> Any other tech company's stock price graph will look the exact same way.
Not exactly. Yahoo's new Flash based charting is currently busted.... but find another one (foxbusiness has a Java based one that currently works) and overlay MSFT and the Nasdaq average on a five year chart. Both show big ups and down reflecting general market trends. But money put in Microsoft five years ago would only show a 16% return while throwing your money into the more broad (tech heavy) NASDAQ average would have returned 60%. Betting the S&P500 would have made you almost 50% and the DOW30 48%.
Gone are the days when people who know nothing about Microsoft other than "it goes up" are buying the stock.
Ok, it was funny. But Global Warming is quickly being debunked as a hoax. In another couple of years I'd predict it will join Piltdown Man in the Science Hoax wing of natural history. Of course if Cap & Trade is running by then I'll also go out on a limb adn predict it will somehow survive liek any other government boondoggle that outlives it's purpose.
It ain't us, it's Mr. Sun being cranky and it is looking more and more like cold weather is in our future. Hit Spaceweather and have a look around. Note that Cycle 24 still hasn't kicked off. Look at the historical trends of solar activity. Compare and contrast to weather trends, including the fact "Global Warming" pretty much stopped around 1997-1998. Add in the PDO has officially ended it's warm phase and gone cool.
> but what if I want Apache on my installation and they don't offer it?
Bad example since they all do include Apache, but I get your point. Ok, here is how it works. Lets take Fedora since I was talking about RPM based systems and I don't know nearly as much about Debian based ones.
Fedora is based in the USA and sponsored by Red Hat, Inc. so they can't include certain radioactive bits that almost everyone wants, like mp3 support. So you just hop over to rpm.livna.org and click on the link for your version of Fedora. It serves you up an RPM package for their repository and the browser does the right thing. Up pops a dialog box asking if you want to install the package and if you say yes it prompts for the root (administrator for you Windows folk following along) password. Once that one small package is installed all of the software maintained by Livna (safely outside the USA) is a part of your system.
But nothing much has actually happened yet. Next you launch the same package manager you use to add/remove OS components and you find that a lot of new things have appeared. And when Livna updates a package it appears in the list of packages that need to be updated right along with the ones Fedora updates.
Contrast with the Windows/Mac world. Each 3rd party application, game, utility, etc. has to have it's own mechanism to find out if it has been updated, code to bug you to update, etc.
The best comparison would be to imagine a world where Microsoft made Windows Update an open platform that everyone could use. So that one unlucky morning you booted up and the Windows Update gadget in the toolbar announced you had a critical update to IE, a couple of random Windows bug fixes, bug fixs from Adobe for Photoshop and Flash Player and a new version of your fav utility that displays your hard drive temp was available. Grr. there goes an hour and a couple of reboots.:)
And it all 'Just Worked.' You don't have an OS and a motley collection of 3rd party apps, you have a seamless System.
> And, even if you like Linux (which I do), would you want to keep > the version supplied with your m/b?
You would probably keep Splashtop because it is in flash, probably in a larger BIOS chip. It isn't intended to be your primary OS. ASUS fully expects 99% of these motherboards to end up with Vista on a normal hard drive before it is delivered to the end user.
The right question is how many of those end users will try Splashtop and find it handy for quick excursions into the net. If that number is large Splashtop will prosper and begin to add more and more features. Five years from now will be interesting if that happens.
> This will not happen until the Linux Kernel has native support > for an install mechanism...
By writing this you reveal yourself to be clueless. The kernel would never do anything so complex, that is what userspace is for. But anyway, assuming you really mean a Linux distro....
>..where by I can double click on a single file and have it install a > whole program including notifying and automatically installing > programs it is dependent upon.
And just where have you been the last five years? Most RH/RPM based distros will do just that. Click on an RPM package and it will ask if you want to install it. But nobody smart does it like that. At most you would use the click to install bit to install a REPO and then just use the same package manager you use to install the distro supplied packages.
Why limit yourself to the old painful way Microsoft and Apple do things when technology is being innovated over here in Linux/UNIX land? What could be more convienent than adding a repository once and then making that 3rd party software collection a seamless part of the system. You get automatic notifications through the update widget, exactly the same as if it were included from the original OS vendor.
I'm seeing this same thing on every recent article about OLPC. Can someone help me understand?
1. OLPC repeats and repeats they are committed to Sugar.
2. OLPC then says they are unhappy with Sugar and are replacing Linux with Windows... because they are unhappy with Sugar.
3. OLPC says they are going to port Sugar to Windows.
So let me see if I understand where they are coming from. The think Sugar is a mistake so they are going to solve the problem by porting it to Windows and switching the underlying OS from Linux to Windows.
WTF! Am I the only person who gets braincramps trying to parse the doublespeak coming from OLPC?
> Am I the only one here that has no problem with the genetic engineering > of humans? Why wait millions of years for evolution to fix things that > are obvious?
Because we are currently clueless. When it comes to understanding how biology actually works we aren't even close to being ready to do more than randomly tinker and watch what happens. That is fine for plants and unless you are a PETA member you are probably OK with that for aminals up to some point where most people go YUCK! The exact point varies from person to person but almost everybody has a limit beyond which they aren't OK with experimenting on animals. For people that line has forever been clouded by the first assholes who experimented on humans like they were animals.
Eventually we will understand. Eventually we will create Human 2.0 in our own image and we will become obsolete. And we will be OK with it because it won't have to involve a bad scifi storyline where we get massacred because the 2.0s won't have a problem waiting us out. Or better yet we will reenginner ourselves and upgrade to 2.0. But it ain't yet time to be thinking about that sort of thing as something that will happen in our lifetime.
> OK.. I chose the arbitrary point when a fetus emerges from a woman > as the point a fetus becomes human. I have just as much basis for that > statement as anyone who chooses fertilization.
Lots of logic problems here.
Fertilization is the only logical point to draw a line ans say HERE is where a seperate entity begins. Sperm is just a part of you, the egg is just a part of her. When they meet something is created that isn't either of you. Consult a basic biology text is this isn't clear; The parts about immune system issues between the fetus and mother should be especially instructive.
Time of birth is unsuitable for a multitude of reasons. First off, a child a few days from delivery would have an almost 100% chance of independent survival with modern medical science. Happens all the time, some trauma forces an early delivery, etc. But the current legal regime, and your stated position, would allow the same baby who could equally be delivered and have an almost normal chance of a productive life to be aborted instead. Fairly major ethical problem.
Of course we (in the US) live in a Republic that clearly has birth as the legal definition of citizenship. Says so right in the Constituition. The legal problem can be fixed of course.
> I've noticed it also depends on whether or not the person arguing > is the one that has to support it.
This is a popular straw man argument. First off, once you conclude you are dealing with a child and not a tissue mass support is a given. After all you can't legally kill off a two week old by denying it basic life support. If you accept the child argument it is totally consistent. Besides, there are long waiting lists to adopt so the argument fails anyway.
> That flimsy argument aside, the US recognizes 90 days of > development as to when an abortion can occur,
It is getting harder and harder by the year to find a legal scholar who won't admit Roe v Wade wasn't one of the worst cases of legislation from the bench in the 20th Century. Depending on such a dubious 'ruling' isn't exactly an appeal to reason. Besides, medical science has advanced a lot since the 1970s and will only continue. Arbitrary 'viability' cutoffs are dangerous ground to stake out firm moral or even legal positions.
> Personally I'm fine with terminating fetuses and embryos as long as > their life depends entirely on a mother's body to continue.
Bad place to draw the line. By modern legal practice a child's life depends entirely upon it's mother until such time as she surrenders (willingly or by court action) custody. Whether it is inside or outside, drawing nutrition through the umbilical cord, breast feeding or fed formula through a bottle. The male's role, beyond providing sperm and (court mandated) money is exactly as much or as little as the female desires.
So how does your argument deal with 'termination' (nice way of avoiding saying 'kill') in the corner cases? Partial birth abortion? At one month before delivery? At a day before expected day of delivery? How about changing one's mind during delivery and tell the Dr. "Nah I decided that I don't want this kid, so could ya suck his brains out when the head appears." How about an hour afterwards when a horrible defect is discovered?
Not saying I have answers, just questions. Both sides have problems. On the one hand ya have religious zealots singing the "Every Sperm is Sacred" song from _The Meaning of Life_ and on the other hand you have folks who, put bluntly, are pro infanticide. And the binary nature of the question doesn't leave much room for a sane middle ground.
> If you want another area of the law where the intent of the crime plays > a role in sentencing try manslaughter and murder, the mental state of > the attacker has a big influence on the sentence.
And it should. If some Klansman or Rev. Wright follower kills somebody of their preferred hated group the odds are very high that they would do it again. That's why it is proper to take mental state into account at that point. You got that part right.
But arresting Rev. Wright for 'hating on whitey' BEFORE he kills anyone or incites a riot (as opposed to Rev. Sharpton who does have blood on his hands yet walks free) is just wrong. I think Rev. Wright is an asshat and Obama is a fellow traveller in hatred that disqualifies him from high office. I do have the right to use their hatred in judging them as regards things like public office. I assert that I also have the right to refuse them service, a belief the government will imprision me for acting upon. In the they MUST have the right to be wrong, idiots, wicked, whatever disparaging term we the sane want to heap upon them, right up to the point where they actually become violent or become a clear and present danger via inciting violence. For if we deny their liberty ours will surely be forfit.
And that is where this whole mess in Canada crosses the line. Steyn has done nothing violent, nor has he incided anyone else to commit violence. But he is on trial and while I don't think these thugs can imprision him they can, and planned to, bankrupt him. Whether they back down now that the spotlight is on them or scurry back into the shadows with the cockroaches doesn't change anything.
> The purpose is to stop people from encouraging or enticing hate.
That's already over the line. The second you put yourself (or worse, annoint ANYONE to) the position of deciding what thoughts are proper and which improper you are a threat to liberty. And for the record, I HATE YOUR FASCIST GUTS.
There, I'm now a hater. And I'll defend my right to hate anybody I get a hankering to hate to the death.. although as a non-pacifist I'll vastly prefer the death of the other guy if it comes to violence. Of course, being a friend of Liberty I'll also defend your right to hate me right back.... just as long as it's just words in the arena of ideas. So long as the factions are just waving signs in the street it's all just a 'frank exchange of ideas.'
Remember Freedom Zero: If you don't have the Right to be Wrong (in the other guys' opinion) you can never be Free.
As a practical matter, yes it does. To date the conviction rate for the so called 'human rights tribunal is 100%.
And lets not just laugh at the silly Canadians and believe 'It can't happen here in America; We have the 1st Amendment!' Wake up, it's long dead and Hate Crimes is THE big new growth area for the State.
Oh course. It is always thus. All of the established players were fearing where this would end up. Now they think they head this off at the pass and declare that what everyone really wanted was tiny $500 machines instead of $500 machines with 14" screens and 120GB hard drives.
But there are plenty of Chinese manufacturers without a vested interest in the current product catagories and retail outlets who don't have a horse in the computer races. Imagine these:
1. Take 1 15" LCD panel, strap $50 worth of computer to the VESA mount on the back. Give it enough smarts to get itself onto most broadband connections via wired or wireless. Sell em through Big Lots or some such deep discounter. Or imagine an LCD TV/DVD player with a brain upgrade, a WiFi antenna and a USB keyboard/mouse in the box.
2. Grab an ARM system on chip, a smallish LCD and whip up a $120-150 portable. Forget making it especially small or light, just go for CHEAP. Again, push em through stores that don't HAVE a computer department to worry about cannibalizing.
How about this for an idea for a totally new form factor. Imagine a clipboard form factor. Screen at the top, keyboard at the bottom, a flat sheet of lipo battery on the whole bottom. NO hinge, NO bother. CHEEP. Add a vinyl folding cover if ya just wanna pay lip service to protecting the screen or want to make it a 'notebook'.... heck, add a place for paper and go for the 'portfolio with a computer embedded' form factor.:)
At any rate, Moore's Law will keep driving down the cost of a system capable of running Firefox. Eventually we have to get low enough Microsoft won't be able to stay in this game of limbo and then the game changes.
> See, I understand Microsoft's point of view. I just don't see why > the hardware people would acquiesce to this crap.
Easy to understand if you look to the bigger picture. Take the leader, ASUS for example. They have two options:
1. Take the deal with Microsoft and knife the linux baby. Yes, the Linux machines will disappear completely before Xmas. Upside they will probably sell even more machines. Remember they abandoned low price in favor of reasonable price on a TINY machine. Tiny was more important than price, something I don't think they expected. Plus they are selling machines as fast as they can build them right now so people will buy whatever they put on the shelves.
Big box retailers will carry the XP units to avoid problems with Microsoft. Remember that Best Buy has sublet an entire isle to Microsoft.
2. Try to push Linux into the headwind of Microsoft, the retailers (who fear, Microsoft, Linux and anything unknown) and the clueless customers who have been trained for two decades to look for the Intel Inside and Windows sticker on the box.
And face the unwritten and probably unspoken threat that failure to play ball will result in punishment in their other product lines. Remember that ASUS makes a lot more from their upper end laptops, motherboards and I's assume complete systems. Get dropped from the co-op ad dollars and they ain't competitive.
Ah hem. I remember when bumber stickers asking "Is YOUR church BATF approved?" were popular. Hint: Janet Reno is not a Republican.
> It really doesn't matter that John McCain dumped his wife...
I might have to vote for the SOB but please don't assume all Republicans approve of him. As for me, while I might disapprove of his personal life, including the Trophy Heiress, my big hurdle is going to be voting for a known oath breaker. "Congress shall make no law..." is pretty damned explicit.
How the hell did we Republicans hose our nomination process so completely!
> It doesn't matter that Larry Craig likes cruising for anonymous > blowjobs in men's rooms.
Yes it does. The Idaho Republican Party promised to recruit a primary opponent for Craig after he changed his mind (read lied) on doing the honorable thing and retiring early. If they break their word I will be watching to see if the National party has the balls to do anything.
Same goes for Sen Vitter here in LA. If a primary opponent appears I'll be voting for him/her barring some gross defect even greater than Vitter's penchant for hanging out with prostitutes. But remember that this IS Lousiana so I won't be voting for a Dem regardless because I KNOW I'll be getting a crook.
>...it matters only a little more that George W. Bush was a cokehead > and a deserter...
Ah, Dan Rather has company in the 'fake but accurate' camp. What's it like on Planet Crazy?
Cokehead is still a bit debatable but drunk is cold historical fact, you could have went with that and avoided conspiracy theories. Of course there is the small matter that the substance abuse issues were in fact aired prior to the election. Most people decided that he was safely on the wagon and had cleaned up his act. Unless he falls off in the next couple of months I'd say the People acted wisely. Regardless what you judge the success or failure of his administation, he didn't get drunk and do something awful.
>..or that Laura Bush got away with drunk-driving manslaughter..
Ok, this one is straight out of the Kos fever swamps so I feel icky even quoting it. Listen, throwing personal mud, even at spouses might be political reality in a campaign but this story never came up in '00 or '04 and since Mr. Bush won't be running for elective office again it is just petty to start new rumors.
Tells me I'm probably wasting my time attempting to reason with a BDS victim. What are you guys going to do to fill that huge hole in your life currently occupied by that burning hatred? You do realize he leaves office in a few more months, right? And that whoever wins there won't actually be war crimes trials because it would suck all the oxygen out of the political environment, leaving no media attention to get any new policy going.
> 90% of political disagreements basically boil down to fundamental > differences of opinion as to whether government is a good deal for > what you pay.
No. Democrats/Socialists/Liberals/Progressives/etc believe taking OTHER people's money is a good way to get a free ride. Those who believe "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" are good ideas regardless of whether you buy the whole book it comes with tend to disagree.
But the problem for elective governments to fall into the bread and circuses trap is old. Now we have a new 19th Century twist, something Thomas Sowell explained years ago in "The Vision of the Annointed." Sanctimonious twits who feed on the egoboo they get from the idea that they are better than the common masses and it it only by their superior enlightenment and rule that the masses don't descend back into cannibalism. The idea is of course totally opposed to self government in that it holds that the common man is an idiot, which is why their first task is always to eliminate the ability of the People to vote em out... while retaining the forms of elections.
> The republicans made an issue of what Bill Clinton was doing 20 years ago.
A few differences should be noted. Nobody (nobody serious at least) was going after Clinton for random youthful indescretions. The reason he was flamed over admitting to smoking dope was because it was a canonical example of Clinton doublespeak. For a counter example, Obama admits to doing some coke and to date it hasn't been an issue[1] because he didn't try some lame ass "I didn't inhale" stunt.
Most of the other charges were about misconduct while holding elective office and I hope you aren't arguing that that is ever off limits. Besides, history has vindicated those concerns. The charges were that the Clintons (package deal then and now) were prone to petty corruption and Bill was a serial sexual predator who used his office to get blown.
When the history books are eventually written, the first Clinton era will be noted for a) Bill's baby gravy on Monica's blue dress and b) a pattern of petty criminality from the travel office on the way in to selling pardons and pilfering the White House on the way out. If there is space left they might get around to mentioning NAFTA, welfare reform and Hillary's failed attempt at socialized medicine.
> The republicans made an issue of what John Kerry was doing 20 years ago.
Not exactly. John (I served in 'Nam!) Kerry made his military service the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. Are you asserting that it is now off limits to challenge a candidate's official life story? Especially when a majority of the people who served in the same area were willing to go on the record to challenge his version of history, the topic was fair game. Now mix in his overt acts of treason[2] when he came back and you have some real substance to present to votors looking to make a choice even if the events happened in the past.
[1] Ok, some Clinton goon tried to get a racebaiting bank shot from it by floating the 'was he a drug dealer' thing but everyone pronounced that lame and he got promptly sacked.
[2] I want to hear the argument that his actions didn't lend aid and comfort to declared enemies of the United States during a time of war. Even worse was this his accusations were lies and he either knew them to be lies or is a fool.
Don't really care much whether the story is true or not. I'm sure the Statute of Limitations has run out. Hell, I hacked a few warez (nothing like what is credited to this dude though) myself back in the day. But Pirate Gumby don't fly the black flag anymore and I doubt this guy does either. Now if he is still active in the warez scene that would be a career ender.
This is priceless watching the slashdot hivemind try to spin this story. If it were a Dem the groupthink would be "What a cool dude! This guy probably really understands tech and will be down with fightin' the power at the *AA." Put an R after his name and "Scandal! Look how tainted the evil Rethuglicans are, how dare they mention any of our scandals, most especially those related to our Obamessiah."
> This class of machine will be quite capable of running Vista > well within 12 months, probably less.
That is one option. But remember that we have had the option of buying ultra small formfactor PCs for some time now, you can get Vista on them right now. It was small and cheap that blew open a whole new market.
So which one will sell better.
1. A beefy machine running Vista selling at the same $350-$550 range that is succeeding today.
2. The same specs as today but retailing for $200-$400.
I'd suspect both will find some success in the marketplace. Where things will become interesting is when the price/performance curve make it possible for somebody to get the bright idea to make a million really cheap machines and doorbust em on Black Friday for $99.95 at WalMart. That day will forever change the landscape of computing.
> Except every one of these machines is capable of running Windows...
Yes.... for now. It should be obvious by now that OLPC insisted on an x86 compatible machine, even though it raised the cost and lowered battery life, because they realized doing a deal with Microsoft would eventually be a requirement for political reasons. Same with Asus and the eeepc, plus they were building it in a joint venture with Intel.
Yes, any $250+ machine will probably just wave the Linux flag as a bargining tool to get really good prices (and keep XP available, etc) on Windows.
But none of that is interesting longterm. I'm waiting for the less than $200 pricepoint to open up. Moore's Law says it will get here soon enough. Even better is when somebody builds one based on an ARM all in one solution that won't be able to run Windows regardless how much incentive or political pressure Microsoft brings to bear.
It should be obvious though that there exists a pricepoint that Microsoft can't compete at without risking canibalizing their existing monopoly. That market niche will be the wedge that will eventually lever em out of market dominance.
I am seeing this more and more. Slashdot is NOT Wikipedia. Slashdot is NOT a referreed journal. Slashdot is general discussion among people with clue who a) realize the above and b) know the URL to Google if they are intrigued by a quote and want to learn whether it is accurate and in context.
Another important difference is shelf life. The shelf life of a Slashdot thread is normally hours whereas a Wikipedia article is intended to evolve towards a definitive description of it's topic. This makes citations, extensive linking and a generally greater effort in the writing worthwhile. Meanwhile, here on Slashdot I normally don't even bother much with spellchecking because (and look at my posting history for the evidence for my case) the whole point is to participate in a conversation that will quickly move on to another subject. So success (since we can't see number of views) is best defined as direct replies, focusing the conversation (a large nested tree under a post) and attracting mod points. It is my experience that posting quicker influences teh conversation a lot more than a later post even if the later post is longer, more polished and/or including lots of external cites.
> Because, let's be clear here: we're talking about generating lethal > amounts of power and driving it into wiring that goes into other > people's houses and into systems that other people are maintaining.
This is the key part. I'm as Libertarian as they come but a power grid implies a need for some sort of standards and real enforcement of same. Forget the legal implications for a minute, do YOU want to kill your lineman? Then don't conduct unannounced experiments on the production power network. Ya got three choices here:
1. Man up and buy the commerical, TESTED AND CERTIFIED product for that key interconnection point.
2. Build a test grid, do your R&D and produce a TESTED AND CERTIFIED product of your own.
3. Restrict your alternative power experiments to those that do not require an interconnect to the grid.
> Detroit dinked around for decades with fuel-efficient prototypes, > but refused to believed they could sell. Then Toyota came along...
You just figured out Detroit is dead? What the unions didn't destroy the stupidity of the management finished off. But because we still have a mostly free market somebody served the demand. Of course most of the demand is due to government subsidies.... grrr.
But the previous electric cars died because of economics as much as stupidity. The prices were subsidized, of course people were willing to step forward with checkbook in hand. But even then it was only a few doing it more for political reasons and to show their neighbors how green they were. Really doubt there would have ever been a mass market for those old prototype electric cars. But we are finally getting close to hybrids and even pure electrics that make sense on purely economic grounds.
Once there is actual money to be made Detroit will adapt or die. Really couldn't care less which they choose. Heck, all electric cars are more computers and electronics than the heavy industry Detroit understands so if we ain't careful Sony will be the next big 'automaker.' Rootkit and all.:)
> Until someone figures out an economic system that inherently > resists wastage of resources.
It's called capitalism you misguided product of Government Schools. If gas were REALLY 'too high' people would be trading in Hummers[1] for Celicas in numbers that would have used car lots up to their butts in the things. But people bitch and whine and fill em up. Which tells me the price isn't too high yet. When it is the invisible hand of the marketplace will act.
The half capitalist half socialist economy we currently have here in the US can have some problems adapting to changes in reality but it usually manages to work out in the end. It would work better if we could eliminate some of the government interference. Take ethanol subsidies for one currently vivid example.
[1]Personally I think the Hummer is the most retarded idea yet, a 4WD so expensive only an idiot would ever take one off road and get it beat up. So it is out of place on the road and in the woods and I'll be damned if I can see a point to owning one. But while I'll say it and might try to persuade someone about to buy one, I'm barred from using or advocating the use of force (i.e. the State) to prevent people from doing things I think are unwise.
> Perhaps if there were tighter regulations on vehicle size (without a > special license) and size to horsepower ratio limits...
Yup, that's always a good answer when stupid people don't realize how much smarter you are, ram a gun in their face and yell DO IT MY WAY YOU MORON OR DIE! That is after all what ALL government 'regulation' devolves to, obey or else.
Listen up ya junior league nazi, if people WANTED underpowered crackerboxes they would buy them and Detroit/Tokyo/etc will be happy to make em in whatever qualtity moves off the lots. It is obvious what your problem is, cranial rectal inversion. Your complaint is the universal refrain of of type A Democrats.
Basically I divide the current world into three groups. Type A and B Democrats and everyone else.
Type A Democrats (Socialist Party members everywhere else in the world) believe that without the enlightened rule of their ilk the poor savages who make up the bulk of the population would revert to canibalism in a matter of days, totally unable to manage their own affairs. The masses aren't to be trusted to make the slightest decision, that is what the annointed elite is for.
Type B Democrats believe themselves to be helpless, totally dependent on the boundless mercy of Type A Democrats. These wretches are mostly created by the Type As (see Welfare Socialism and Government Schools) and are kept alive for the sole purpose of voting Democrat.
Everyone else wishes you santimonious pricks would leave us the hell alone. If we decide that horsepower is a good thing, for whatever reason, it is our decision to make, not yours. So why don't you piss off?
And in case there is any doubt, the preceeding was indeed flamebait. Totally true. But flamebait all the same.
Slashdot Mirror
> Any other tech company's stock price graph will look the exact same way.
Not exactly. Yahoo's new Flash based charting is currently busted.... but find another one (foxbusiness has a Java based one that currently works) and overlay MSFT and the Nasdaq average on a five year chart. Both show big ups and down reflecting general market trends. But money put in Microsoft five years ago would only show a 16% return while throwing your money into the more broad (tech heavy) NASDAQ average would have returned 60%. Betting the S&P500 would have made you almost 50% and the DOW30 48%.
Gone are the days when people who know nothing about Microsoft other than "it goes up" are buying the stock.
> So, about 2012 with global warming....
Ok, it was funny. But Global Warming is quickly being debunked as a hoax. In another couple of years I'd predict it will join Piltdown Man in the Science Hoax wing of natural history. Of course if Cap & Trade is running by then I'll also go out on a limb adn predict it will somehow survive liek any other government boondoggle that outlives it's purpose.
It ain't us, it's Mr. Sun being cranky and it is looking more and more like cold weather is in our future. Hit Spaceweather and have a look around. Note that Cycle 24 still hasn't kicked off. Look at the historical trends of solar activity. Compare and contrast to weather trends, including the fact "Global Warming" pretty much stopped around 1997-1998. Add in the PDO has officially ended it's warm phase and gone cool.
> but what if I want Apache on my installation and they don't offer it?
:)
Bad example since they all do include Apache, but I get your point. Ok, here is how it works. Lets take Fedora since I was talking about RPM based systems and I don't know nearly as much about Debian based ones.
Fedora is based in the USA and sponsored by Red Hat, Inc. so they can't include certain radioactive bits that almost everyone wants, like mp3 support. So you just hop over to rpm.livna.org and click on the link for your version of Fedora. It serves you up an RPM package for their repository and the browser does the right thing. Up pops a dialog box asking if you want to install the package and if you say yes it prompts for the root (administrator for you Windows folk following along) password. Once that one small package is installed all of the software maintained by Livna (safely outside the USA) is a part of your system.
But nothing much has actually happened yet. Next you launch the same package manager you use to add/remove OS components and you find that a lot of new things have appeared. And when Livna updates a package it appears in the list of packages that need to be updated right along with the ones Fedora updates.
Contrast with the Windows/Mac world. Each 3rd party application, game, utility, etc. has to have it's own mechanism to find out if it has been updated, code to bug you to update, etc.
The best comparison would be to imagine a world where Microsoft made Windows Update an open platform that everyone could use. So that one unlucky morning you booted up and the Windows Update gadget in the toolbar announced you had a critical update to IE, a couple of random Windows bug fixes, bug fixs from Adobe for Photoshop and Flash Player and a new version of your fav utility that displays your hard drive temp was available. Grr. there goes an hour and a couple of reboots.
And it all 'Just Worked.' You don't have an OS and a motley collection of 3rd party apps, you have a seamless System.
> And, even if you like Linux (which I do), would you want to keep
> the version supplied with your m/b?
You would probably keep Splashtop because it is in flash, probably in a larger BIOS chip. It isn't intended to be your primary OS. ASUS fully expects 99% of these motherboards to end up with Vista on a normal hard drive before it is delivered to the end user.
The right question is how many of those end users will try Splashtop and find it handy for quick excursions into the net. If that number is large Splashtop will prosper and begin to add more and more features. Five years from now will be interesting if that happens.
> This will not happen until the Linux Kernel has native support
..where by I can double click on a single file and have it install a
> for an install mechanism...
By writing this you reveal yourself to be clueless. The kernel would never do anything so complex, that is what userspace is for. But anyway, assuming you really mean a Linux distro....
>
> whole program including notifying and automatically installing
> programs it is dependent upon.
And just where have you been the last five years? Most RH/RPM based distros will do just that. Click on an RPM package and it will ask if you want to install it. But nobody smart does it like that. At most you would use the click to install bit to install a REPO and then just use the same package manager you use to install the distro supplied packages.
Why limit yourself to the old painful way Microsoft and Apple do things when technology is being innovated over here in Linux/UNIX land? What could be more convienent than adding a repository once and then making that 3rd party software collection a seamless part of the system. You get automatic notifications through the update widget, exactly the same as if it were included from the original OS vendor.
I'm seeing this same thing on every recent article about OLPC. Can someone help me understand?
1. OLPC repeats and repeats they are committed to Sugar.
2. OLPC then says they are unhappy with Sugar and are replacing Linux with Windows... because they are unhappy with Sugar.
3. OLPC says they are going to port Sugar to Windows.
So let me see if I understand where they are coming from. The think Sugar is a mistake so they are going to solve the problem by porting it to Windows and switching the underlying OS from Linux to Windows.
WTF! Am I the only person who gets braincramps trying to parse the doublespeak coming from OLPC?
> Am I the only one here that has no problem with the genetic engineering
> of humans? Why wait millions of years for evolution to fix things that
> are obvious?
Because we are currently clueless. When it comes to understanding how biology actually works we aren't even close to being ready to do more than randomly tinker and watch what happens. That is fine for plants and unless you are a PETA member you are probably OK with that for aminals up to some point where most people go YUCK! The exact point varies from person to person but almost everybody has a limit beyond which they aren't OK with experimenting on animals. For people that line has forever been clouded by the first assholes who experimented on humans like they were animals.
Eventually we will understand. Eventually we will create Human 2.0 in our own image and we will become obsolete. And we will be OK with it because it won't have to involve a bad scifi storyline where we get massacred because the 2.0s won't have a problem waiting us out. Or better yet we will reenginner ourselves and upgrade to 2.0. But it ain't yet time to be thinking about that sort of thing as something that will happen in our lifetime.
> OK .. I chose the arbitrary point when a fetus emerges from a woman
> as the point a fetus becomes human. I have just as much basis for that
> statement as anyone who chooses fertilization.
Lots of logic problems here.
Fertilization is the only logical point to draw a line ans say HERE is where a seperate entity begins. Sperm is just a part of you, the egg is just a part of her. When they meet something is created that isn't either of you. Consult a basic biology text is this isn't clear; The parts about immune system issues between the fetus and mother should be especially instructive.
Time of birth is unsuitable for a multitude of reasons. First off, a child a few days from delivery would have an almost 100% chance of independent survival with modern medical science. Happens all the time, some trauma forces an early delivery, etc. But the current legal regime, and your stated position, would allow the same baby who could equally be delivered and have an almost normal chance of a productive life to be aborted instead. Fairly major ethical problem.
Of course we (in the US) live in a Republic that clearly has birth as the legal definition of citizenship. Says so right in the Constituition. The legal problem can be fixed of course.
> I've noticed it also depends on whether or not the person arguing
> is the one that has to support it.
This is a popular straw man argument. First off, once you conclude you are dealing with a child and not a tissue mass support is a given. After all you can't legally kill off a two week old by denying it basic life support. If you accept the child argument it is totally consistent. Besides, there are long waiting lists to adopt so the argument fails anyway.
> That flimsy argument aside, the US recognizes 90 days of
> development as to when an abortion can occur,
It is getting harder and harder by the year to find a legal scholar who won't admit Roe v Wade wasn't one of the worst cases of legislation from the bench in the 20th Century. Depending on such a dubious 'ruling' isn't exactly an appeal to reason. Besides, medical science has advanced a lot since the 1970s and will only continue. Arbitrary 'viability' cutoffs are dangerous ground to stake out firm moral or even legal positions.
> Personally I'm fine with terminating fetuses and embryos as long as
> their life depends entirely on a mother's body to continue.
Bad place to draw the line. By modern legal practice a child's life depends entirely upon it's mother until such time as she surrenders (willingly or by court action) custody. Whether it is inside or outside, drawing nutrition through the umbilical cord, breast feeding or fed formula through a bottle. The male's role, beyond providing sperm and (court mandated) money is exactly as much or as little as the female desires.
So how does your argument deal with 'termination' (nice way of avoiding saying 'kill') in the corner cases? Partial birth abortion? At one month before delivery? At a day before expected day of delivery? How about changing one's mind during delivery and tell the Dr. "Nah I decided that I don't want this kid, so could ya suck his brains out when the head appears." How about an hour afterwards when a horrible defect is discovered?
Not saying I have answers, just questions. Both sides have problems. On the one hand ya have religious zealots singing the "Every Sperm is Sacred" song from _The Meaning of Life_ and on the other hand you have folks who, put bluntly, are pro infanticide. And the binary nature of the question doesn't leave much room for a sane middle ground.
> If you want another area of the law where the intent of the crime plays
> a role in sentencing try manslaughter and murder, the mental state of
> the attacker has a big influence on the sentence.
And it should. If some Klansman or Rev. Wright follower kills somebody of their preferred hated group the odds are very high that they would do it again. That's why it is proper to take mental state into account at that point. You got that part right.
But arresting Rev. Wright for 'hating on whitey' BEFORE he kills anyone or incites a riot (as opposed to Rev. Sharpton who does have blood on his hands yet walks free) is just wrong. I think Rev. Wright is an asshat and Obama is a fellow traveller in hatred that disqualifies him from high office. I do have the right to use their hatred in judging them as regards things like public office. I assert that I also have the right to refuse them service, a belief the government will imprision me for acting upon. In the they MUST have the right to be wrong, idiots, wicked, whatever disparaging term we the sane want to heap upon them, right up to the point where they actually become violent or become a clear and present danger via inciting violence. For if we deny their liberty ours will surely be forfit.
And that is where this whole mess in Canada crosses the line. Steyn has done nothing violent, nor has he incided anyone else to commit violence. But he is on trial and while I don't think these thugs can imprision him they can, and planned to, bankrupt him. Whether they back down now that the spotlight is on them or scurry back into the shadows with the cockroaches doesn't change anything.
> The purpose is to stop people from encouraging or enticing hate.
That's already over the line. The second you put yourself (or worse, annoint ANYONE to) the position of deciding what thoughts are proper and which improper you are a threat to liberty. And for the record, I HATE YOUR FASCIST GUTS.
There, I'm now a hater. And I'll defend my right to hate anybody I get a hankering to hate to the death.. although as a non-pacifist I'll vastly prefer the death of the other guy if it comes to violence. Of course, being a friend of Liberty I'll also defend your right to hate me right back.... just as long as it's just words in the arena of ideas. So long as the factions are just waving signs in the street it's all just a 'frank exchange of ideas.'
Remember Freedom Zero: If you don't have the Right to be Wrong (in the other guys' opinion) you can never be Free.
> That doesn't mean he's guilty.
As a practical matter, yes it does. To date the conviction rate for the so called 'human rights tribunal is 100%.
And lets not just laugh at the silly Canadians and believe 'It can't happen here in America; We have the 1st Amendment!' Wake up, it's long dead and Hate Crimes is THE big new growth area for the State.
> somebody else on their way up will.
:)
Oh course. It is always thus. All of the established players were fearing where this would end up. Now they think they head this off at the pass and declare that what everyone really wanted was tiny $500 machines instead of $500 machines with 14" screens and 120GB hard drives.
But there are plenty of Chinese manufacturers without a vested interest in the current product catagories and retail outlets who don't have a horse in the computer races. Imagine these:
1. Take 1 15" LCD panel, strap $50 worth of computer to the VESA mount on the back. Give it enough smarts to get itself onto most broadband connections via wired or wireless. Sell em through Big Lots or some such deep discounter. Or imagine an LCD TV/DVD player with a brain upgrade, a WiFi antenna and a USB keyboard/mouse in the box.
2. Grab an ARM system on chip, a smallish LCD and whip up a $120-150 portable. Forget making it especially small or light, just go for CHEAP. Again, push em through stores that don't HAVE a computer department to worry about cannibalizing.
How about this for an idea for a totally new form factor. Imagine a clipboard form factor. Screen at the top, keyboard at the bottom, a flat sheet of lipo battery on the whole bottom. NO hinge, NO bother. CHEEP. Add a vinyl folding cover if ya just wanna pay lip service to protecting the screen or want to make it a 'notebook'.... heck, add a place for paper and go for the 'portfolio with a computer embedded' form factor.
At any rate, Moore's Law will keep driving down the cost of a system capable of running Firefox. Eventually we have to get low enough Microsoft won't be able to stay in this game of limbo and then the game changes.
> See, I understand Microsoft's point of view. I just don't see why
> the hardware people would acquiesce to this crap.
Easy to understand if you look to the bigger picture. Take the leader, ASUS for example. They have two options:
1. Take the deal with Microsoft and knife the linux baby. Yes, the Linux machines will disappear completely before Xmas. Upside they will probably sell even more machines. Remember they abandoned low price in favor of reasonable price on a TINY machine. Tiny was more important than price, something I don't think they expected. Plus they are selling machines as fast as they can build them right now so people will buy whatever they put on the shelves.
Big box retailers will carry the XP units to avoid problems with Microsoft. Remember that Best Buy has sublet an entire isle to Microsoft.
2. Try to push Linux into the headwind of Microsoft, the retailers (who fear, Microsoft, Linux and anything unknown) and the clueless customers who have been trained for two decades to look for the Intel Inside and Windows sticker on the box.
And face the unwritten and probably unspoken threat that failure to play ball will result in punishment in their other product lines. Remember that ASUS makes a lot more from their upper end laptops, motherboards and I's assume complete systems. Get dropped from the co-op ad dollars and they ain't competitive.
> Go to an approved church...
...it matters only a little more that George W. Bush was a cokehead
..or that Laura Bush got away with drunk-driving manslaughter..
Ah hem. I remember when bumber stickers asking "Is YOUR church BATF approved?" were popular. Hint: Janet Reno is not a Republican.
> It really doesn't matter that John McCain dumped his wife...
I might have to vote for the SOB but please don't assume all Republicans approve of him. As for me, while I might disapprove of his personal life, including the Trophy Heiress, my big hurdle is going to be voting for a known oath breaker. "Congress shall make no law..." is pretty damned explicit.
How the hell did we Republicans hose our nomination process so completely!
> It doesn't matter that Larry Craig likes cruising for anonymous
> blowjobs in men's rooms.
Yes it does. The Idaho Republican Party promised to recruit a primary opponent for Craig after he changed his mind (read lied) on doing the honorable thing and retiring early. If they break their word I will be watching to see if the National party has the balls to do anything.
Same goes for Sen Vitter here in LA. If a primary opponent appears I'll be voting for him/her barring some gross defect even greater than Vitter's penchant for hanging out with prostitutes. But remember that this IS Lousiana so I won't be voting for a Dem regardless because I KNOW I'll be getting a crook.
>
> and a deserter...
Ah, Dan Rather has company in the 'fake but accurate' camp. What's it like on Planet Crazy?
Cokehead is still a bit debatable but drunk is cold historical fact, you could have went with that and avoided conspiracy theories. Of course there is the small matter that the substance abuse issues were in fact aired prior to the election. Most people decided that he was safely on the wagon and had cleaned up his act. Unless he falls off in the next couple of months I'd say the People acted wisely. Regardless what you judge the success or failure of his administation, he didn't get drunk and do something awful.
>
Ok, this one is straight out of the Kos fever swamps so I feel icky even quoting it. Listen, throwing personal mud, even at spouses might be political reality in a campaign but this story never came up in '00 or '04 and since Mr. Bush won't be running for elective office again it is just petty to start new rumors.
Tells me I'm probably wasting my time attempting to reason with a BDS victim. What are you guys going to do to fill that huge hole in your life currently occupied by that burning hatred? You do realize he leaves office in a few more months, right? And that whoever wins there won't actually be war crimes trials because it would suck all the oxygen out of the political environment, leaving no media attention to get any new policy going.
> 90% of political disagreements basically boil down to fundamental
> differences of opinion as to whether government is a good deal for
> what you pay.
No. Democrats/Socialists/Liberals/Progressives/etc believe taking OTHER people's money is a good way to get a free ride. Those who believe "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" are good ideas regardless of whether you buy the whole book it comes with tend to disagree.
But the problem for elective governments to fall into the bread and circuses trap is old. Now we have a new 19th Century twist, something Thomas Sowell explained years ago in "The Vision of the Annointed." Sanctimonious twits who feed on the egoboo they get from the idea that they are better than the common masses and it it only by their superior enlightenment and rule that the masses don't descend back into cannibalism. The idea is of course totally opposed to self government in that it holds that the common man is an idiot, which is why their first task is always to eliminate the ability of the People to vote em out... while retaining the forms of elections.
> The republicans made an issue of what Bill Clinton was doing 20 years ago.
A few differences should be noted. Nobody (nobody serious at least) was going after Clinton for random youthful indescretions. The reason he was flamed over admitting to smoking dope was because it was a canonical example of Clinton doublespeak. For a counter example, Obama admits to doing some coke and to date it hasn't been an issue[1] because he didn't try some lame ass "I didn't inhale" stunt.
Most of the other charges were about misconduct while holding elective office and I hope you aren't arguing that that is ever off limits. Besides, history has vindicated those concerns. The charges were that the Clintons (package deal then and now) were prone to petty corruption and Bill was a serial sexual predator who used his office to get blown.
When the history books are eventually written, the first Clinton era will be noted for a) Bill's baby gravy on Monica's blue dress and b) a pattern of petty criminality from the travel office on the way in to selling pardons and pilfering the White House on the way out. If there is space left they might get around to mentioning NAFTA, welfare reform and Hillary's failed attempt at socialized medicine.
> The republicans made an issue of what John Kerry was doing 20 years ago.
Not exactly. John (I served in 'Nam!) Kerry made his military service the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. Are you asserting that it is now off limits to challenge a candidate's official life story? Especially when a majority of the people who served in the same area were willing to go on the record to challenge his version of history, the topic was fair game. Now mix in his overt acts of treason[2] when he came back and you have some real substance to present to votors looking to make a choice even if the events happened in the past.
[1] Ok, some Clinton goon tried to get a racebaiting bank shot from it by floating the 'was he a drug dealer' thing but everyone pronounced that lame and he got promptly sacked.
[2] I want to hear the argument that his actions didn't lend aid and comfort to declared enemies of the United States during a time of war. Even worse was this his accusations were lies and he either knew them to be lies or is a fool.
Don't really care much whether the story is true or not. I'm sure the Statute of Limitations has run out. Hell, I hacked a few warez (nothing like what is credited to this dude though) myself back in the day. But Pirate Gumby don't fly the black flag anymore and I doubt this guy does either. Now if he is still active in the warez scene that would be a career ender.
This is priceless watching the slashdot hivemind try to spin this story. If it were a Dem the groupthink would be "What a cool dude! This guy probably really understands tech and will be down with fightin' the power at the *AA." Put an R after his name and "Scandal! Look how tainted the evil Rethuglicans are, how dare they mention any of our scandals, most especially those related to our Obamessiah."
> This class of machine will be quite capable of running Vista
> well within 12 months, probably less.
That is one option. But remember that we have had the option of buying ultra small formfactor PCs for some time now, you can get Vista on them right now. It was small and cheap that blew open a whole new market.
So which one will sell better.
1. A beefy machine running Vista selling at the same $350-$550 range that is succeeding today.
2. The same specs as today but retailing for $200-$400.
I'd suspect both will find some success in the marketplace. Where things will become interesting is when the price/performance curve make it possible for somebody to get the bright idea to make a million really cheap machines and doorbust em on Black Friday for $99.95 at WalMart. That day will forever change the landscape of computing.
> Except every one of these machines is capable of running Windows...
Yes.... for now. It should be obvious by now that OLPC insisted on an x86 compatible machine, even though it raised the cost and lowered battery life, because they realized doing a deal with Microsoft would eventually be a requirement for political reasons. Same with Asus and the eeepc, plus they were building it in a joint venture with Intel.
Yes, any $250+ machine will probably just wave the Linux flag as a bargining tool to get really good prices (and keep XP available, etc) on Windows.
But none of that is interesting longterm. I'm waiting for the less than $200 pricepoint to open up. Moore's Law says it will get here soon enough. Even better is when somebody builds one based on an ARM all in one solution that won't be able to run Windows regardless how much incentive or political pressure Microsoft brings to bear.
It should be obvious though that there exists a pricepoint that Microsoft can't compete at without risking canibalizing their existing monopoly. That market niche will be the wedge that will eventually lever em out of market dominance.
> citation needed plz :)
I am seeing this more and more. Slashdot is NOT Wikipedia. Slashdot is NOT a referreed journal. Slashdot is general discussion among people with clue who a) realize the above and b) know the URL to Google if they are intrigued by a quote and want to learn whether it is accurate and in context.
Another important difference is shelf life. The shelf life of a Slashdot thread is normally hours whereas a Wikipedia article is intended to evolve towards a definitive description of it's topic. This makes citations, extensive linking and a generally greater effort in the writing worthwhile. Meanwhile, here on Slashdot I normally don't even bother much with spellchecking because (and look at my posting history for the evidence for my case) the whole point is to participate in a conversation that will quickly move on to another subject. So success (since we can't see number of views) is best defined as direct replies, focusing the conversation (a large nested tree under a post) and attracting mod points. It is my experience that posting quicker influences teh conversation a lot more than a later post even if the later post is longer, more polished and/or including lots of external cites.
> Because, let's be clear here: we're talking about generating lethal
> amounts of power and driving it into wiring that goes into other
> people's houses and into systems that other people are maintaining.
This is the key part. I'm as Libertarian as they come but a power grid implies a need for some sort of standards and real enforcement of same. Forget the legal implications for a minute, do YOU want to kill your lineman? Then don't conduct unannounced experiments on the production power network. Ya got three choices here:
1. Man up and buy the commerical, TESTED AND CERTIFIED product for that key interconnection point.
2. Build a test grid, do your R&D and produce a TESTED AND CERTIFIED product of your own.
3. Restrict your alternative power experiments to those that do not require an interconnect to the grid.
> Detroit dinked around for decades with fuel-efficient prototypes,
:)
> but refused to believed they could sell. Then Toyota came along...
You just figured out Detroit is dead? What the unions didn't destroy the stupidity of the management finished off. But because we still have a mostly free market somebody served the demand. Of course most of the demand is due to government subsidies.... grrr.
But the previous electric cars died because of economics as much as stupidity. The prices were subsidized, of course people were willing to step forward with checkbook in hand. But even then it was only a few doing it more for political reasons and to show their neighbors how green they were. Really doubt there would have ever been a mass market for those old prototype electric cars. But we are finally getting close to hybrids and even pure electrics that make sense on purely economic grounds.
Once there is actual money to be made Detroit will adapt or die. Really couldn't care less which they choose. Heck, all electric cars are more computers and electronics than the heavy industry Detroit understands so if we ain't careful Sony will be the next big 'automaker.' Rootkit and all.
> Until someone figures out an economic system that inherently
> resists wastage of resources.
It's called capitalism you misguided product of Government Schools. If gas were REALLY 'too high' people would be trading in Hummers[1] for Celicas in numbers that would have used car lots up to their butts in the things. But people bitch and whine and fill em up. Which tells me the price isn't too high yet. When it is the invisible hand of the marketplace will act.
The half capitalist half socialist economy we currently have here in the US can have some problems adapting to changes in reality but it usually manages to work out in the end. It would work better if we could eliminate some of the government interference. Take ethanol subsidies for one currently vivid example.
[1]Personally I think the Hummer is the most retarded idea yet, a 4WD so expensive only an idiot would ever take one off road and get it beat up. So it is out of place on the road and in the woods and I'll be damned if I can see a point to owning one. But while I'll say it and might try to persuade someone about to buy one, I'm barred from using or advocating the use of force (i.e. the State) to prevent people from doing things I think are unwise.
> Perhaps if there were tighter regulations on vehicle size (without a
> special license) and size to horsepower ratio limits...
Yup, that's always a good answer when stupid people don't realize how much smarter you are, ram a gun in their face and yell DO IT MY WAY YOU MORON OR DIE! That is after all what ALL government 'regulation' devolves to, obey or else.
Listen up ya junior league nazi, if people WANTED underpowered crackerboxes they would buy them and Detroit/Tokyo/etc will be happy to make em in whatever qualtity moves off the lots. It is obvious what your problem is, cranial rectal inversion. Your complaint is the universal refrain of of type A Democrats.
Basically I divide the current world into three groups. Type A and B Democrats and everyone else.
Type A Democrats (Socialist Party members everywhere else in the world) believe that without the enlightened rule of their ilk the poor savages who make up the bulk of the population would revert to canibalism in a matter of days, totally unable to manage their own affairs. The masses aren't to be trusted to make the slightest decision, that is what the annointed elite is for.
Type B Democrats believe themselves to be helpless, totally dependent on the boundless mercy of Type A Democrats. These wretches are mostly created by the Type As (see Welfare Socialism and Government Schools) and are kept alive for the sole purpose of voting Democrat.
Everyone else wishes you santimonious pricks would leave us the hell alone. If we decide that horsepower is a good thing, for whatever reason, it is our decision to make, not yours. So why don't you piss off?
And in case there is any doubt, the preceeding was indeed flamebait. Totally true. But flamebait all the same.