That's totally correct. I test software, and the software I test has a documented minimum requirement of 300MHz PIII with 64 megs of RAM.
I have a machine in my lab that's a 486-66 with 16 megs. I run our software on it so I can document weird behavior so that support will be able to recognize it when a customer tries to run it on unsupported hardware (and then proceed to lie about it) or if there's something wrong with their supported hardware that they don't know about (but we'll soon tell them about).
Basically, the program runs fine. Slow as hell, but fine. I know for a fact that they pulled the minimum requirements out of their ass. I was in the meeting when they did it. And I'm totally comfortable with it too. Maybe it runs fine on my 486 - but I'd rather have the safety cushion of better hardware in the field. Now - there ARE situations where there's technical merit to having some hardware unsupported. Just doesn't apply to my product - which shall remain nameless, for my own protection.
I have a friend who turned down a cushy DBA job at Cantor Fitzgerald. They wanted him bad too. They offered to put him up IN the WTC, and they offered to ship his collection of exotic cars as well, and find him a warehouse he could keep them in and work on them in. He was offered six figures. His start date would have been September 10th.
Reason he didn't take the job? He loves San Francisco. Just loves that city.
BRB, John Ashcroft is at my door with a one-way ticket to Camp X-Ray...
- - - Actually, I'm waiting until November or so before I start speaking out, I want the hurricane season to wind down, and I hear Cuba's weather's really nice around Christmas time.
Why? Because he's a Sikh, and wears a turban and has a long beard.
- - - well, those Sikhs bomb the poor Hindus too. (poor Hindus - doesn't anybody in the region like them? The Christian invade them for 100 years, The Muslims bomb them. The Commies bomb them. Poor Hindus!)
Five years down the road, something else Really Bad will happen and the press will be obsessed with something else. We should have a betting pool on the next big press fad. Personally, I'm predicting it'll be mega-storms caused by climate change. Some kind of giant hurricaine will level a nation to the dirt, and the press will drop terrorism like yesterday's news - which it already is. - - no, it will be another bioterror attack, and thousands will die, millions will be scarred. The press will call for (and get) the destruction of all smallpox samples, and ban science altogether unless it is used solely for making companies money. Or maybe it will be an asteroid impact, and they'll ban astronomy - because if we hadn't seen it coming, it wouldn't have hurt us.
There was an article on the front cover of the Toronto Star today in which the Bush administration admitted that they didn't really care about weapons inspections being allowed into Iraq, and that what they really wanted was a 'regime change'. --Which means that Shrub's demand for "weapons inspections or else" was bullshit. It's all a damned puppet show, right from the airplanes to this stupid war.
- - - - That's not exactly true, now, is it? We had weapons inspectors in there before, and at every turn, they encountered obstructions, armed threat, etc. There was ample evidence that the Iraqi's had something to hide. Why were they hiding it? Weapons inspectors allowed to return to Iraq would very likely be given the same treatment. So what's the point? The point is - remove Hussein's regime from the picture, get a regime in there that CARES about it's people enough to want to cooperate with the international community to get the sanctions ended on the international community's terms, not Hussein's terms. Sending weapons inspectors into Hussein's Iraq will accomplish nothing.
Why then do the US and Britain repeatedly state that the sanctions do not ban the import of food and medicines? In the strictest sense they are not lying - but they are employing one of the cruellest deceptions imaginable. Medicine is not banned under the sanctions de jure, but de facto - in other words, the United Nations has refused applications to import medicines and medical equipment - sometimes citing "dual use" considerations.
- - - That's just a bunch of bullcrap. Hussein could end the sanctions any time he wants by complying with the UN resolutions. He consistently obstructed and threatened the inspectors at every turn.
Whether the US has WMD is not the issue. The US does not attack other nations unless the US or one of it's allies is attacked. (in modern history, has the US attacked unprovoked, one of it's neighbors, executed civillians and plundered and looted their posessions, and occupied it's territory? Talk about war for oil! Hussein started war for oil!) The US does not declare that a certain country with a high population of Jews needs to be destroyed, and it's population all killed. The US does not deploy poison gas on it's own people. The US does not consistently violate every single UN resolution concerning it, including no-fly zones and weapons inspections. The US did not deliberately set fire to thousands of oil wells causing the greatest ecological disaster in human history. The US does not give $25,000 as an incentive to families of suicide bombers. The US did not send intelligence agents to meet with 9/11 hijackers. The US does not send civilians to shelter in military command posts it knows will be bombed. The US does not station large troop concentrations in residential neighborhoods. The US does not hide military equipment amongst archeological sites in hopes the enemy will bomb them which would be a propaganda coup.
Face it - you can not defend Hussein rationally. I'm not for a unilateral US invasion. I'm very much against it. But there's just no justification for Hussein's actions, and the suffering of his people is 100% Hussein's fault.
Hey, as long as you're over there, do the entire world a favor; find one of those militant extremist mullahs who are spouting all the anti-us and anti-semitic hatred, and smack him upside the head good and hard for being the cause of the events which have ultimately made all of our lives more difficult and less pleasant.
Oh yeah, and remind him that Allah says: Thou Shalt Not Kill.
The outrageous part about the whole thing is that the terrorists used commercial jumbo jets that were flying IFR-
- - - no. the outrageous part about the whole thing is that the little guy is getting squeezed by government on behalf of the big guy. Did you get a multi billion dollar bailout from the government? So when all the little carriers go out of business - no more competition for the big airlines anymore. (not that there was any serious competition to begin with).
suicyco asked:
Why would ANYBODY hate americans because we are "free"?
I replied: Come now - I've read militant Baptists, claiming to be "God's Soldiers" and "True American Patriots" who then went off and spouted flames about the ACLU being the work of the devil, and that people who speak out against president Bush are anti-American, and should be rounded up and shot for treason. And that people (specifically Californians) who engage in fornication outside of marriage should be sent to prison camps. Did you catch that? This person hates Americans because they are free, and desires that they be less free. Sure - the hatred of US policies and actions overseas has an impact, it bolsters the arguments, but the basic hatred is there. The mullahs are terrified that if the freedom as seen in the Western World and Israel were to spread to their countries, that they'd lose their tenacious grip on power. Horror of horrors! Can you imagine people - in a Muslim country - free to buy a beer? That's the true basis of the hate. The mullahs will do anything - say ANYTHING, to keep their sheep in line, and that includes fishing around for "dirt" and ways to blame their enemies for their problems. The fact that the US just happens to have a lot of blood on their hands ignores the reasons why those actions were taken, and grossly distorts the impact that these actions have on Arab and muslim lives.
If all I had on me were a pair of nail clippers, and if I had to kill somebody, I'd use my bare hands. Same goes for ANY pocket knife with a blade less than 2"
MDI is usable, just not as Windows proposed it. Tabbed interface on the other hand is very usefull way of MDI
- - - - So few people remember Compaq's "Tabworks" - an alternate shell interface to Windows 3.11. I loved it - but unfortunately, I think I was the only one. Also, many apps didn't like it very much either, but with a basic set of a few apps, and the Compaq-provided app hooks, it worked great.
You don't have to. Just drag the new version to you Applications folder, and you'll get a dialog box asking if you want to replace the old version. Click Yes, and you're done.
That's nice until you've got around 30 or so apps installed (including your classic apps, games, all the zillions of little shareware apps) - and then you start wondering about installing programs into a hierarchy under/Applications. Then you're right back to fishing around for the icon.
What would be nice is if the app folder standard was extended to register the application into a database on it's first run (same way they do licensing, etc). Okay, not a database, maybe a part of Netinfo? Or how about a text file? Whatever - as long as it's a single, central list of all apps installed - and then put a GUI front end on it to install/uninstall/upgrade/repair/reinitialize apps. The best of both worlds.
The great thing about app folders is that you can simply delete the icon, and you've deleted all the zillions of files the app had on your system. You move it to another folder with a simple drag and drop - no hacking around required. Next time you run it, it checks to see if it's located in it's install folder recorded in it's prefs file, and if not, it updates the app list.
I was 2. I remember it because my parents pulled me out of bed in the middle of the night to watch it on TV. The whole week before the launch, they were talking about it and getting me exited about it.
I really have NO other significant childhood memories prior to age 5 or 6.
The outcome of Martin Luther was interesting. A lot of people were struck by war as a direct consequence of this shift of power. The Catholic church lost a lot of power until it corrected its behavior (people paying priests for an easier time in purgatory etc). And the concepts of "nation" and "king" were significantly strengthened in Northern Europe.
I wonder what unexpected side effects the internet will have.
- - - I think that the Internet will have the opposite effect (there was a slashdot article on this several months ago - fairly controversial too). While the printing press made information more readily available to the masses - the Internet makes MISinformation more readily available to the masses. The Internet has proven one thing. How completely gullible hundreds of millions of (Microsoft Customers) people are.
The internet has fragmented and polarized society. Anybody with a tale to tell can find an audience to listen - an audience which will spend money, vote, further spread the word, and kill.
There's no truth throttle. Not that there was with books - but now that everybody's a publisher - we're getting radical messages from everywhere.
I believe that it will ultimately either be the downfall of civilization. Or the downfall of the Internet.
...and graduate college with business and engineering majors who literally did not know how to use a library, can I?
Point taken. This is sad, and rather frightening. But why would anyone ever need to know how to use a library? All the information we could possibly need is available on the Internet. Duh. That's why we have Google, after all.
zoombat wrt: So I'd say that ethics SHOULD be tought in college classes.
- -
It should be taught in kindergarten, grade school, middle school, high school AND college. And I still say we need electro-shock collars on these MBAs and lawyers as well.
joshki wrote:
It's not. The point of Christianity is to accept Jesus as your personal saviour and Lord. This is the most important part -- Jesus will save you, and in doing so He's going to change the way you live your life. If you don't change, you don't believe -- it's that simple. Many people understand the saviour part -- but most forget the part that you have to accept His control over your life.
The point the original poster was trying to make is that your salvation is not dependant on performing good works -- it's dependant on accepting Jesus, and allowing Him to change your life.
- - - - That's YOUR sect's interpretation of scripture.
mlong wrote: Also many non-Christians think Christianity is a rule(law)-based religion and God just wants to ruin your fun.
I replied: In my experience, the overwhelming majority of Christians, particularly the high-profile ones who are in positions of leadership *DO* believe this as well, and try very hard to make sure everyone else believes this.
Jeppe wrote: Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God
- - - I don't see why that is so. Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of Hell. Some Christian sects - even "Bible-believing" sects, do not believe in Hell or eternal punishment. (it takes a LOT of rationalization and "creative" interpretation of scripture to buy into this though).
These sects believe that when you die, if you've accepted Jesus, and repent your sins - you go to Heaven. Otherwise, your soul is effectively destroyed forever. This has profoundly less impact on the ethics a person demonstrates in one's lifetime than the whole "roasting in the eternal flames of hell getting assraped by demons" deal.
Boiling it down to those two points doesn't necessitate a belief in eternal damnation either. It's almost a moot point.
You don't have to read too deeply between the lines to see he's talking about bulk copying and reselling in China, not you ripping off the latest J'Lo mp3.
---
You are blind if you don't see his plan to hire more law enforcement to sit on your DSL line and sniff every packet that goes through for unlicensed or immoral content.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
That's totally correct. I test software, and the software I test has a documented minimum requirement of 300MHz PIII with 64 megs of RAM.
I have a machine in my lab that's a 486-66 with 16 megs. I run our software on it so I can document weird behavior so that support will be able to recognize it when a customer tries to run it on unsupported hardware (and then proceed to lie about it) or if there's something wrong with their supported hardware that they don't know about (but we'll soon tell them about).
Basically, the program runs fine. Slow as hell, but fine. I know for a fact that they pulled the minimum requirements out of their ass. I was in the meeting when they did it. And I'm totally comfortable with it too. Maybe it runs fine on my 486 - but I'd rather have the safety cushion of better hardware in the field.
Now - there ARE situations where there's technical merit to having some hardware unsupported. Just doesn't apply to my product - which shall remain nameless, for my own protection.
I have a friend who turned down a cushy DBA job at Cantor Fitzgerald. They wanted him bad too. They offered to put him up IN the WTC, and they offered to ship his collection of exotic cars as well, and find him a warehouse he could keep them in and work on them in. He was offered six figures. His start date would have been September 10th.
Reason he didn't take the job? He loves San Francisco. Just loves that city.
BRB, John Ashcroft is at my door with a one-way ticket to Camp X-Ray...
- - -
Actually, I'm waiting until November or so before I start speaking out, I want the hurricane season to wind down, and I hear Cuba's weather's really nice around Christmas time.
99.99% is 99.99%. .with liberty and justice for ALL"
My pledge says ". .
ALL!=99.99%
Why? Because he's a Sikh, and wears a turban and has a long beard.
- - -
well, those Sikhs bomb the poor Hindus too. (poor Hindus - doesn't anybody in the region like them? The Christian invade them for 100 years, The Muslims bomb them. The Commies bomb them. Poor Hindus!)
Five years down the road, something else Really Bad will happen and the press will be obsessed with something else. We should have a betting pool on the next big press fad. Personally, I'm predicting it'll be mega-storms caused by climate change. Some kind of giant hurricaine will level a nation to the dirt, and the press will drop terrorism like yesterday's news - which it already is.
- -
no, it will be another bioterror attack, and thousands will die, millions will be scarred. The press will call for (and get) the destruction of all smallpox samples, and ban science altogether unless it is used solely for making companies money.
Or maybe it will be an asteroid impact, and they'll ban astronomy - because if we hadn't seen it coming, it wouldn't have hurt us.
There was an article on the front cover of the Toronto Star today in which the Bush administration admitted that they didn't really care about weapons inspections being allowed into Iraq, and that what they really wanted was a 'regime change'. --Which means that Shrub's demand for "weapons inspections or else" was bullshit. It's all a damned puppet show, right from the airplanes to this stupid war.
- - - -
That's not exactly true, now, is it?
We had weapons inspectors in there before, and at every turn, they encountered obstructions, armed threat, etc. There was ample evidence that the Iraqi's had something to hide. Why were they hiding it?
Weapons inspectors allowed to return to Iraq would very likely be given the same treatment. So what's the point?
The point is - remove Hussein's regime from the picture, get a regime in there that CARES about it's people enough to want to cooperate with the international community to get the sanctions ended on the international community's terms, not Hussein's terms.
Sending weapons inspectors into Hussein's Iraq will accomplish nothing.
Why then do the US and Britain repeatedly state that the sanctions do not ban the import of food and medicines? In the strictest sense they are not lying - but they are employing one of the cruellest deceptions imaginable. Medicine is not banned under the sanctions de jure, but de facto - in other words, the United Nations has refused applications to import medicines and medical equipment - sometimes citing "dual use" considerations.
- - -
That's just a bunch of bullcrap. Hussein could end the sanctions any time he wants by complying with the UN resolutions. He consistently obstructed and threatened the inspectors at every turn.
Whether the US has WMD is not the issue. The US does not attack other nations unless the US or one of it's allies is attacked. (in modern history, has the US attacked unprovoked, one of it's neighbors, executed civillians and plundered and looted their posessions, and occupied it's territory? Talk about war for oil! Hussein started war for oil!) The US does not declare that a certain country with a high population of Jews needs to be destroyed, and it's population all killed. The US does not deploy poison gas on it's own people. The US does not consistently violate every single UN resolution concerning it, including no-fly zones and weapons inspections. The US did not deliberately set fire to thousands of oil wells causing the greatest ecological disaster in human history. The US does not give $25,000 as an incentive to families of suicide bombers. The US did not send intelligence agents to meet with 9/11 hijackers. The US does not send civilians to shelter in military command posts it knows will be bombed. The US does not station large troop concentrations in residential neighborhoods. The US does not hide military equipment amongst archeological sites in hopes the enemy will bomb them which would be a propaganda coup.
Face it - you can not defend Hussein rationally. I'm not for a unilateral US invasion. I'm very much against it. But there's just no justification for Hussein's actions, and the suffering of his people is 100% Hussein's fault.
Hey, as long as you're over there, do the entire world a favor; find one of those militant extremist mullahs who are spouting all the anti-us and anti-semitic hatred, and smack him upside the head good and hard for being the cause of the events which have ultimately made all of our lives more difficult and less pleasant.
Oh yeah, and remind him that Allah says: Thou Shalt Not Kill.
The outrageous part about the whole thing is that the terrorists used commercial jumbo jets that were flying IFR-
- - -
no. the outrageous part about the whole thing is that the little guy is getting squeezed by government on behalf of the big guy. Did you get a multi billion dollar bailout from the government? So when all the little carriers go out of business - no more competition for the big airlines anymore. (not that there was any serious competition to begin with).
suicyco asked:
Why would ANYBODY hate americans because we are "free"?
I replied:
Come now - I've read militant Baptists, claiming to be "God's Soldiers" and "True American Patriots" who then went off and spouted flames about the ACLU being the work of the devil, and that people who speak out against president Bush are anti-American, and should be rounded up and shot for treason. And that people (specifically Californians) who engage in fornication outside of marriage should be sent to prison camps.
Did you catch that? This person hates Americans because they are free, and desires that they be less free.
Sure - the hatred of US policies and actions overseas has an impact, it bolsters the arguments, but the basic hatred is there. The mullahs are terrified that if the freedom as seen in the Western World and Israel were to spread to their countries, that they'd lose their tenacious grip on power. Horror of horrors! Can you imagine people - in a Muslim country - free to buy a beer? That's the true basis of the hate. The mullahs will do anything - say ANYTHING, to keep their sheep in line, and that includes fishing around for "dirt" and ways to blame their enemies for their problems. The fact that the US just happens to have a lot of blood on their hands ignores the reasons why those actions were taken, and grossly distorts the impact that these actions have on Arab and muslim lives.
If all I had on me were a pair of nail clippers, and if I had to kill somebody, I'd use my bare hands. Same goes for ANY pocket knife with a blade less than 2"
MDI is usable, just not as Windows proposed it. Tabbed interface on the other hand is very usefull way of MDI
- - - -
So few people remember Compaq's "Tabworks" - an alternate shell interface to Windows 3.11. I loved it - but unfortunately, I think I was the only one. Also, many apps didn't like it very much either, but with a basic set of a few apps, and the Compaq-provided app hooks, it worked great.
I can't move across the whole screen with a single sweep of the mouse. Then you need to adjust your mouse acceleration settings.
You don't have to. Just drag the new version to you Applications folder, and you'll get a dialog box asking if you want to replace the old version. Click Yes, and you're done.
/Applications. Then you're right back to fishing around for the icon.
That's nice until you've got around 30 or so apps installed (including your classic apps, games, all the zillions of little shareware apps) - and then you start wondering about installing programs into a hierarchy under
What would be nice is if the app folder standard was extended to register the application into a database on it's first run (same way they do licensing, etc). Okay, not a database, maybe a part of Netinfo? Or how about a text file? Whatever - as long as it's a single, central list of all apps installed - and then put a GUI front end on it to install/uninstall/upgrade/repair/reinitialize apps. The best of both worlds.
The great thing about app folders is that you can simply delete the icon, and you've deleted all the zillions of files the app had on your system. You move it to another folder with a simple drag and drop - no hacking around required. Next time you run it, it checks to see if it's located in it's install folder recorded in it's prefs file, and if not, it updates the app list.
I remember Apollo 11.
I was 2. I remember it because my parents pulled me out of bed in the middle of the night to watch it on TV. The whole week before the launch, they were talking about it and getting me exited about it.
I really have NO other significant childhood memories prior to age 5 or 6.
The outcome of Martin Luther was interesting. A lot of people were struck by war as a direct consequence of this shift of power. The Catholic church lost a lot of power until it corrected its behavior (people paying priests for an easier time in purgatory etc). And the concepts of "nation" and "king" were significantly strengthened in Northern Europe.
I wonder what unexpected side effects the internet will have.
- - -
I think that the Internet will have the opposite effect (there was a slashdot article on this several months ago - fairly controversial too).
While the printing press made information more readily available to the masses - the Internet makes MISinformation more readily available to the masses.
The Internet has proven one thing. How completely gullible hundreds of millions of (Microsoft Customers) people are.
The internet has fragmented and polarized society. Anybody with a tale to tell can find an audience to listen - an audience which will spend money, vote, further spread the word, and kill.
There's no truth throttle. Not that there was with books - but now that everybody's a publisher - we're getting radical messages from everywhere.
I believe that it will ultimately either be the downfall of civilization. Or the downfall of the Internet.
...and graduate college with business and engineering majors who literally did not know how to use a library, can I?
Point taken. This is sad, and rather frightening. But why would anyone ever need to know how to use a library? All the information we could possibly need is available on the Internet. Duh. That's why we have Google, after all.
- - -
Yeah, and www.termpapers.com. . .
zoombat wrt:
So I'd say that ethics SHOULD be tought in college classes.
- -
It should be taught in kindergarten, grade school, middle school, high school AND college.
And I still say we need electro-shock collars on these MBAs and lawyers as well.
garcia wrt:
What do you think? If ethics were introduced into college courses do you think that would alter people's egos and desire for Greed?
- - -
no, but maybe electro-shock collars would work?
joshki wrote:
It's not. The point of Christianity is to accept Jesus as your personal saviour and Lord. This is the most important part -- Jesus will save you, and in doing so He's going to change the way you live your life. If you don't change, you don't believe -- it's that simple. Many people understand the saviour part -- but most forget the part that you have to accept His control over your life.
The point the original poster was trying to make is that your salvation is not dependant on performing good works -- it's dependant on accepting Jesus, and allowing Him to change your life.
- - - -
That's YOUR sect's interpretation of scripture.
mlong wrote:
Also many non-Christians think Christianity is a rule(law)-based religion and God just wants to ruin your fun.
I replied:
In my experience, the overwhelming majority of Christians, particularly the high-profile ones who are in positions of leadership *DO* believe this as well, and try very hard to make sure everyone else believes this.
Jeppe wrote:
Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of a God
- - -
I don't see why that is so. Ethics are fundamentally different in the presence or absence of Hell. Some Christian sects - even "Bible-believing" sects, do not believe in Hell or eternal punishment. (it takes a LOT of rationalization and "creative" interpretation of scripture to buy into this though).
These sects believe that when you die, if you've accepted Jesus, and repent your sins - you go to Heaven. Otherwise, your soul is effectively destroyed forever. This has profoundly less impact on the ethics a person demonstrates in one's lifetime than the whole "roasting in the eternal flames of hell getting assraped by demons" deal.
Boiling it down to those two points doesn't necessitate a belief in eternal damnation either. It's almost a moot point.
You don't have to read too deeply between the lines to see he's talking about bulk copying and reselling in China, not you ripping off the latest J'Lo mp3. --- You are blind if you don't see his plan to hire more law enforcement to sit on your DSL line and sniff every packet that goes through for unlicensed or immoral content.