How many CD burners do you know that operate at 18x write speed on ATAPI? As I understand it (I could be wrong, I know) a CD burner - and by extension a DVD burner - needs its data to come at a steady rate. Get too far behind with data, and you've toasted the CD/DVD.
I don't think that 2770 KB/s is more than ATAPI can handle - I'm questioning that it can sustain that rate for long enough to fill a 4.6 GB DVD-ROM (it's roughly 28 minutes, if my calculations are correct).
Let's not forget that the situation is different if the data stream comes from an ATAPI device too. Last time I checked, ATAPI requires that the data pass the system bus from device to device, in reality doubling the required bandwidth for operation. It has to to with the one-command-per-ATAPI-bus restriction, if memory serves me (anyone got the full story on this?). SCSI does not suffer the same constraint, and you should be able to stream data directly from the disk to the burner with no intervention from the system bus.
From where I stand, it looks like the people of the United States of America are first and foremost showing that they're mindless enough to vote for politicians who are sueing (sp?) anyone they can possibly get to sue in order to win office. And that it seems to have degraded into a shouting contest. I win! I Win I WIN! *I* WIN!!! Reminds me of the pre-school my son just joined...
Are those the rules you're referring to? I think your founding fathers would have a slightly different view of how the rules should work...
I think this product is aimed at Windows users. Other posters have commented that personal firewall software for that particular platform leaves a lot to be desired. Since the average web surfer uses Windows and is likely to be clueless about setting up a 486 or similar as firewall using Linux, this could be a good choice for the average user. Not for the/. crowd, who's more likely to have made a cool solution like yours. But the number of average users is way larger than the number of/.'ers, so from a marketing point of view, I think this makes perfect sense. An average Windows user has just one machine, hooked up to AOL (or something) for internet access, so there is no need for this device to be useful on a LAN.
If it really is meant to be a proper firewall, it should be possible to update its firmware on a regular basis. New attack methods require new defenses. I wasn't able to get onto their apparently slashdotted site, but without such an option it is IMNSHO worse that useless - it gives a false sense of security, far worse than a true sense of insecurity.
I think this product is aimed at Windows users. Other posters have commented that personal firewall software for that particular platform leaves a lot to be desired. Since the average web surfer uses Windows and is likely to be clueless about setting up a 486 or similar as firewall using Linux, this could be a good choice for the average user. Not for the/. crowd, who's more likely to have made a cool solution like yours. But the number of average users is way larger than the number of/.'ers, so from a marketing point of view, I think this makes perfect sense.
I live in Denmark and we've been metric for almost a century. That doesn't mean that inches, dozens, pounds etc. have gone out of use, but the ones less easily converted to metric have been 'metricized'. That is, an inch is exactly 2.50 cm, a pound is 500 grams exactly. Not sure if a foot is now officially 30 cm, but I think so. While everything is officially measured in metrics, some things are traditionally not. Newborn babies have their weight measured in pounds more often than not. So my infant daughter was 4100 grams, but the preferred measure was 8 pounds - not just by oldtimers. Most folding rulers (not sure if that's the correct english term) have centimeters on one side and inches on the other. Quite fittingly, they're called "inchsticks" (direct translation). Lumber for construction is not 100x100 mm or 63x125 mm, it's a 4x4 or 2,5x5.
So go ahead and make metric the official measure, and rest assured that most of the non-metric measurements will live happily everafter.
One of my co-workers is a Novell Netware expert, and the number (and shelvespace) of the manuals for that product is truly awesome. We're talking 3 or 4 entire METERS (yes, I'm metric - I'm also european:-) of paper. You wouldn't as much hit them with as you would make the entire shelve fall on their heads...
...I'm just a little bitter that everyone thinks WYSIWYG is the best solution to every problem.
Maybe it's because almost everybody is more interested in form that content - the recent (current?) US presidential elections are a good point in case...
Apart from being the last of the Standard Model particles to be discovered, it is also (via the so-called) Higgs Mechanism responsible for the generation of mass (my emphasis).
Does that mean that the anti-Higgs (if such a thing is supposed to exist) can be labeled an "anti-obesity drug":-)
You make some good points, that I totally agree with. But I've got a few comments...
So your web page should look exactly the same on my 24 bit 1280x1024 19in display as it does on a small black-and-white LCD display on a cell phone?! Since when did a cell-phone become a major browser? Of course a web-page works better on a cell phone if it's adaptable but seriously, how much marketshare does cell phones have (as browsers) today? Next to nothing. So in the mind of Average Contentprovider Inc. they become a non-issue. Same thing with most other non-major browsers. Short-sighted as hell, but there you have it - if cutting a few corners will save you development time (real or perceived), most providers will happily forego expanding their market by.5% if the same amount of money is expected to increase their standing in the 90% market they're focusing on.
Is that useful behavior?
No - it's economical behavior. Cost-benefit and market analysis drives these decisions, not some idea of what is "useful behavior". Don't get me wrong - whenever I get the chance, I try to make things as adaptable and flexible as possible. It's just not in high demand.
A note regarding cell-phones: Have you ever tried designing stuff to run off both a browser and a cell-phone? You need to fundamentally redesign for both to work. A web-page simply cannot be squeezed onto a 100x40 display, no matter what you do. A page designed for 100x40 will be all but invisible at 1280x1024. Quite frankly, I don't see HTML as a terribly good way to make pages for cell-phones. WML maybe, but WAP is dying even here in Europe. Ironically, on a small device you need much more control over the individual pixels, because you've got so few of them - it's NOT irrelevant if some checkbox is 8 or 12 pixels high, if the latter choice means that your bottom checkbox needs scrolling (people generally hate that). I know that the cell-phone should adapt whatever design I make to it's visual capabilities (just like other browsers), but that's SOOO much harder on the smaller screens - you don't have that many free variables.
The web is no longer a realm primarily for hobbyists and education, it's primarily a marketplace. So decisions start being taken on that premise...
You've misunderstood me - I'm not using tables for visual formatting. I was trying to make plain ol' tables look the same on different browsers some time back (IE3/4 and NN3, to be precise), and it was HORRIBLE. I agree that visual formatting using tables should go the way of the dinosaur, but when faced with "Why doesn't it look the same in my Netscape?", and having tried to explain about different interpretations of standards, different standards, different products, content vs. visual markup, not one customer have given a damn. That could be me explaining things the wrong way, I'm sure, but most other web developers I talk to or hear about are faced with the exact same demands - make it look the same, and use HTML only!
Oh please - I know that HTML was originally about content markup, but those days are long gone. Why do you think XML is so hot? Because XML, unlike HTML, is about content markup, and content markup ONLY. HTML has content markup elements, but lots of visual markup elements too - it's a complete mess! An example - <B> and <I> are far more widespread than , say, <EMP>, but the two former are visual markup elements, whereas the latter is content markup. Superscript, subscript, textflow and above all: <FONT>. These are quick examples, all from the HTML 3.2 specs and shows thats even back then the idea of content markup was long gone. Browser providers are to blame for sure, but that's completely irrelevant.
The bottom line is: Users and content providers want pages to look the same in all major browsers, and don't want to use plug-ins. Simple as that. You may like it or not, but that's how the world works.
BTW, I know that the vagueness is deliberate, but that doesn't make it any better for me when I'm faced with the task of making a page look the same on several browsers - it's more like a slap in my face...
Might I suggest that some (although not all that much) of the blame actually rests with the standards? Some of them are too vague on what the different elements should look like, leaving the developers to interpret the standard as they see fit. There's such a things as over-specifying, I know, but for now I think that they should be stricter. This does not help make IExplore/Netscape/Mozilla or any other browser standards-compliant, but it will make the standards they all claim to follow easier to work with. Why is it necessary for me to spend time on tweaking tables so as to make them look the same on Netscape 4.x and IExplore 5.x? Tables have been around for a LONG time in HTML, and both claim to comply with the HTML standards. But tables can look very different in the two browsers - ARGH! And don't even get me started on CSS...
Maybe we should go with XHTML, and then use XSLT to transform from standards-compliant XHTML to browser specific (X/D)HTML. Hey, HTML drivers:-)
Go ahead and suggest - I'll agree with you totally, and blatantly ignore you. Come on, get a grip on reality - fully standards-compliant browsers have 0% market share, and standard-compliant pages look and feel like crap in most browsers. If I make pages that look like crap in most browsers, I'll be out of business faster than you can spell "standards compliant". So what if future will prove me right? I need to feed my family NOW!
I know *EXACTLY* how that feels. Might I suggest that you start out writing it for Netscape, and then modify it for IExplore later? That has actually reduced development time for me on a regular basis. It's never worse, but sometimes better.
What did you expect? I've been a web developer since ancient history (1996), and I've been plagued by such incredibly bad products as pre-version 3.0 browsers of Netscape and IExplore. Invariably, the Netscape ones were the least standards compliant (although IE2 was truly horrible), and given Microsoft's track history of bad standards compliance, that's a major accomplishment. It was not always the lesser browser product (as it unfortunately is now), but in terms of standards compliance they always sucked. This just continues that trend.
This does not mean that IExplore is very compliant, but it is more so that Netscape. I'll not dive into the Mozilla vs. Netscape issue - others already dealt with that better than I can. But my hopes for Mozilla are not as high as they used to be, since they've all but bloated their way into uselessness. In some areas, noticeably CSS 2, Mozilla M18 is the best I've seen so far and the DOM compliance is about as good as it gets (IExplore is not very far off the mark either - it usually takes limited effort to go from Mozilla to IExplore browser code, and the differences are really minor).
May I make a suggestion? The issue is not really whether IExplore is better than Netscape or Mozilla or whatever. The issue is which browser is better on a *specific platform*. For Win32/W2K usage, nothing beats IExplore. Period. For Unices of different flavors, the battlefield is much more level, and my inclination is towards Mozilla, as much out of hope for REAL standards compliance in a small package as for any concrete "improvements" we've seen (skin browsers anyone? The least useful thing I've seen for a browser in a LONG time).
I have always hoped that I could get Mozilla as a shared library (OK, maybe a couple of them), and that I could simply use Mozilla as a component in my own software. I can do that SOOO easily with Win32 and IExplore, and it rocks! No GUI, no mail/news/skin/blabla support, just a shared library with a totally cool HTML (and related technologies) renderer. Someone with the time to do that - please? I might have done it myself, were it not for the fact that other projects currently take up all my spare time. More than it should, in fact...
Distance is what causes the delay - someone already did the calculations, and the signals take roughly a quarter of a second to travel between the satellite and Earth twice, even at lightspeed (72000 km roundtrip @ 300000 km/s takes approx. 250 ms).
They should definately be able to work more on the remaining 150 ms, but it's probably a case for the law of diminishing returns - it's too expensive and not worthwhile to get rid of some of the 150 ms, when the lightspeed-induced 250 ms is like a constant of nature. I mean, does 325 ms sell all that much better than 400 ms, if it increases the price of the service?
Not to be nit-picking, but that's not losing water, that's redistribution of water.
There IS a difference between losing it to outer space and having it move into the crust (which situation is more easily reversed?) Having not seen any of the evidence, I cannot comment on it, but I guess that some form of balance has been achieved in this respect - you can not continue to fill the crust with water without some of it spilling out again, so just like some chemical reaction an equilibrium should be reached.
Anyway, it's an interesting (and sort of scary) thought that water goes into the crust and stays there. Maybe that explains the excessive moisture in my basement:-)
Most of the meteors and other small celestial bodies that constantly shower (pun intended:-) the Earth, contain a sizeable quantity of water. I have no idea if it balances out with the loss or not, but since we're neither drying out nor drowning I guess we're pretty much breaking even.
Do you seriously think that monopoly == rich? Just because Microsoft managed to get rich by being a monopoly doesn't mean that all monopolies are wealthy. My experience with monopolies is that they usually become fat, indulgent black holes that suck up all the (government) money you can throw at them, because they're not forced to innovate or improve in any way.
Take away their subsidy, split them up into Amtrak Tracks Inc. (who owns the tracks and leases them to whoever wants to use them) and Amtrak Trains Inc., who leases tracks on the same terms as everybody else. Then you'll see them either improve or go away forever. But who cares? If they can't compete, let them go bankrupt - there'll be others to fill their slot.
Your argument that there's no market for rail transport since Amtrak isn't making money is not true - they're not making money because they're a government subsidized monopoly, and that combination will not make money even if shit turned into gold.
Anyone remember the Marathon Lambda? It had (as I recall it) the same specs, but was in a somewhat different case. Was it, in fact, just a ZX81 in disguise?
2 Kb RAM and BASIC only on a 40x20 display - I still remember how proud I was when I finished a racing game on it at age 13. Man, that makes me feel old:-)
You never hear about the stupid tech who dropped out of college and is now working at McDonalds, because the fact that he's working at McDonalds removes him from the tech industry.
I'm sorry, but how are drop-outs working at McDonalds pertinent to a discussion about the merits of higher education? Do they reflect on the quality of having a degree, seeing how they don't have one?
of 24 yr olds with 15 yrs experience in a technology 3 yrs old & willing to move 3,000 miles away to work 90hrs/week to earn 67K @ a company with a 50-50 chance of being in business in 6 months! The truth is, is that as soon as they understand you're over 30 they start to cough and mumble about "well this probably isn't a real good fit for you...".
When they do that, you can almost rest assured that they will NOT be in business in 6 or 12 months. Can't think of a better sign of something very wrong in any company than automatically assuming that youth implies quality. Don't work there even if you are 24 years old...
It's not about skills or availability. It's about power and control.
Right on - that's also the reason why they want 24 year olds. With less experience with the real world you're likely to put up with more crap from the company, and not be as likely to be thinking about work-interfering stuff like spouses, children etc. You know - "having an adult life" stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
How many CD burners do you know that operate at 18x write speed on ATAPI? As I understand it (I could be wrong, I know) a CD burner - and by extension a DVD burner - needs its data to come at a steady rate. Get too far behind with data, and you've toasted the CD/DVD.
I don't think that 2770 KB/s is more than ATAPI can handle - I'm questioning that it can sustain that rate for long enough to fill a 4.6 GB DVD-ROM (it's roughly 28 minutes, if my calculations are correct).
Let's not forget that the situation is different if the data stream comes from an ATAPI device too. Last time I checked, ATAPI requires that the data pass the system bus from device to device, in reality doubling the required bandwidth for operation. It has to to with the one-command-per-ATAPI-bus restriction, if memory serves me (anyone got the full story on this?). SCSI does not suffer the same constraint, and you should be able to stream data directly from the disk to the burner with no intervention from the system bus.
All those goodies, and not a SCSI interface? What's Pioneer been smoking? Can ATAPI keep it rolling at 2xDVD write speed?
Cool drive, though
From where I stand, it looks like the people of the United States of America are first and foremost showing that they're mindless enough to vote for politicians who are sueing (sp?) anyone they can possibly get to sue in order to win office. And that it seems to have degraded into a shouting contest. I win! I Win I WIN! *I* WIN!!! Reminds me of the pre-school my son just joined...
Are those the rules you're referring to? I think your founding fathers would have a slightly different view of how the rules should work...
What "large portion" are you referring to?
I think this product is aimed at Windows users. Other posters have commented that personal firewall software for that particular platform leaves a lot to be desired. Since the average web surfer uses Windows and is likely to be clueless about setting up a 486 or similar as firewall using Linux, this could be a good choice for the average user. Not for the /. crowd, who's more likely to have made a cool solution like yours. But the number of average users is way larger than the number of /.'ers, so from a marketing point of view, I think this makes perfect sense. An average Windows user has just one machine, hooked up to AOL (or something) for internet access, so there is no need for this device to be useful on a LAN.
If it really is meant to be a proper firewall, it should be possible to update its firmware on a regular basis. New attack methods require new defenses. I wasn't able to get onto their apparently slashdotted site, but without such an option it is IMNSHO worse that useless - it gives a false sense of security, far worse than a true sense of insecurity.
I think this product is aimed at Windows users. Other posters have commented that personal firewall software for that particular platform leaves a lot to be desired. Since the average web surfer uses Windows and is likely to be clueless about setting up a 486 or similar as firewall using Linux, this could be a good choice for the average user. Not for the /. crowd, who's more likely to have made a cool solution like yours. But the number of average users is way larger than the number of /.'ers, so from a marketing point of view, I think this makes perfect sense.
I live in Denmark and we've been metric for almost a century. That doesn't mean that inches, dozens, pounds etc. have gone out of use, but the ones less easily converted to metric have been 'metricized'. That is, an inch is exactly 2.50 cm, a pound is 500 grams exactly. Not sure if a foot is now officially 30 cm, but I think so. While everything is officially measured in metrics, some things are traditionally not. Newborn babies have their weight measured in pounds more often than not. So my infant daughter was 4100 grams, but the preferred measure was 8 pounds - not just by oldtimers. Most folding rulers (not sure if that's the correct english term) have centimeters on one side and inches on the other. Quite fittingly, they're called "inchsticks" (direct translation). Lumber for construction is not 100x100 mm or 63x125 mm, it's a 4x4 or 2,5x5.
So go ahead and make metric the official measure, and rest assured that most of the non-metric measurements will live happily everafter.
One of my co-workers is a Novell Netware expert, and the number (and shelvespace) of the manuals for that product is truly awesome. We're talking 3 or 4 entire METERS (yes, I'm metric - I'm also european :-) of paper.
You wouldn't as much hit them with as you would make the entire shelve fall on their heads...
Maybe it's because almost everybody is more interested in form that content - the recent (current?) US presidential elections are a good point in case...
Apart from being the last of the Standard Model particles to be discovered, it is also (via the so-called) Higgs Mechanism responsible for the generation of mass (my emphasis).
Does that mean that the anti-Higgs (if such a thing is supposed to exist) can be labeled an "anti-obesity drug" :-)
You make some good points, that I totally agree with. But I've got a few comments...
So your web page should look exactly the same on my 24 bit 1280x1024 19in display as it does on a small black-and-white LCD display on a cell phone?! .5% if the same amount of money is expected to increase their standing in the 90% market they're focusing on.
Since when did a cell-phone become a major browser? Of course a web-page works better on a cell phone if it's adaptable but seriously, how much marketshare does cell phones have (as browsers) today? Next to nothing. So in the mind of Average Contentprovider Inc. they become a non-issue. Same thing with most other non-major browsers. Short-sighted as hell, but there you have it - if cutting a few corners will save you development time (real or perceived), most providers will happily forego expanding their market by
Is that useful behavior?
No - it's economical behavior. Cost-benefit and market analysis drives these decisions, not some idea of what is "useful behavior". Don't get me wrong - whenever I get the chance, I try to make things as adaptable and flexible as possible. It's just not in high demand.
A note regarding cell-phones: Have you ever tried designing stuff to run off both a browser and a cell-phone? You need to fundamentally redesign for both to work. A web-page simply cannot be squeezed onto a 100x40 display, no matter what you do. A page designed for 100x40 will be all but invisible at 1280x1024. Quite frankly, I don't see HTML as a terribly good way to make pages for cell-phones. WML maybe, but WAP is dying even here in Europe. Ironically, on a small device you need much more control over the individual pixels, because you've got so few of them - it's NOT irrelevant if some checkbox is 8 or 12 pixels high, if the latter choice means that your bottom checkbox needs scrolling (people generally hate that). I know that the cell-phone should adapt whatever design I make to it's visual capabilities (just like other browsers), but that's SOOO much harder on the smaller screens - you don't have that many free variables.
The web is no longer a realm primarily for hobbyists and education, it's primarily a marketplace. So decisions start being taken on that premise...
You've misunderstood me - I'm not using tables for visual formatting. I was trying to make plain ol' tables look the same on different browsers some time back (IE3/4 and NN3, to be precise), and it was HORRIBLE. I agree that visual formatting using tables should go the way of the dinosaur, but when faced with "Why doesn't it look the same in my Netscape?", and having tried to explain about different interpretations of standards, different standards, different products, content vs. visual markup, not one customer have given a damn. That could be me explaining things the wrong way, I'm sure, but most other web developers I talk to or hear about are faced with the exact same demands - make it look the same, and use HTML only!
Oh please - I know that HTML was originally about content markup, but those days are long gone. Why do you think XML is so hot? Because XML, unlike HTML, is about content markup, and content markup ONLY. HTML has content markup elements, but lots of visual markup elements too - it's a complete mess! An example - <B> and <I> are far more widespread than , say, <EMP>, but the two former are visual markup elements, whereas the latter is content markup. Superscript, subscript, textflow and above all: <FONT>. These are quick examples, all from the HTML 3.2 specs and shows thats even back then the idea of content markup was long gone. Browser providers are to blame for sure, but that's completely irrelevant.
The bottom line is: Users and content providers want pages to look the same in all major browsers, and don't want to use plug-ins. Simple as that. You may like it or not, but that's how the world works.
BTW, I know that the vagueness is deliberate, but that doesn't make it any better for me when I'm faced with the task of making a page look the same on several browsers - it's more like a slap in my face...
Amen brother!
Might I suggest that some (although not all that much) of the blame actually rests with the standards? Some of them are too vague on what the different elements should look like, leaving the developers to interpret the standard as they see fit. There's such a things as over-specifying, I know, but for now I think that they should be stricter. This does not help make IExplore/Netscape/Mozilla or any other browser standards-compliant, but it will make the standards they all claim to follow easier to work with. Why is it necessary for me to spend time on tweaking tables so as to make them look the same on Netscape 4.x and IExplore 5.x? Tables have been around for a LONG time in HTML, and both claim to comply with the HTML standards. But tables can look very different in the two browsers - ARGH! And don't even get me started on CSS...
Maybe we should go with XHTML, and then use XSLT to transform from standards-compliant XHTML to browser specific (X/D)HTML. Hey, HTML drivers :-)
Go ahead and suggest - I'll agree with you totally, and blatantly ignore you. Come on, get a grip on reality - fully standards-compliant browsers have 0% market share, and standard-compliant pages look and feel like crap in most browsers. If I make pages that look like crap in most browsers, I'll be out of business faster than you can spell "standards compliant". So what if future will prove me right? I need to feed my family NOW!
I know *EXACTLY* how that feels. Might I suggest that you start out writing it for Netscape, and then modify it for IExplore later? That has actually reduced development time for me on a regular basis. It's never worse, but sometimes better.
What did you expect? I've been a web developer since ancient history (1996), and I've been plagued by such incredibly bad products as pre-version 3.0 browsers of Netscape and IExplore. Invariably, the Netscape ones were the least standards compliant (although IE2 was truly horrible), and given Microsoft's track history of bad standards compliance, that's a major accomplishment. It was not always the lesser browser product (as it unfortunately is now), but in terms of standards compliance they always sucked. This just continues that trend.
This does not mean that IExplore is very compliant, but it is more so that Netscape. I'll not dive into the Mozilla vs. Netscape issue - others already dealt with that better than I can. But my hopes for Mozilla are not as high as they used to be, since they've all but bloated their way into uselessness. In some areas, noticeably CSS 2, Mozilla M18 is the best I've seen so far and the DOM compliance is about as good as it gets (IExplore is not very far off the mark either - it usually takes limited effort to go from Mozilla to IExplore browser code, and the differences are really minor).
May I make a suggestion? The issue is not really whether IExplore is better than Netscape or Mozilla or whatever. The issue is which browser is better on a *specific platform*. For Win32/W2K usage, nothing beats IExplore. Period. For Unices of different flavors, the battlefield is much more level, and my inclination is towards Mozilla, as much out of hope for REAL standards compliance in a small package as for any concrete "improvements" we've seen (skin browsers anyone? The least useful thing I've seen for a browser in a LONG time).
I have always hoped that I could get Mozilla as a shared library (OK, maybe a couple of them), and that I could simply use Mozilla as a component in my own software. I can do that SOOO easily with Win32 and IExplore, and it rocks! No GUI, no mail/news/skin/blabla support, just a shared library with a totally cool HTML (and related technologies) renderer. Someone with the time to do that - please? I might have done it myself, were it not for the fact that other projects currently take up all my spare time. More than it should, in fact...
Distance is what causes the delay - someone already did the calculations, and the signals take roughly a quarter of a second to travel between the satellite and Earth twice, even at lightspeed (72000 km roundtrip @ 300000 km/s takes approx. 250 ms).
They should definately be able to work more on the remaining 150 ms, but it's probably a case for the law of diminishing returns - it's too expensive and not worthwhile to get rid of some of the 150 ms, when the lightspeed-induced 250 ms is like a constant of nature. I mean, does 325 ms sell all that much better than 400 ms, if it increases the price of the service?
Not to be nit-picking, but that's not losing water, that's redistribution of water.
There IS a difference between losing it to outer space and having it move into the crust (which situation is more easily reversed?) Having not seen any of the evidence, I cannot comment on it, but I guess that some form of balance has been achieved in this respect - you can not continue to fill the crust with water without some of it spilling out again, so just like some chemical reaction an equilibrium should be reached.
Anyway, it's an interesting (and sort of scary) thought that water goes into the crust and stays there. Maybe that explains the excessive moisture in my basement :-)
Most of the meteors and other small celestial bodies that constantly shower (pun intended :-) the Earth, contain a sizeable quantity of water. I have no idea if it balances out with the loss or not, but since we're neither drying out nor drowning I guess we're pretty much breaking even.
Do you seriously think that monopoly == rich? Just because Microsoft managed to get rich by being a monopoly doesn't mean that all monopolies are wealthy. My experience with monopolies is that they usually become fat, indulgent black holes that suck up all the (government) money you can throw at them, because they're not forced to innovate or improve in any way.
Take away their subsidy, split them up into Amtrak Tracks Inc. (who owns the tracks and leases them to whoever wants to use them) and Amtrak Trains Inc., who leases tracks on the same terms as everybody else. Then you'll see them either improve or go away forever. But who cares? If they can't compete, let them go bankrupt - there'll be others to fill their slot.
Your argument that there's no market for rail transport since Amtrak isn't making money is not true - they're not making money because they're a government subsidized monopoly, and that combination will not make money even if shit turned into gold.
Penguins are sort of inherently chubby... something to do with blubber or something like hat
Was "has" an intentional typo, referring to a somewhat popular distro? <grin>
Anyone remember the Marathon Lambda? It had (as I recall it) the same specs, but was in a somewhat different case. Was it, in fact, just a ZX81 in disguise?
2 Kb RAM and BASIC only on a 40x20 display - I still remember how proud I was when I finished a racing game on it at age 13. Man, that makes me feel old :-)
You never hear about the stupid tech who dropped out of college and is now working at McDonalds, because the fact that he's working at McDonalds removes him from the tech industry.
I'm sorry, but how are drop-outs working at McDonalds pertinent to a discussion about the merits of higher education? Do they reflect on the quality of having a degree, seeing how they don't have one?
of 24 yr olds with 15 yrs experience in a technology 3 yrs old & willing to move 3,000 miles away to work 90hrs/week to earn 67K @ a company with a 50-50 chance of being in business in 6 months! The truth is, is that as soon as they understand you're over 30 they start to cough and mumble about "well this probably isn't a real good fit for you...".
When they do that, you can almost rest assured that they will NOT be in business in 6 or 12 months. Can't think of a better sign of something very wrong in any company than automatically assuming that youth implies quality. Don't work there even if you are 24 years old...
It's not about skills or availability. It's about power and control.
Right on - that's also the reason why they want 24 year olds. With less experience with the real world you're likely to put up with more crap from the company, and not be as likely to be thinking about work-interfering stuff like spouses, children etc. You know - "having an adult life" stuff.