Most companies don't have bars on their campus. There could be a ton of reasons they switched their opinion.
Incidentally, I don't think whether or not they should have a bar on campus is really the issue.
The problem is they commissioned a businessman to build them something, waited until he had spent as much money as he could on it, and then backed out before paying him.
Mormons or not, that's a dirty thing to do. And no less dirty just because it isn't forbidden by a contract.
I'm pointing two fingers firmly at My Family. Seriously, that programme was barely funny in the first few series when the eldest son was in it. How it's carried on for nearly a decade I can't even imagine in my most feverish nightmares.
Depends on your definition of programming. Seeing as I set my VCR to carry out a scheduled programme of recording sessions, that seems like a good use of "programming" to me.
Writing complex computational software (and/or Halo Wars) really doesn't seem like programming at all...
That's presuming that people do opt for the new MS product, in great enough numbers. It's a big gamble for MS, really.
Currently, most people still see XP as their OS of choice. People go out of their way to buy it. If they're forced to change, some proportion of them might opt for something else (Linux is free, and Macs are attractive to a huge many people).
It doesn't need to be a majority to be a disaster for MS. If even a significant minority switch, that means a big hit in profits, and a big chunk out of their monopoly. That means crashing share prices. That means bad stuff.
They've eroded their safety buffer with the Vista debacle, and they really can't afford a repeat. They could have taken the safe route and stuck with XP. Instead it looks like they're going all or nothing with Win7.
You don't need nukes to protect against nukes (although that works too, evidently). What you need is defences. Stopping the massive death-toll is the important aim, not ensuring brutal retaliation.
Two points. Firstly, anti-missile defences can be beaten with sheer numbers, as can anti-aircraft. It's this reason alone that they were not considered all that great during the Cold War: the huge numbers of Soviet/Western nukes could easily swamp the respective opposing defences. This would not be a problem when dealing with a rogue dictator playing My First Atomic Bomb.
Secondly, it's not possible to build anti-missile defences while we still have huge arsenals of nuclear weapons. The US' Star Wars project met heavy opposition from the old Russian bloc because it was seen as giving the US a clear advantage in a nuclear war; that is, that the US could strike but not be struck back. That kind of opposition will always abound to defence schemes, however beneficial they are as an alternative to nuclear deterrent, unless we get a global consensus towards disarmament.
Obama suggesting reduction of the US nuclear arsenal is an important rhetoric step in the right direction, and it's the only way we can start to progress to less insane ways of maintaining the peace.
UI just means "user interface". It is the interface between the abstract mechanics and data of the device and the person who is supposed to do something productive with it.
That (awesome) control room you've posted is still a UI by that definition. It's a colossally complicate UI, and it's completely unlike the UI on a word processor, but you'd kind of expect that from a nuclear power plant...
It isn't really about the technology behind ARM. I'm sure you're right that the developers behind the chips will keep on proposing newer, better and more powerful chips.
What's really interesting about all this is that it's a marked shift from the way computer manufacturers used to behave. Traditionally, if Dell's new laptop didn't have at least SOME larger numbers (MHz, RAM, HDD, whatever) they'd have been laughed out of the trade shows.
With netbooks, it's the first time computer manufacturers are choosing chips, for mainstream laptops no less, on criteria other than their power. Netbooks work better with low-power chips, and ARM is the best candidate to supply it.
And that philosophy could hang around for a good long while. It's exactly the same reason Intel are rushing out their Atoms and similar- suddenly, Moores law isn't the important thing.
When playing MP, what's to prevent the same server-side checks that are in all FPS games these days? And you can turn all the enemies bright red in proprietary games too- the models and texture maps are usually pretty easy to find, and don't form part of the binary (which is the bit people are talking about when they refer to open source).
And SP doesn't exactly matter- people are free to cheat to their heart's content if its just for them. Not that I know if the FPS in TFA even has a SP mode.
I'm not sure it'd be any easier to target "a broad swathe of these offshore wind farms" that it would be to target a "broad swathe" of our current generation of power plants.
Probably be more difficult in fact. You probably need far more wind turbines than you do fossil/nuclear plants to generate a nation's electricity. That means more stuff that'd need to be targeted to be make an impact. Or to put it another way, it'd be less eggs in each basket.
I'm guessing you've never actually opened up a shell on the Mac. It's right there in "Applications" or maybe "Utilities". MacOSX is just FreeBSD with a kickass GUI and nice apps. Doesn't get more Unix'y than that.
Yeah it does. FreeBSD is not fully POSIX compliant (although oddly Mac OSX 10.5 actually is).
POSIX is about as close as anyone gets to defining what actually qualifies as Unix, which means Mac OSX is descended from a non-Unix (although Unix-like) OS.
But all this talk about "commercial Unix" is nonsense anyway. Things are what they are, and applying daft labels to things doesn't make them any more or less significant.
Ha, say what you like about Microsoft- they're survivors.
They've never had the best software, they've never had had the most corporate friends, the law isn't even on their side, but by god they know how to stay on top.
They've caught on that Free Software is kicking their rear all over the development and server-side scene. When in Rome?
Alternatively, they may know that the obfuscation won't work, but may not care.
As an advertising-driven service, all they care about are site hits and views. It's not really in their interest to limit their service in any way, and not in their interest to bolster DVD sales.
Their content providers, however, care lots about piracy. They're probably laying on the pressure to make the Hulu boys tougher on piracy. And as noted, they're probably all advertising graduates.
By doing this, Hulu might just be doing something to appease the content providers ("hey look, we've done all these clever things to stop piracy!"), but not actually give two hoots as to whether it actually works.
"Evolution" is the name for things adapting to survive.
We would be pretty unnatural if, as a species, we all let ourselves get wiped out. It's our evolutionary imperative to do our damnedest to not die. If that means trying to change our environment to keep us alive, that's what we should be doing.
No-one said that "natural" had to mean "surrender ourselves to random chance and do nothing to help ourselves". That kind of thinking is for religious people and pandas.
What about, oh I don't know, the entirety of the mainstream software industry? Every major proprietary developer? Every company and individual that has ever looked at the (generally cost-free) open source software and yet decided to go with something else? They're all critics you know, and they're all the people Linux (et al) are working very hard to try to impress.
And there are internal critics too- just look at the so-called "distribution wars". Every time a new distro starts, it is generally as a response to something that the developers believe is being done wrong. Take Ubuntu- originally it was launched to take the tech of Debian and put it in a professional development environment (specifically, regular releases more than once every 3 years). Take also KDE/GNOME/XFCE/etc. All of them are constantly competing on their respective merits, and all of their adherents are constantly criticizing the rivals.
Criticism is there if you look for it. It just doesn't have as many critics as Windows, due entirely to the fact that it isn't quite so mind numbingly awful.
I'm viewing every story for the next week as a potential April Fools.
All the same, this one is pretty convincing. It seems no more ridiculous than the world's biggest banks squandering billions on high risk ventures, their executives becoming super-rich in the process, and then being dished out billions by the tax payer with little hope of repayment.
Slashdot Mirror
Most companies don't have bars on their campus. There could be a ton of reasons they switched their opinion.
Incidentally, I don't think whether or not they should have a bar on campus is really the issue.
The problem is they commissioned a businessman to build them something, waited until he had spent as much money as he could on it, and then backed out before paying him.
Mormons or not, that's a dirty thing to do. And no less dirty just because it isn't forbidden by a contract.
Or are you just glad to see me?
Most people can only afford one car, and most people need a family car. So that one car will be a family car.
They'll get as excited as they can in buying that car. If they're given the choice between a KIA or BMW sedan, they'll get excited by the BMW.
If Tesla can make an exciting, innovative family-sized car, they'll find themselves with a big market.
No-one (sane) says that Macs are the MOST expensive PCs with comparable specs.
Being in the most expensive quartile is still pretty notable, even if they are beaten to the top by some other overpriced gadgetry.
People buy Macs because they like Macs and don't mind paying the premium for something they like. That doesn't mean that there isn't a premium...
I'm pointing two fingers firmly at My Family. Seriously, that programme was barely funny in the first few series when the eldest son was in it. How it's carried on for nearly a decade I can't even imagine in my most feverish nightmares.
Depends on your definition of programming. Seeing as I set my VCR to carry out a scheduled programme of recording sessions, that seems like a good use of "programming" to me.
Writing complex computational software (and/or Halo Wars) really doesn't seem like programming at all...
That's presuming that people do opt for the new MS product, in great enough numbers. It's a big gamble for MS, really.
Currently, most people still see XP as their OS of choice. People go out of their way to buy it. If they're forced to change, some proportion of them might opt for something else (Linux is free, and Macs are attractive to a huge many people).
It doesn't need to be a majority to be a disaster for MS. If even a significant minority switch, that means a big hit in profits, and a big chunk out of their monopoly. That means crashing share prices. That means bad stuff.
They've eroded their safety buffer with the Vista debacle, and they really can't afford a repeat. They could have taken the safe route and stuck with XP. Instead it looks like they're going all or nothing with Win7.
You don't need nukes to protect against nukes (although that works too, evidently). What you need is defences. Stopping the massive death-toll is the important aim, not ensuring brutal retaliation.
Two points. Firstly, anti-missile defences can be beaten with sheer numbers, as can anti-aircraft. It's this reason alone that they were not considered all that great during the Cold War: the huge numbers of Soviet/Western nukes could easily swamp the respective opposing defences. This would not be a problem when dealing with a rogue dictator playing My First Atomic Bomb.
Secondly, it's not possible to build anti-missile defences while we still have huge arsenals of nuclear weapons. The US' Star Wars project met heavy opposition from the old Russian bloc because it was seen as giving the US a clear advantage in a nuclear war; that is, that the US could strike but not be struck back. That kind of opposition will always abound to defence schemes, however beneficial they are as an alternative to nuclear deterrent, unless we get a global consensus towards disarmament.
Obama suggesting reduction of the US nuclear arsenal is an important rhetoric step in the right direction, and it's the only way we can start to progress to less insane ways of maintaining the peace.
UI just means "user interface". It is the interface between the abstract mechanics and data of the device and the person who is supposed to do something productive with it.
That (awesome) control room you've posted is still a UI by that definition. It's a colossally complicate UI, and it's completely unlike the UI on a word processor, but you'd kind of expect that from a nuclear power plant...
It isn't really about the technology behind ARM. I'm sure you're right that the developers behind the chips will keep on proposing newer, better and more powerful chips.
What's really interesting about all this is that it's a marked shift from the way computer manufacturers used to behave. Traditionally, if Dell's new laptop didn't have at least SOME larger numbers (MHz, RAM, HDD, whatever) they'd have been laughed out of the trade shows.
With netbooks, it's the first time computer manufacturers are choosing chips, for mainstream laptops no less, on criteria other than their power. Netbooks work better with low-power chips, and ARM is the best candidate to supply it.
And that philosophy could hang around for a good long while. It's exactly the same reason Intel are rushing out their Atoms and similar- suddenly, Moores law isn't the important thing.
http://openbve.uuuq.com/en/index.html
I somehow feel a train sim posted in an offtopic comment might be immune to the traffic bombardment of slashdotting...
When playing MP, what's to prevent the same server-side checks that are in all FPS games these days? And you can turn all the enemies bright red in proprietary games too- the models and texture maps are usually pretty easy to find, and don't form part of the binary (which is the bit people are talking about when they refer to open source).
And SP doesn't exactly matter- people are free to cheat to their heart's content if its just for them. Not that I know if the FPS in TFA even has a SP mode.
But can we isolate the genetic sequences for crippling boredom?
I'm not sure it'd be any easier to target "a broad swathe of these offshore wind farms" that it would be to target a "broad swathe" of our current generation of power plants.
Probably be more difficult in fact. You probably need far more wind turbines than you do fossil/nuclear plants to generate a nation's electricity. That means more stuff that'd need to be targeted to be make an impact. Or to put it another way, it'd be less eggs in each basket.
I'm guessing you've never actually opened up a shell on the Mac. It's right there in "Applications" or maybe "Utilities". MacOSX is just FreeBSD with a kickass GUI and nice apps. Doesn't get more Unix'y than that.
Yeah it does. FreeBSD is not fully POSIX compliant (although oddly Mac OSX 10.5 actually is).
POSIX is about as close as anyone gets to defining what actually qualifies as Unix, which means Mac OSX is descended from a non-Unix (although Unix-like) OS.
But all this talk about "commercial Unix" is nonsense anyway. Things are what they are, and applying daft labels to things doesn't make them any more or less significant.
If the criminals can get on board with using autonomous robots to commit crimes, we won't need to get involved at all!
You know when you put it like that, it really hits home just how universal people are.
You could have been talking about red necks. Country folk are country folk the world over...
They've already learned that lesson.
"Buy our new game, only $80! You can install it three whole times, on any computer you want!"
Ha, say what you like about Microsoft- they're survivors.
They've never had the best software, they've never had had the most corporate friends, the law isn't even on their side, but by god they know how to stay on top.
They've caught on that Free Software is kicking their rear all over the development and server-side scene. When in Rome?
Alternatively, they may know that the obfuscation won't work, but may not care.
As an advertising-driven service, all they care about are site hits and views. It's not really in their interest to limit their service in any way, and not in their interest to bolster DVD sales.
Their content providers, however, care lots about piracy. They're probably laying on the pressure to make the Hulu boys tougher on piracy. And as noted, they're probably all advertising graduates.
By doing this, Hulu might just be doing something to appease the content providers ("hey look, we've done all these clever things to stop piracy!"), but not actually give two hoots as to whether it actually works.
"Evolution" is the name for things adapting to survive.
We would be pretty unnatural if, as a species, we all let ourselves get wiped out. It's our evolutionary imperative to do our damnedest to not die. If that means trying to change our environment to keep us alive, that's what we should be doing.
No-one said that "natural" had to mean "surrender ourselves to random chance and do nothing to help ourselves". That kind of thinking is for religious people and pandas.
What about, oh I don't know, the entirety of the mainstream software industry? Every major proprietary developer? Every company and individual that has ever looked at the (generally cost-free) open source software and yet decided to go with something else? They're all critics you know, and they're all the people Linux (et al) are working very hard to try to impress.
And there are internal critics too- just look at the so-called "distribution wars". Every time a new distro starts, it is generally as a response to something that the developers believe is being done wrong. Take Ubuntu- originally it was launched to take the tech of Debian and put it in a professional development environment (specifically, regular releases more than once every 3 years). Take also KDE/GNOME/XFCE/etc. All of them are constantly competing on their respective merits, and all of their adherents are constantly criticizing the rivals.
Criticism is there if you look for it. It just doesn't have as many critics as Windows, due entirely to the fact that it isn't quite so mind numbingly awful.
I'm viewing every story for the next week as a potential April Fools.
All the same, this one is pretty convincing. It seems no more ridiculous than the world's biggest banks squandering billions on high risk ventures, their executives becoming super-rich in the process, and then being dished out billions by the tax payer with little hope of repayment.
Yeah, I wish it could be April Fools all year.
I've brewed with bakers yeast before. It makes a drinkable, if fizzy, pint.
Unrelated aside: Which is the last English-speaking country to experience midnight on 1st April? When does that happen?