Would you blame Linus if someone wrote a Linux app that required root privileges to run ?
No, but I would blame Mandriva if they released a version of OpenOffice.org that required me to run it as root.
Microsoft apps often required root priviledges, and for a LONG time, various Microsoft tools encouraged app writes to use root priviledges. One of the biggest draws for Microsoft Operating Systems is backwards compatability. Apps that require you to run as root often fit into this category.
I do not have a list of these apps on hand, but a quick google search will list several. I'm sure you can find many more if you have the inclination. As I am no longer a Windows user, and have not used XP since pre-SP1 days, I have no idea what may or may not fit into these categories; I never bothered to run as anything other than administrator, because that was the common practice at the time.
I suspect Vista will correct some of this behavior, but we'll probably have to wait till the release after Vista for the last vestiges of Administrator-only apps to go away.
It's not (usually) my fault malware gets on my system if I never, ever agree to it.
It is:
A) The OS vendor's fault for vulnerabilities on my system. B) The malware creator's fault for exploting vulnerabilities on my system. C) The product vendor's fault for coupling malware with their legitimate produce (SONY).
If I don't patch my system, then it might be: D) My fault for not fully updating my system.
Not that it matters to me. My Linux boxen and Mac OS X boxen do not get infected.
Period.
Computers should be like appliances. I don't have to worry about putting an infected DVD into my DVD player. Why would I want to worry about putting an infected CD into my PC?
....but creationists? For some reason each and every single time a story about evolution, intelligent design or even the origins of life appears, it amasses enourmous amounts of comments in a short period of time. I predict the same for this story, with regret.I'm 50% with you, brother
I'm wondering what the hell is going on? Is it just a political hot potato and./'ers are simply venting here? This might be, but I've seen a lot of comments from Slashdoters in support for ID one way or the other. It's scary because the Slashdot readership to me is apparently amoung the most educated on the net. We are mostly geeks after all. Some points: 1. Most Slashdotter's are American. 2. Most American's are religious. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OBW/is _10_43/ai_113526975 That's a fairly skeptical study. Virtually 80% of Americans believe in a deity. 3. Therefore, barring specific evidence about geekiness and atheism, I'd say most Slasherdotters would be religious. Even if ONLY 40% of slashdotters are religious (versus 80% of americans), and even if only 25% of those believe in ID, that'd still be 10% of slashdot which believe in ID.
That's enough to make these discussions total 1-sided flamefests, but big flamefests. Which they are. It would be scary to think that all the geeks around me actually believe in religion. When I was younger I just assummed that most people were completely secular like me, and didn't believe in religion at all; delegating it to the status of fictional works like comic books etc. It came as something of a shock to my world view that most people are not in fact secular but do hold religious beliefs. I haven't quite recovered from it.
Perhaps that's how you were raised. That's how I was raised. Sometimes, however, you need to look into the looking glass, and realize that not everyone was raised that way. Many, many geeks I know were raised in VERY religious households. Most of these loose up quite a bit; there's something of 'slacking' in geek culture, and this includes slacking on things like church. However, there's a big difference between having your worldview weakened, and having you worldview flipped on its head.
If you feel that you are a smart person, its easy to believe that all smart people would come to the same conclusions as you about life, the universe, and all 'that jazz'. However, this is not often the case; in nature versus nuture, I assure you that nuture does matter quite a bit.
One day, man may create an enlightened civilization that does not require a universal father figure. We've had that before, in various cultures, and some atheists have that now. It's not eschewing spirtuality totally; Shintoists don't believe in an overarching deity, early Zoarstrians certainly didn't (and of course don't forget Nietzsche), and many polytheistic cultures didn't see their deities as father figures but rather as power players whom one might some day compete with. This goes for both the extremely sophsticated polytheistic cultures, like late Hinduism, or more succinict religions, such as aboriginal tribal beliefs; I find it quite endearing that aboriginal tribes talking about their uncle, God of the West, or a great-great-grandfather, a minor deity who was responsible for such and such. These living religions are _very_ interesting to me.
For whatever reason, the judeo-christian-islamic tradition really likes God, the Universal Father, who Watches and Punishes us. *shrug*, To Each His Own.
For me, it's easy to be spiritual without having a formalized religion (ah, I do like early shintoist thought). Having had haullicinations at one point in my life helps, but I feel that the entire nature of the universe, the idea that there is a layer of randomness that we find difficult to pierce without something approximating faith, (science calls it assumption->hypothesis test) combin
I believe that there is a problem with overheating. The combination of the armor, and poor insulation, and openings in the vehicles spell problems. Remember that the turrent is open, and there's usually someone manning it; this person rarely complains about the heat.
I didn't think that the AC would be much of a problem on the engines they use, but apparently they are.
Perhaps it has to do with the engine's low horse power output? 160 at 3600 RPM, while an AC unit capable of properly cooling it would require ~8kW, or roughly 10 HP worth?
I also suspect that the heavier configurations with the AC going full-blast are probably out of spec in extremely hot climates; the vehicle has a lot of heat to dispose of, especially when running at weight capacity, and at high speed, and using water-cooled suits probably results in far more efficent cooling.
8 kW, that's 6% of the optimal power output. This probably has a LOT to do with being a low HP high torque diesel engine. Anything they can do to get more efficiency out of the AC is a good thing.
Now, lets think about real-world power: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1158825/posts Just as important as the suspension is the Humvee's lack of muscle. Most of our Humvees here are M998A1s, sporting the GMC 6.2 Diesel engine. This is a diesel boosting an astounding 150 horsepower at 3,600 rpm. Of course, the normal operating range of the Humvee engine is between 1,500 to 2,300 rpm. Without looking at the engine's power curve, I'd suggest that would put the Humvee's usable horsepower somewhere around 90 horsepower.
Ya know, I've been reading Popular Mechanics and I think in the next hundred years we'll see cooling systems mounted directly inside of the vehicles. These systems will cool the air and then blow it onto the vehicle's occupants. Now I don't suggest these are ready for common use yet, but one day it could be very useful for for are troops in such environments.
I hate to impinge on your sarcasm, however, they've already mounted AC units on these Humvees. They bring the internal temperature from 130F -> 95F.
The army has judged 95F to be too hot, anyways. I tend to agree. Even though the locals are used to it, we aren't used to it. Given how much the Humvees cost, an extra $5000 in personal cooling equipment does not seem excessive.
Ummm, isn't Apple the poster boy for companies that say "You'll take it the way we want or too bad"? They blocked competing companies from making compatible PCs a long time ago.
And?
There product works as advertised. It doesn't crash. It doesn't slow down because of random crapware that demands an OS re-install immediately after first boot.
If you don't like Apple's "You'll take it the way we want or too bad" policy, go to a different vendor. Apple isn't a monopoly; there are many substitues in the market.
"Should the government strictly regulate fast food?"
They do! And I'm glad for it, it is unhealthy enough as it is.
No, you misunderstand what strict regulation is. Strict regulation is like pharmaceuticals. You get drugs, if and when you need them, soley for the purpose of demonstratable physical need.
Harmless drug compounds like Marijuana (negligble risks compared to Tobacco, or Big Macs) are strictly regulated.
The FDA very, very loosely regulates food, and I DO support FDA regulation. When I say 'strictly regulate' fast food, I mean things like limits on how often you can eat it, what sizes the fast food places are permitted to sell, or even outright prohibition of things like Burgers and Fries.
That would be analgous to saying the government should regulate what software is shipped with various PCs.
The usual argument trick is to immediately assume a black or white extremist position ("You oppose the war in Iraq, that means you hate freedom and love terrorists!!!") Most things are gray and most regulation does (and should) fall into a gray area.
You say this, but I think you are on the wrong side of the position. Having the government mandate what software is shipped with what computers in a multi-vendor climate is a fairly extremist position. Dell's systems do not fail 100% of the time out of box; they usually do work, albeit not optimally. Having the government mandate exactly what software they should ship without out of the box seems unreasonable.
I think Dell makes a good case here for why vendors should be forced to package clean OS discs...
Should vendors be forced to package clean OS discs? Of course. But it's never gonna happen. Two reasons:
1) End-users are not astute enough to demand it. The average end-user would just give you a blank look if you tried to explain the problem to them. They've never installed an OS themselves. They don't know, and quite frankly they don't care. 2) Free market religionists would scream bloody murder if you seriously talked about "forcing" any company to do anything (besides maybe "don't murder people").
Who should do the forcing? Why should it be Uncle Sam?
Are there not enough alternate vendors? Is it truly impossible to edumacate end-users?
I buy Macs. They work fine. They don't come with tons of crapware.
The free market is working for me. I don't see a problem.
You may not have considered all the implications of the crapware. Much of that probably actually reduces the cost of the system; I know that AOL most likely pays per install, and I'm sure the Norton "trials", and various other bits of sell-u-later-ware pays per install.
If you asked the end-user, would they be willing to pay more for a clean system, you would most likely get the answer, "No".
But as I said, you aren't forced to buy from Dell. Buy from someone else. Get an IBM(Lenovo). Go to your local PC builder, and get whatever they are selling. I guarantee it'll come with a clean install. When people ask you why Dells are slower than Macs/IBMs/Whatever, don't tell them its because of other manufacturer's software. Tell them its because Dell misconfigures the system.
It is not the government's job to tell people what they want, or how manufacturers should sell computers.
Should the government strictly ban Chiropractic? Should the government strictly ban alcohol/tobacco? Should the government strictly regulate fast food? How do you feel about television decency laws? What about public decency laws? Should the government ban miniskirts, or arm-less tee-shirts?
Some of us free-market-ists believe that the government should get involved in TWO situations. Stuff like murder, and monopolies, where you are forced to eat the shit Company X is doling out to you.
Computing? Should the government force Dell to give you an OEM Windows? Hell no; Buyer Beware.
Don't like Dell's policies? Don't buy a Dell, and when someone asks you for advice, recommened against Dell.
Use a real linux, one with a GUI configuration system.
On SuSE?
Go to online update. Click on the checkbox next to 'fetch nvidia drivers'. Push 'update'.
Wait for update.
Once that's over, open up SaX2, which is conveniently labeled 'Graphics' under the 'Hardware' tab of the Configuration tool.
Select Resolution. Select color depth. Select correct screen size/aspect ratio if they aren't properly detected by DDC (not all monitor correctly report DDC information, and lots of rarer/generic monitors aren't in the DDC databases).
Push 'Save'.
Log out. Log in. Done.
Seems easier than Windows to me.
Oh, and I feel that stability, although it does count MORE on servers, is plenty important on workstations/desktops, too. I've seen countless Bluescreens on where the nvidia or ati or intel or via/s3 or whatever driver is at fault. Or so people claim: "Windows is plenty stable, the bluescreen is the graphic card drivers!"
ATI's drivers are shoddy. Lots of features, but shoddy. Nvidia's drivers are hit or miss, you have to find a good version. XGI, Via/S3, and PowerVR drivers are atrocious. Intel's drivers are good, however, if you are using OpenGL or Direct 3D, or want dual monitors, Intel's Extreme Graphics won't get you there.
Most Windows users I have seen, especially overseas, tend to wipe and re-install from the latest and greatest pirate slipstream whenever their installation gets foobar'd.
I recently helped someone with an install, one of these pirate CDs. She even had a regular license for XP, but decided to go with the pirate disk.
Why?
Because it had SP2 slipstreamed in, a variety of other updates, product activation disabled, WinRar included, Acrobat reader included, Sun's Java included, Firefox, and Macromedia Flash included.
I was impressed. It was almost as functional as a Linux install. No Office suite, or any of the other stuff that comes with Linux, but still, much, much better than a standard Windows install, far less updating to do, and only took about an hour.
It's not as easy as a Linux install; but its way better than the normal install cycle.
1. It's usual not carpal tunnel, its generally something else. 2. It's happened to me before; a ligament problem in both wrists. Cysts developed, and they had to be drained. I also wore a wrist brace for a short period. 3. It depends on really, really, really, really bad ergonomics. Perhaps some people are more sensitive than me, but I find that even keeping my wrists in a moderately 'correct' position resolves the problem continously.
At one point, when I was at college, my computer desk was less than ideal. Try this: put your keyboard on the edge of the desk, so there is literally no place to put your hands. Now, put your hands on the keys, but allow your palms to 'fall' down to the side of the desk. As in a 90 degree angle from the keyboard. You'll feel a slight strain in both wrists on your tendons. This will give you RSI.
Or, try this: Just put your arms straight out in front of you, as if typing, and angle your hands (at the wrist) up or down as far as they will go, until you feel slight strains in your wrists. That position will mess up your wrists if you maintain it while typing or mousing.
Perhaps some people need the microsoft natural keyboard. Perhaps some people need wrist braces, or huge wrist rests. For me, however, all I have to do is avoid gross examples of poor ergonomics.
They are not building FTTP. They are building FTTC. Fiber-to-the-curb.
Instead of actually having fiber to your premises (like Verizon), you use VDSL or ADSL2+ for the last link. The speeds are nothing special, like ~12 Mbps.
You can get that on cable now. As far as I care, the entire phone network can be left to rot, and if SBC/AT&T keeps up this kind of BS, it will.
Check all your facts. Then check them again. For me, any kind of encyclopedia is useful for bredth of knowledge, not depth of knowledge. Of course, accuracy matters to some degree, but its not really that big of a deal.
That doesn't make it invalid; an encyclopedia is where you start your research. It gives you a couple nuggets of information that you can chew on. Sometimes, that's enough; if you are just idly looking for a bit of triva. Sometimes, its a good bit, and you'll get a tip that'll kickstart your actual research.
It's really dumb to nitpick at stuff like this.
The surprising part to this story, in my mind, is not that someone put a mischevous entry in wikipedia. It's obvious that's a flaw with wikipedia. The suprising part is that the reporter's employer fired him over a wikipedia entry.
Check your facts, people. An encyclopedia is the beginning of research, not the end of it. The more important the subject you are researching, the better you should check your facts.
China, in 2005, increased its military spending to approximately $30 billion per year. This is the 'official' tally, and while the 'unofficial' tally may be siginificantly higher, a significant portion of that is 'absorbed' (personal expenses, meaning into someone's pocket), or spent on non-military investments (don't forget, the PLA runs a variety of businesses).
Taiwan, in 2005, spent approximately $10 billion on its military. Officially. Not to mention approved an additional $20 billion in procurement programs.
Consider the size of China. Consider its various borders. Consider the various "donations" and "subsidized loans" of military hardware to Taiwan from the U.S. Consider that the China's expenditures must be spread out among the 2.5 million members of the PLA's military.
While you can't believe most things a Chinese politico says, I'd argue that in one context, the amount of $$ being spent on Chinese modernization, their reports are probably more accurate than U.S. government reports. Why? Because the U.S. government LOVES military toys, and it doesn't matter to us who spends money on 'em. U.S., Taiwan, India, whatever; we're the worlds arms dealers, so we trump up threats.
In fact, in comparison with other big nations, China's defense expenditure remains in a relative low level, Yang said, citing the statistics that China's military payout in 2004 totaled 25.579 billion US dollars. In contrast, "the US defense expenditure hit 455.9 billion US dollars at the same time, or 17.8 times more than that of China in total payout and 77 times more than that of China in term of per-capita defense expenditure," Yang added.
We're talking about the largest (both landmass and population) nation in the world here. Even if the Chinese estimate is off by a factor of 3, its still rather puny.
This is from an older (2000) comparison of Chinese and Taiwanese military power. Consider that in the global scheme of things, Taiwan is very close to China. This is a direct measurement of ability to project power.
Power projection is about remote deployment, and the ability to control events half way around the global. The U.S. maitains unprecedented ability to project power.
Gauging the military balance across the Strait of Taiwan is an inexact art, at best. Geography clearly favors Taiwan, separated from the mainland by 100 miles of water. The numbers appear to favor China, but much of its armament is old and the state of training of its forces uncertain. Secrecy on both sides further clouds the issue.
The Federation of American Scientists has done an intriguing comparison of the Allied forces required for the invasion of Normandy from Britain in 1944, the largest amphibious operation in history, and what would be available for China's
American-style protestants are going further and further towards the nutso-crazy-idiotic anti-science anti-progress anti-secularism anti-other-religions stereotype.
Every unfair stereotype of a an American WASP from 10 years ago has started to come true. Expect the unfair sterotypes of today to be true within 10 years (religious warriors, indeed).
This contrasts oddly with the vatican, who has decided to embrace science as the language of God's tapistry.
Even me, the dedicated Agnostic, finds that ringing a tone of truth.
What these ID idiots don't understand is that there is NO WAY a creator would use such a blunt tool as Creationism to *poof* the world into existence. "God works in mysterious ways". "All miracles are subtle". Blah Blah Blah; if THATs the case, than why WOULDN'T he use evolution?
In one swift motion, the creator, the mover unmoved, fathomed the universe. From that point on, utilizing all the 'random' constants that he blinked into existence, the universe expanded outwards in the big bang, following the scientific explanation of creation, evolution occurred, and we are currently at the present day.
How is that explanation not FAR, FAR more amazing, and mind blowing, and worth of a creator than, "Well, kids, God dreamed up our world, and a week later, it was there."
I guess the problem is that the American-style Protestant is really just not that smart.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you blame Linus if someone wrote a Linux app that required root privileges to run ?
No, but I would blame Mandriva if they released a version of OpenOffice.org that required me to run it as root.
Microsoft apps often required root priviledges, and for a LONG time, various Microsoft tools encouraged app writes to use root priviledges. One of the biggest draws for Microsoft Operating Systems is backwards compatability. Apps that require you to run as root often fit into this category.
I do not have a list of these apps on hand, but a quick google search will list several. I'm sure you can find many more if you have the inclination. As I am no longer a Windows user, and have not used XP since pre-SP1 days, I have no idea what may or may not fit into these categories; I never bothered to run as anything other than administrator, because that was the common practice at the time.
I suspect Vista will correct some of this behavior, but we'll probably have to wait till the release after Vista for the last vestiges of Administrator-only apps to go away.
It's not (usually) my fault malware gets on my system if I never, ever agree to it.
It is:
A) The OS vendor's fault for vulnerabilities on my system.
B) The malware creator's fault for exploting vulnerabilities on my system.
C) The product vendor's fault for coupling malware with their legitimate produce (SONY).
If I don't patch my system, then it might be:
D) My fault for not fully updating my system.
Not that it matters to me. My Linux boxen and Mac OS X boxen do not get infected.
Period.
Computers should be like appliances. I don't have to worry about putting an infected DVD into my DVD player. Why would I want to worry about putting an infected CD into my PC?
In Britain, I've found that most restaurants do exactly the same (currently travelling in Exeter, but I've been to several places).
They will usually run your card at the table, which is nice.
Tax the licensor. Tax based upon net income.
Microsoft would pay tax on Windows income.
Opensource project X would pay tax on Project X's income.
If Project X licensed for $1000, even under GPL, they'd pay the percentage tax.
While your at it, TN., tax patents, too.
....but creationists? For some reason each and every single time a story about evolution, intelligent design or even the origins of life appears, it amasses enourmous amounts of comments in a short period of time. I predict the same for this story, with regret.I'm 50% with you, brother
./'ers are simply venting here? This might be, but I've seen a lot of comments from Slashdoters in support for ID one way or the other. It's scary because the Slashdot readership to me is apparently amoung the most educated on the net. We are mostly geeks after all.
I'm wondering what the hell is going on? Is it just a political hot potato and
Some points:
1. Most Slashdotter's are American.
2. Most American's are religious. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OBW/is _10_43/ai_113526975
That's a fairly skeptical study. Virtually 80% of Americans believe in a deity.
3. Therefore, barring specific evidence about geekiness and atheism, I'd say most Slasherdotters would be religious. Even if ONLY 40% of slashdotters are religious (versus 80% of americans), and even if only 25% of those believe in ID, that'd still be 10% of slashdot which believe in ID.
That's enough to make these discussions total 1-sided flamefests, but big flamefests. Which they are.
It would be scary to think that all the geeks around me actually believe in religion. When I was younger I just assummed that most people were completely secular like me, and didn't believe in religion at all; delegating it to the status of fictional works like comic books etc. It came as something of a shock to my world view that most people are not in fact secular but do hold religious beliefs. I haven't quite recovered from it.
Perhaps that's how you were raised. That's how I was raised. Sometimes, however, you need to look into the looking glass, and realize that not everyone was raised that way. Many, many geeks I know were raised in VERY religious households. Most of these loose up quite a bit; there's something of 'slacking' in geek culture, and this includes slacking on things like church. However, there's a big difference between having your worldview weakened, and having you worldview flipped on its head.
If you feel that you are a smart person, its easy to believe that all smart people would come to the same conclusions as you about life, the universe, and all 'that jazz'. However, this is not often the case; in nature versus nuture, I assure you that nuture does matter quite a bit.
One day, man may create an enlightened civilization that does not require a universal father figure. We've had that before, in various cultures, and some atheists have that now. It's not eschewing spirtuality totally; Shintoists don't believe in an overarching deity, early Zoarstrians certainly didn't (and of course don't forget Nietzsche), and many polytheistic cultures didn't see their deities as father figures but rather as power players whom one might some day compete with. This goes for both the extremely sophsticated polytheistic cultures, like late Hinduism, or more succinict religions, such as aboriginal tribal beliefs; I find it quite endearing that aboriginal tribes talking about their uncle, God of the West, or a great-great-grandfather, a minor deity who was responsible for such and such. These living religions are _very_ interesting to me.
For whatever reason, the judeo-christian-islamic tradition really likes God, the Universal Father, who Watches and Punishes us. *shrug*, To Each His Own.
For me, it's easy to be spiritual without having a formalized religion (ah, I do like early shintoist thought). Having had haullicinations at one point in my life helps, but I feel that the entire nature of the universe, the idea that there is a layer of randomness that we find difficult to pierce without something approximating faith, (science calls it assumption->hypothesis test) combin
I believe that there is a problem with overheating. The combination of the armor, and poor insulation, and openings in the vehicles spell problems. Remember that the turrent is open, and there's usually someone manning it; this person rarely complains about the heat.
_ components.php
I didn't think that the AC would be much of a problem on the engines they use, but apparently they are.
Specifications: http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/hmmwv/
Perhaps it has to do with the engine's low horse power output? 160 at 3600 RPM, while an AC unit capable of properly cooling it would require ~8kW, or roughly 10 HP worth?
Dunno, that's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_conditioning . I know jack-taco about vehicles.
I also suspect that the heavier configurations with the AC going full-blast are probably out of spec in extremely hot climates; the vehicle has a lot of heat to dispose of, especially when running at weight capacity, and at high speed, and using water-cooled suits probably results in far more efficent cooling.
More thoughts: http://www.amgeneral.com/vehicles_hmmwv_models_a2
Horsepower (@3,400 RPM): 160HP (120 KW)
8 kW, that's 6% of the optimal power output. This probably has a LOT to do with being a low HP high torque diesel engine. Anything they can do to get more efficiency out of the AC is a good thing.
Now, lets think about real-world power:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1158825/posts
Just as important as the suspension is the Humvee's lack of muscle. Most of our Humvees here are M998A1s, sporting the GMC 6.2 Diesel engine. This is a diesel boosting an astounding 150 horsepower at 3,600 rpm. Of course, the normal operating range of the Humvee engine is between 1,500 to 2,300 rpm. Without looking at the engine's power curve, I'd suggest that would put the Humvee's usable horsepower somewhere around 90 horsepower.
10 hp, out of 90 hp? That's crippling.
Ya know, I've been reading Popular Mechanics and I think in the next hundred years we'll see cooling systems mounted directly inside of the vehicles. These systems will cool the air and then blow it onto the vehicle's occupants. Now I don't suggest these are ready for common use yet, but one day it could be very useful for for are troops in such environments.
I hate to impinge on your sarcasm, however, they've already mounted AC units on these Humvees. They bring the internal temperature from 130F -> 95F.
The army has judged 95F to be too hot, anyways. I tend to agree. Even though the locals are used to it, we aren't used to it. Given how much the Humvees cost, an extra $5000 in personal cooling equipment does not seem excessive.
Ummm, isn't Apple the poster boy for companies that say "You'll take it the way we want or too bad"? They blocked competing companies from making compatible PCs a long time ago.
And?
There product works as advertised. It doesn't crash. It doesn't slow down because of random crapware that demands an OS re-install immediately after first boot.
If you don't like Apple's "You'll take it the way we want or too bad" policy, go to a different vendor. Apple isn't a monopoly; there are many substitues in the market.
"Should the government strictly regulate fast food?"
They do! And I'm glad for it, it is unhealthy enough as it is.
No, you misunderstand what strict regulation is. Strict regulation is like pharmaceuticals. You get drugs, if and when you need them, soley for the purpose of demonstratable physical need.
Harmless drug compounds like Marijuana (negligble risks compared to Tobacco, or Big Macs) are strictly regulated.
The FDA very, very loosely regulates food, and I DO support FDA regulation. When I say 'strictly regulate' fast food, I mean things like limits on how often you can eat it, what sizes the fast food places are permitted to sell, or even outright prohibition of things like Burgers and Fries.
That would be analgous to saying the government should regulate what software is shipped with various PCs.
The usual argument trick is to immediately assume a black or white extremist position ("You oppose the war in Iraq, that means you hate freedom and love terrorists!!!") Most things are gray and most regulation does (and should) fall into a gray area.
You say this, but I think you are on the wrong side of the position. Having the government mandate what software is shipped with what computers in a multi-vendor climate is a fairly extremist position. Dell's systems do not fail 100% of the time out of box; they usually do work, albeit not optimally. Having the government mandate exactly what software they should ship without out of the box seems unreasonable.
Question. You say,
I think Dell makes a good case here for why vendors should be forced to package clean OS discs...
Should vendors be forced to package clean OS discs? Of course. But it's never gonna happen. Two reasons:
1) End-users are not astute enough to demand it. The average end-user would just give you a blank look if you tried to explain the problem to them. They've never installed an OS themselves. They don't know, and quite frankly they don't care.
2) Free market religionists would scream bloody murder if you seriously talked about "forcing" any company to do anything (besides maybe "don't murder people").
Who should do the forcing? Why should it be Uncle Sam?
Are there not enough alternate vendors? Is it truly impossible to edumacate end-users?
Meh, I'm with the free market-ists.
I buy Macs. They work fine. They don't come with tons of crapware.
The free market is working for me. I don't see a problem.
You may not have considered all the implications of the crapware. Much of that probably actually reduces the cost of the system; I know that AOL most likely pays per install, and I'm sure the Norton "trials", and various other bits of sell-u-later-ware pays per install.
If you asked the end-user, would they be willing to pay more for a clean system, you would most likely get the answer, "No".
But as I said, you aren't forced to buy from Dell. Buy from someone else. Get an IBM(Lenovo). Go to your local PC builder, and get whatever they are selling. I guarantee it'll come with a clean install. When people ask you why Dells are slower than Macs/IBMs/Whatever, don't tell them its because of other manufacturer's software. Tell them its because Dell misconfigures the system.
It is not the government's job to tell people what they want, or how manufacturers should sell computers.
Should the government strictly ban Chiropractic?
Should the government strictly ban alcohol/tobacco?
Should the government strictly regulate fast food?
How do you feel about television decency laws? What about public decency laws? Should the government ban miniskirts, or arm-less tee-shirts?
Some of us free-market-ists believe that the government should get involved in TWO situations. Stuff like murder, and monopolies, where you are forced to eat the shit Company X is doling out to you.
Computing? Should the government force Dell to give you an OEM Windows? Hell no; Buyer Beware.
Don't like Dell's policies? Don't buy a Dell, and when someone asks you for advice, recommened against Dell.
because IE for mac > IE for Windows.
IE for mac handles CSS better. It also does other things properly, like transparent PNG.
Whatever, I don't care; this just means that us Mac users will operate as an anti-IE economic bloc.
Not like I had that stupid piece of shit (IE) installed on my Mac, anyways.
Use a real linux, one with a GUI configuration system.
On SuSE?
Go to online update.
Click on the checkbox next to 'fetch nvidia drivers'.
Push 'update'.
Wait for update.
Once that's over, open up SaX2, which is conveniently labeled 'Graphics' under the 'Hardware' tab of the Configuration tool.
Select Resolution. Select color depth. Select correct screen size/aspect ratio if they aren't properly detected by DDC (not all monitor correctly report DDC information, and lots of rarer/generic monitors aren't in the DDC databases).
Push 'Save'.
Log out. Log in. Done.
Seems easier than Windows to me.
Oh, and I feel that stability, although it does count MORE on servers, is plenty important on workstations/desktops, too. I've seen countless Bluescreens on where the nvidia or ati or intel or via/s3 or whatever driver is at fault. Or so people claim: "Windows is plenty stable, the bluescreen is the graphic card drivers!"
ATI's drivers are shoddy. Lots of features, but shoddy. Nvidia's drivers are hit or miss, you have to find a good version. XGI, Via/S3, and PowerVR drivers are atrocious. Intel's drivers are good, however, if you are using OpenGL or Direct 3D, or want dual monitors, Intel's Extreme Graphics won't get you there.
Most Windows users I have seen, especially overseas, tend to wipe and re-install from the latest and greatest pirate slipstream whenever their installation gets foobar'd.
I recently helped someone with an install, one of these pirate CDs. She even had a regular license for XP, but decided to go with the pirate disk.
Why?
Because it had SP2 slipstreamed in, a variety of other updates, product activation disabled, WinRar included, Acrobat reader included, Sun's Java included, Firefox, and Macromedia Flash included.
I was impressed. It was almost as functional as a Linux install. No Office suite, or any of the other stuff that comes with Linux, but still, much, much better than a standard Windows install, far less updating to do, and only took about an hour.
It's not as easy as a Linux install; but its way better than the normal install cycle.
1. It's usual not carpal tunnel, its generally something else.
2. It's happened to me before; a ligament problem in both wrists. Cysts developed, and they had to be drained. I also wore a wrist brace for a short period.
3. It depends on really, really, really, really bad ergonomics. Perhaps some people are more sensitive than me, but I find that even keeping my wrists in a moderately 'correct' position resolves the problem continously.
At one point, when I was at college, my computer desk was less than ideal. Try this: put your keyboard on the edge of the desk, so there is literally no place to put your hands. Now, put your hands on the keys, but allow your palms to 'fall' down to the side of the desk. As in a 90 degree angle from the keyboard. You'll feel a slight strain in both wrists on your tendons. This will give you RSI.
Or, try this: Just put your arms straight out in front of you, as if typing, and angle your hands (at the wrist) up or down as far as they will go, until you feel slight strains in your wrists. That position will mess up your wrists if you maintain it while typing or mousing.
Perhaps some people need the microsoft natural keyboard. Perhaps some people need wrist braces, or huge wrist rests. For me, however, all I have to do is avoid gross examples of poor ergonomics.
It couldn't have anything to do with the Music industry itself, huh?
Blame P2P.
Blame customers.
Blame industry partners.
Blame anyone but those truly responsible for the success of the music industry
Not like this is new behavior for the RIAA & Co.
SBC/AT&T is not verizon.
They are not building FTTP. They are building FTTC. Fiber-to-the-curb.
Instead of actually having fiber to your premises (like Verizon), you use VDSL or ADSL2+ for the last link. The speeds are nothing special, like ~12 Mbps.
You can get that on cable now. As far as I care, the entire phone network can be left to rot, and if SBC/AT&T keeps up this kind of BS, it will.
It's a start, not an end, to research.
t he_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_cor rected_in_Wikipedia
Check all your facts. Then check them again. For me, any kind of encyclopedia is useful for bredth of knowledge, not depth of knowledge. Of course, accuracy matters to some degree, but its not really that big of a deal.
Briticanna errors, for example, are documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_
That doesn't make it invalid; an encyclopedia is where you start your research. It gives you a couple nuggets of information that you can chew on. Sometimes, that's enough; if you are just idly looking for a bit of triva. Sometimes, its a good bit, and you'll get a tip that'll kickstart your actual research.
It's really dumb to nitpick at stuff like this.
The surprising part to this story, in my mind, is not that someone put a mischevous entry in wikipedia. It's obvious that's a flaw with wikipedia. The suprising part is that the reporter's employer fired him over a wikipedia entry.
Check your facts, people. An encyclopedia is the beginning of research, not the end of it. The more important the subject you are researching, the better you should check your facts.
Like for someone's employement history!
It's called credit, and loans. ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_A rmy_Navy
China has one uncompleted soviet era aircraft carrier. Their current navy is not a threat to most military powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_A rmy_Air_Force
Their airforce is in somewhat better shape, but not much.
Here's a comparison for you:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/taiwa n/budget.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china
China, in 2005, increased its military spending to approximately $30 billion per year. This is the 'official' tally, and while the 'unofficial' tally may be siginificantly higher, a significant portion of that is 'absorbed' (personal expenses, meaning into someone's pocket), or spent on non-military investments (don't forget, the PLA runs a variety of businesses).
Taiwan, in 2005, spent approximately $10 billion on its military. Officially. Not to mention approved an additional $20 billion in procurement programs.
Consider the size of China. Consider its various borders. Consider the various "donations" and "subsidized loans" of military hardware to Taiwan from the U.S.
Consider that the China's expenditures must be spread out among the 2.5 million members of the PLA's military.
While you can't believe most things a Chinese politico says, I'd argue that in one context, the amount of $$ being spent on Chinese modernization, their reports are probably more accurate than U.S. government reports. Why? Because the U.S. government LOVES military toys, and it doesn't matter to us who spends money on 'em. U.S., Taiwan, India, whatever; we're the worlds arms dealers, so we trump up threats.
http://english.people.com.cn/200507/21/eng20050721 _197358.html
We're talking about the largest (both landmass and population) nation in the world here. Even if the Chinese estimate is off by a factor of 3, its still rather puny.
This is from an older (2000) comparison of Chinese and Taiwanese military power. Consider that in the global scheme of things, Taiwan is very close to China. This is a direct measurement of ability to project power.
Power projection is about remote deployment, and the ability to control events half way around the global. The U.S. maitains unprecedented ability to project power.
Please don't forget FSM'ism.
http://www.venganza.org/
We want our equal time, too.
Left out link to Vatican statement.
6 2,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-137
American-style protestants are going further and further towards the nutso-crazy-idiotic anti-science anti-progress anti-secularism anti-other-religions stereotype.
Every unfair stereotype of a an American WASP from 10 years ago has started to come true. Expect the unfair sterotypes of today to be true within 10 years (religious warriors, indeed).
This contrasts oddly with the vatican, who has decided to embrace science as the language of God's tapistry.
Even me, the dedicated Agnostic, finds that ringing a tone of truth.
What these ID idiots don't understand is that there is NO WAY a creator would use such a blunt tool as Creationism to *poof* the world into existence. "God works in mysterious ways". "All miracles are subtle". Blah Blah Blah; if THATs the case, than why WOULDN'T he use evolution?
In one swift motion, the creator, the mover unmoved, fathomed the universe. From that point on, utilizing all the 'random' constants that he blinked into existence, the universe expanded outwards in the big bang, following the scientific explanation of creation, evolution occurred, and we are currently at the present day.
How is that explanation not FAR, FAR more amazing, and mind blowing, and worth of a creator than, "Well, kids, God dreamed up our world, and a week later, it was there."
I guess the problem is that the American-style Protestant is really just not that smart.
Notice that the Catholic church directly and publicly threw its weight behind evolution.
1 1/14/2005
Sources?
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/kmc/?adate=
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
There's a quote from 'Angels and Demons' I found appropriate. I cannot remember the whole thing, so I'll paraphrase.
So you are a religious art historian?
Yes.
But you are not a Christian?
I don't public disclose my views, but no, I am not.
Ah, I see. I misunderstood. I suppose it is analogous to the medicine; one does not have to have cancer in order to study it.
That's one way of looking at it I had not considered, and this actually strikes a cord with me.