paranoid? There are probably at LEAST a million citizens in the U.S. who would swing an election by fraudulent means if they had the capability and could get away with it. Our election system has to be intrinsically designed for this to be as close to impossible as we can make it, or it WILL happen. Believing this will never happen is like believing crime won't happen.