Sometimes it is harder to get an OEM computer to use AMD (like apple) but according to AMD's website: Powering ultrathin notebooks to blade servers, all AMD processors shipped are designed to use AMD-V features. Where as Intel has been a little less free and more cumbersome. For instance most Atom processors by Intel do not support virtualization but all shipping AMD (and it has been a while) do. Also computer models such as the sony viao (undercapitalized for a reason) use the "feature" provided by Intel to disallow virtualization through the BIOS, meaning that you have to turn in on before booting. Along with other technology that AMD has developed makes you wonder why Intel is so dominant in the space. So for an informed geek, switching to AMD was already a good move, if only the manufacturers would follow.
Personally, although it takes a lot of time, I like to review my compiler's source before it compiles a program, including that of the source of the compiler compiling the compiler from source. In the post 9/11 world, I believe that inspecting the Lex and YACC source is the only way that we can prevent al-Qaida from constructing compiler-compilers that will be free of textual images of the prophet Muhammad. In the spirit of the World Wide Web, I will provide you with the threat as a link, and leave you to decide whether this is really silly paranoia
No, no no. You have it all wrong. It is all about security. The computers will be given to a local, Russian Business Organization specializing in the protection of PC's from spyware and viruses. Once the computers are cleaned of harmful information^h^h^h^h^h^h I mean viruses, they will be returned back to the original owners. The entire process is transparent, and this Business Organization truly out for the small guy here, will not even reveal their secrets, lest they be used by someone with more nefarious intention against them. They are like the "Green Hornet" of the Internet and are not truly recognized for this service that they provide.
"crime prevention": "I see you were about to commit a crime there Mr. Singh, may I have your unique id number so that I may arrest you as a preventative measure". I am not aware of the safeguards that have been put in place. Is it true that no one will have low level access to the database ala Plan 9? Will corruption be made more difficult, but more damaging if achieved? Can you help me answer these questions such as an official website that describes how it will be implemented. Just saying...
And...Bing maps in 3D i.e. Street View doesn't work except in Safari and I doubt it works in Firefox either: "See Help" for a list of supported browsers...just another reason not to use Bing maps. So I am sorry I didn't get to see your example even if it is true or not:
This is also why a UID is scary. Imagine a future when resources are scarcer such as in a war. An identity like this would be used to ration goods. That is the positive side when money doesn't mean anything. But there could also be potential drawbacks in the same situation, and huge ones. Suppose someone somewhere doesn't like you and they have access to *deny* you goods and services and this is possible that it could be a large overbearing institution like the government or a large corporation. Right now we can get away from this because we use money, and everybody wants more of it so it is unlikely that someone will refuse a service because they can gain financially from it. So no problem if you can get some money then you can live comfortably. But if the value of money is scarce such as with hyperinflation (tick,tick,tick...) people without a uid could be refused service. Simply because a computer database has determined that they: used up their allotment, or they are on some sort of watch list, and all of these conditions must be met before they receive any goods. People without the id could not be issued service from the entity because they are not in the database: The problem exist when the database owner/maintainer relates to the entity that is giving out the service and not an abstraction like money. Kinda reminds me of an old Twilight Zone episode where a guy is punished for a crime and then has a mark put on his forehead. He is then an outcast of society and nobody can even speak to him because there are drones monitoring everything. He goes to the hospital and then a nurse asks him to remove his hat. Only if he doesn't have the mark will he be allowed service. He shows his mark and he is turned away.The uid is the same thing as the "mark" but in this fictional case it is measured by presence of it and not the absence. i.e. the absence is also a mark. One wonders how in the future one could survive without the uid...without the help of society and the burdens.
No it doesn't but...you see, with the fall of Tiger Woods, America has lost it's competitive edge. I bet it has a great golf course that will attract only the best players. Jonny and Jane will be well rounded in physical activity and they will learn from the pro's too! They will learn about arc's, acceleration, kinetic energy, momentum, transfer of weight, rotation and they will discover which handedness is more suited to them. Now if only there was a real project that could teach them all of these things without having to go the golf course, but hey, nothing is better than practical, hands-on education. [/sarcasm]
Sounds like false logic to me about the registration of an editor in chief. i.e. (A => B) does not imply (not A => not B). In this case A = "a website registers with the public authorities and can prove it has an editor-in-chief" and B = "it can also be protected under the law". There could be many other reasons why Wikileaks can be protected under Swedish law. Furthermore, if there is no law against it, then it is legal, could be another reason why Wikileaks _may_ not be in trouble as the summary implies. Hopefully people do not automatically assume that wikileaks is in trouble so then when it really is, people say that it was doomed all along. Give peace a chance. (Doing the reverse here to promote Wikileaks)
Which is worse / more distortion? Giving the money to oil companies as subsidies so they can continue to depend on their main source of revenue like Microsoft depends on Office and Windows? Or giving money to the government to build the critical infrastructure that will enable an electric future at the periphery? Since when did companies in general use their own funds to provide for roads, bridges, etc that all oil guzzling car owners use and would be useless to them without? We the people need some way of building an electric future and so far government hasn't been very good in stepping away from the oil industry, but if you decide to put someone in there that does, well you have that choice, right? Besides, economy is all about deciding where to invest out money given the problem of scarcity. Having some shareholder sit on it means it is being invested somewhere else, perhaps not even in energy, maybe a derivative, so it is up to government: strengthen the rules that govern corporations/ charge tax for once, or if it is found or is generally known that the unfree market that we have doesn't work to produce / expose needed results, then shift the reward to some outfit that is capable of doing it. Even if the wealthy are being subsidized, it still means that more of your money, in addition, is going to Telsa, Chevy, Nissan who have invested the money you gave them by buying previous products. Think of it as a corporate cookie for doing a good job and as an example to others for bringing in a future that has been decided with good leadership. The "liberals" didn't get paid to drive that car, we subsidized the company in question so that we can have a future in which it is possible for others to buy a similar car.
...will the invention of the train use up all the coal supply? Another question: will the invention of the car use up all the world's oil supply? Which is more plentiful: oil or solar (which causes wind)?
....that the reason America made (past tense) great movies was because of it's culture. America had true heros and the free and competitive nature of American life, both at home and abroad, was the basis for it's revenue and productive success. There was such a thing as an American hero, and Americans enriched the lives of those outside of its boundaries. America helped rebuild Europe and Japan, and was a key figure in preventing the spread of communism, or otherwise promoting the free market system. Spy stories, WWII stories, stories about the future and technology are some of my favourites. However, nowadays, America produces what besides the film industry/ recording industry? Sure they design iPods, but if there is nobody getting wages paid for them in America, all of the dollars are eventually going overseas. So now, what does it do? America needs vast reform, both in energy (re: wasted resources allocation to fund big multinationals), and in industry too. So instead of producing a movie about the positive and interesting work America has done, The Hurt Locker (which maybe accurately represents modern American life) won some awards which was good for the American side of things, while completely leaving out how others felt (Avatar), which showed an alternative side as to how minerals (re oil) were being used in a conflict against indigenous people's.) Perhaps the US should stick to writing films about well...producing movies and the copyright struggle in America. It would be true, and that is what I feel lacks from most of the movies today: they are based on odd tales. I am sure if they presented a balanced view, in a movie about America (which was successful in the past), even I might start going to the theatres again, and people might start to begin to see what is wrong with America today.
Could only garner some of the connections monitored. Assuming there are n people on the net, and that each person is communicating with most other people, and they send m messages from one person to another, isn't the number of transactions to be monitored ~= m*n^2. m would be huge enough not to mention that this only assumes that all the transactions taking place would be on the periphery, what about the connection from each person to another, including every server or node in between. Remember the it is called the www for a reason, the topology of the Internet is like a web. I think the real reason they want to monitor everybody's Internet transactions is so they can have a cache full of porn all to themselves and/or they might want to get off prosecuting people for things that we know they do not do in private, you know just to seem correct/pompous and all.
It is difficult to take a stand on a morally divisive issue. The more people stand up the better. We would all be better off for it. In this case, it is hard to judge when you don't even have the information to make a stand; like when we don't have the documents to show what the government is doing. I sure hope the government doesn't use that "state secrets" excuse, like they did for Area 51 and other cases which seems to be a precedent. Part of me hope Julian will release the information, the other part of me feels that if I were in the same situation: what would I do. Would I want to risk the wrath of the world's most powerful nation militarily to help others to avoid the same fate, or would I release the document in the hopes that enough of us will take a stand before we all get blasted up by some sort of microwave weapon in a protest for free speech. Yeah, I know it sounds grim, but the tools are all there for the people in office, certain classes and corporations interests...
But that is what the government is for. To stop monopolies before they encroach on our rights, provide guidance and direction in the public interest. Who do you trust and who is more bound to the people (not consumer). A vote for one person for every person vs a vote for a shareholder who's only purpose is to derive more money? This is the advantage of government. Must I bring in the need for roads, telecommunications infrastructure etc that we all use but that are immediately not profitable to build for a corporation, especially when another corporation can use those same utilities? Ref: to Europe and Finland and Estonia in particular which have laws for all citizens that Internet access is a right and have developed formulas whereby corporations can provide access to their consumers, which just happen to be the population at large in these countries. Now, is 2/3 penetration a great number after "all the years of investment". I agree with you, the free market is the best way to provide high-quality, affordable service, but what you have in the US is monopolies sitting on their arse, sucking the most money out of their subscribers as possible. Maybe the market should be opened up to allow companies from even other countries to participate in broadband development. The model you speak of requires competition.
Well, it looks like the proud Congressmen and Senators have taken at least one leap: judging by their poor handwriting they appear to have signed the document electronically. The letters are short on details on how they would implement broadband policy. However, this can be understood because this was probably the first time that they have used a computer and finger-pecking a longer document would require too much time to address this important issue in a timely matter:)
Linux has had 4096 block size in the kernel for ages. See this article The issue being, as I recall somebody say, is that fdisk cannot properly do this. So use parted and you will be ok. ext3 and jfs and I suppose xfs and a whole bunch of others support the 4096 block size as well. BTW, who "tackled the XP issue pretty quick"? was it Microsoft or was it the hard drive makers. AFAIK a few hard drive manufacturers are emulating a 512 block size so it is not a complete fix.
And where is the part about a law being "good for the general public" when the punishment to deter a crime is so lopsided when the "crime" being committed is denying a coporation(s) money for something that they have put little investment and capital to gain such unjust awards? Again: How bad is listening to a song/watching a movie that one has not paid for? I feel that our governments are supporting a system of monetary gain which, in the age of the Internet, is largely becoming irrelevant. Besides if the only thing we are producing is paper, songs and movies, which are clearly not the same as physical devices and manufactured goods, what chance do we have competing anyway. For the monetary system we have sure does support those manufactured goods for so long so successfully. What I see it is that this new system is an artificial economy.
IP laws being uniform _required_ for free trade is ridiculous since it is the lowest common denominator of trade: I'll give you a monopoly for x if you give a monopoly for y. How is that free trade? Also your first sentence after the quotation doesn't parse right: "(IP) laws being uniform across a free trade..." What is "a free trade" and what is "required" and how is [it] not the exact opposite of free trade. Another poster got a high mod when he stated that "America produces IP laws , and Costa Rico produces sugar..". How can this be an imbalance? The fact that one is a sheet of paper produced in a meeting of lobbyists, government, law makers and minimal investment (how much do we pay the lawyers) and the other is actually a product of labour, machinery, and an actual "trade" for other goods or money. It seems as though IP laws are just another form of paper, to be passed around like money when nothing else is being produced but still have value like money.
And the arguments that the proponents make towards shutting the experiment down can only be based on Science. Half Science and half superstition or whatever combination since they really don't understand it at all. All this attempt to use language in a creative way to declare whether or not a theory based on numbers, words, observations and symbolic manipulation is crockery at best. I think in order for the the proponents to be successful, they should have to present another theory and maybe build another "experiment" and actually determine for themselves that physically and mathematically we will have huge black holes that will swallow up the planet. But that is what has been already done and they just don't want to listen.
Look at the logic. "That's a gain of two large points in five months." So for significantly large values of 2, x + 2 = 10%. Kinda makes me think that x is strictly less than 8. Another poster mentioned that his website saw anecdotal evidence that bing was making up approx Limiting the ease of using a third party search engine
Getting every little nook and cranny to report that Bing's share is increasing
Yeah there might even be a few trolls telling me how nice it is that Bing's searches are organized so pretty, but who cares when each category the weighed average is dominated by $$$. Sorry fanboys.
Imagine if Google took this approach, but then again we could probably just google it.
Ok, so then persons should be shot who say that "All Sidekick data has been recovered" when the article says that "only a minority of Sidekick users are still affected" which may in fact mean that a sizeable number, say _anywhere_ between 1 and 1 million subscribers are still affected without being specific. Also the article says that Microsoft has, within a few days installed a more reliable backup system. Another poster commented that we should not be critical on Microsoft because they only purchased the company 18 months ago [therefore Microsoft did not have the proper amount of time to rectify the situation] yet the manage to find a solution. _Somehow_ with _some_ people on slashdot, Microsoft always manages to come up with a good defense for their actions even if it is the fact that "My MS software is working ok even though I am a hardcore Linux user" type posts. The meme on slashdot that because this is slashdot we should expect to see anti-MS posts is getting old. Please update your settings because the softies at Microsoft have taken over.
Yeah, what are they talking about. âThe new technology is a lot lighter, nimbler and easier to install,â(TM) make absolutely no sense. My.NET Framework upgrade to 3.0 caused absolutely no problems whatsoever. In fact I use TradElect at home on my.NET platform and it is fast and I am having no problems with it at all!
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes it is harder to get an OEM computer to use AMD (like apple) but according to AMD's website: Powering ultrathin notebooks to blade servers, all AMD processors shipped are designed to use AMD-V features. Where as Intel has been a little less free and more cumbersome. For instance most Atom processors by Intel do not support virtualization but all shipping AMD (and it has been a while) do. Also computer models such as the sony viao (undercapitalized for a reason) use the "feature" provided by Intel to disallow virtualization through the BIOS, meaning that you have to turn in on before booting. Along with other technology that AMD has developed makes you wonder why Intel is so dominant in the space. So for an informed geek, switching to AMD was already a good move, if only the manufacturers would follow.
Personally, although it takes a lot of time, I like to review my compiler's source before it compiles a program, including that of the source of the compiler compiling the compiler from source. In the post 9/11 world, I believe that inspecting the Lex and YACC source is the only way that we can prevent al-Qaida from constructing compiler-compilers that will be free of textual images of the prophet Muhammad. In the spirit of the World Wide Web, I will provide you with the threat as a link, and leave you to decide whether this is really silly paranoia
No, no no. You have it all wrong. It is all about security. The computers will be given to a local, Russian Business Organization specializing in the protection of PC's from spyware and viruses. Once the computers are cleaned of harmful information^h^h^h^h^h^h I mean viruses, they will be returned back to the original owners. The entire process is transparent, and this Business Organization truly out for the small guy here, will not even reveal their secrets, lest they be used by someone with more nefarious intention against them. They are like the "Green Hornet" of the Internet and are not truly recognized for this service that they provide.
"crime prevention": "I see you were about to commit a crime there Mr. Singh, may I have your unique id number so that I may arrest you as a preventative measure". I am not aware of the safeguards that have been put in place. Is it true that no one will have low level access to the database ala Plan 9? Will corruption be made more difficult, but more damaging if achieved? Can you help me answer these questions such as an official website that describes how it will be implemented. Just saying...
And...Bing maps in 3D i.e. Street View doesn't work except in Safari and I doubt it works in Firefox either: "See Help" for a list of supported browsers...just another reason not to use Bing maps. So I am sorry I didn't get to see your example even if it is true or not:
This is also why a UID is scary. Imagine a future when resources are scarcer such as in a war. An identity like this would be used to ration goods. That is the positive side when money doesn't mean anything. But there could also be potential drawbacks in the same situation, and huge ones. Suppose someone somewhere doesn't like you and they have access to *deny* you goods and services and this is possible that it could be a large overbearing institution like the government or a large corporation. Right now we can get away from this because we use money, and everybody wants more of it so it is unlikely that someone will refuse a service because they can gain financially from it. So no problem if you can get some money then you can live comfortably. But if the value of money is scarce such as with hyperinflation (tick,tick,tick...) people without a uid could be refused service. Simply because a computer database has determined that they: used up their allotment, or they are on some sort of watch list, and all of these conditions must be met before they receive any goods. People without the id could not be issued service from the entity because they are not in the database: The problem exist when the database owner/maintainer relates to the entity that is giving out the service and not an abstraction like money. Kinda reminds me of an old Twilight Zone episode where a guy is punished for a crime and then has a mark put on his forehead. He is then an outcast of society and nobody can even speak to him because there are drones monitoring everything. He goes to the hospital and then a nurse asks him to remove his hat. Only if he doesn't have the mark will he be allowed service. He shows his mark and he is turned away.The uid is the same thing as the "mark" but in this fictional case it is measured by presence of it and not the absence. i.e. the absence is also a mark. One wonders how in the future one could survive without the uid...without the help of society and the burdens.
No it doesn't but...you see, with the fall of Tiger Woods, America has lost it's competitive edge. I bet it has a great golf course that will attract only the best players. Jonny and Jane will be well rounded in physical activity and they will learn from the pro's too! They will learn about arc's, acceleration, kinetic energy, momentum, transfer of weight, rotation and they will discover which handedness is more suited to them. Now if only there was a real project that could teach them all of these things without having to go the golf course, but hey, nothing is better than practical, hands-on education. [/sarcasm]
Sounds like false logic to me about the registration of an editor in chief. i.e. (A => B) does not imply (not A => not B). In this case A = "a website registers with the public authorities and can prove it has an editor-in-chief" and B = "it can also be protected under the law". There could be many other reasons why Wikileaks can be protected under Swedish law. Furthermore, if there is no law against it, then it is legal, could be another reason why Wikileaks _may_ not be in trouble as the summary implies. Hopefully people do not automatically assume that wikileaks is in trouble so then when it really is, people say that it was doomed all along. Give peace a chance. (Doing the reverse here to promote Wikileaks)
Which is worse / more distortion? Giving the money to oil companies as subsidies so they can continue to depend on their main source of revenue like Microsoft depends on Office and Windows? Or giving money to the government to build the critical infrastructure that will enable an electric future at the periphery? Since when did companies in general use their own funds to provide for roads, bridges, etc that all oil guzzling car owners use and would be useless to them without? We the people need some way of building an electric future and so far government hasn't been very good in stepping away from the oil industry, but if you decide to put someone in there that does, well you have that choice, right? Besides, economy is all about deciding where to invest out money given the problem of scarcity. Having some shareholder sit on it means it is being invested somewhere else, perhaps not even in energy, maybe a derivative, so it is up to government: strengthen the rules that govern corporations/ charge tax for once, or if it is found or is generally known that the unfree market that we have doesn't work to produce / expose needed results, then shift the reward to some outfit that is capable of doing it. Even if the wealthy are being subsidized, it still means that more of your money, in addition, is going to Telsa, Chevy, Nissan who have invested the money you gave them by buying previous products. Think of it as a corporate cookie for doing a good job and as an example to others for bringing in a future that has been decided with good leadership. The "liberals" didn't get paid to drive that car, we subsidized the company in question so that we can have a future in which it is possible for others to buy a similar car.
...will the invention of the train use up all the coal supply? Another question: will the invention of the car use up all the world's oil supply? Which is more plentiful: oil or solar (which causes wind)?
....that the reason America made (past tense) great movies was because of it's culture. America had true heros and the free and competitive nature of American life, both at home and abroad, was the basis for it's revenue and productive success. There was such a thing as an American hero, and Americans enriched the lives of those outside of its boundaries. America helped rebuild Europe and Japan, and was a key figure in preventing the spread of communism, or otherwise promoting the free market system. Spy stories, WWII stories, stories about the future and technology are some of my favourites. However, nowadays, America produces what besides the film industry/ recording industry? Sure they design iPods, but if there is nobody getting wages paid for them in America, all of the dollars are eventually going overseas. So now, what does it do? America needs vast reform, both in energy (re: wasted resources allocation to fund big multinationals), and in industry too. So instead of producing a movie about the positive and interesting work America has done, The Hurt Locker (which maybe accurately represents modern American life) won some awards which was good for the American side of things, while completely leaving out how others felt (Avatar), which showed an alternative side as to how minerals (re oil) were being used in a conflict against indigenous people's.) Perhaps the US should stick to writing films about well...producing movies and the copyright struggle in America. It would be true, and that is what I feel lacks from most of the movies today: they are based on odd tales. I am sure if they presented a balanced view, in a movie about America (which was successful in the past), even I might start going to the theatres again, and people might start to begin to see what is wrong with America today.
Could only garner some of the connections monitored. Assuming there are n people on the net, and that each person is communicating with most other people, and they send m messages from one person to another, isn't the number of transactions to be monitored ~= m*n^2. m would be huge enough not to mention that this only assumes that all the transactions taking place would be on the periphery, what about the connection from each person to another, including every server or node in between. Remember the it is called the www for a reason, the topology of the Internet is like a web. I think the real reason they want to monitor everybody's Internet transactions is so they can have a cache full of porn all to themselves and/or they might want to get off prosecuting people for things that we know they do not do in private, you know just to seem correct/pompous and all.
burn
It is difficult to take a stand on a morally divisive issue. The more people stand up the better. We would all be better off for it. In this case, it is hard to judge when you don't even have the information to make a stand; like when we don't have the documents to show what the government is doing. I sure hope the government doesn't use that "state secrets" excuse, like they did for Area 51 and other cases which seems to be a precedent. Part of me hope Julian will release the information, the other part of me feels that if I were in the same situation: what would I do. Would I want to risk the wrath of the world's most powerful nation militarily to help others to avoid the same fate, or would I release the document in the hopes that enough of us will take a stand before we all get blasted up by some sort of microwave weapon in a protest for free speech. Yeah, I know it sounds grim, but the tools are all there for the people in office, certain classes and corporations interests...
But that is what the government is for. To stop monopolies before they encroach on our rights, provide guidance and direction in the public interest. Who do you trust and who is more bound to the people (not consumer). A vote for one person for every person vs a vote for a shareholder who's only purpose is to derive more money? This is the advantage of government. Must I bring in the need for roads, telecommunications infrastructure etc that we all use but that are immediately not profitable to build for a corporation, especially when another corporation can use those same utilities? Ref: to Europe and Finland and Estonia in particular which have laws for all citizens that Internet access is a right and have developed formulas whereby corporations can provide access to their consumers, which just happen to be the population at large in these countries. Now, is 2/3 penetration a great number after "all the years of investment". I agree with you, the free market is the best way to provide high-quality, affordable service, but what you have in the US is monopolies sitting on their arse, sucking the most money out of their subscribers as possible. Maybe the market should be opened up to allow companies from even other countries to participate in broadband development. The model you speak of requires competition.
Well, it looks like the proud Congressmen and Senators have taken at least one leap: judging by their poor handwriting they appear to have signed the document electronically. The letters are short on details on how they would implement broadband policy. However, this can be understood because this was probably the first time that they have used a computer and finger-pecking a longer document would require too much time to address this important issue in a timely matter :)
Maybe this one Who does he represent?
Linux has had 4096 block size in the kernel for ages. See this article The issue being, as I recall somebody say, is that fdisk cannot properly do this. So use parted and you will be ok. ext3 and jfs and I suppose xfs and a whole bunch of others support the 4096 block size as well. BTW, who "tackled the XP issue pretty quick"? was it Microsoft or was it the hard drive makers. AFAIK a few hard drive manufacturers are emulating a 512 block size so it is not a complete fix.
And where is the part about a law being "good for the general public" when the punishment to deter a crime is so lopsided when the "crime" being committed is denying a coporation(s) money for something that they have put little investment and capital to gain such unjust awards? Again: How bad is listening to a song/watching a movie that one has not paid for? I feel that our governments are supporting a system of monetary gain which, in the age of the Internet, is largely becoming irrelevant. Besides if the only thing we are producing is paper, songs and movies, which are clearly not the same as physical devices and manufactured goods, what chance do we have competing anyway. For the monetary system we have sure does support those manufactured goods for so long so successfully. What I see it is that this new system is an artificial economy.
IP laws being uniform _required_ for free trade is ridiculous since it is the lowest common denominator of trade: I'll give you a monopoly for x if you give a monopoly for y. How is that free trade? Also your first sentence after the quotation doesn't parse right: "(IP) laws being uniform across a free trade..." What is "a free trade" and what is "required" and how is [it] not the exact opposite of free trade. Another poster got a high mod when he stated that "America produces IP laws , and Costa Rico produces sugar..". How can this be an imbalance? The fact that one is a sheet of paper produced in a meeting of lobbyists, government, law makers and minimal investment (how much do we pay the lawyers) and the other is actually a product of labour, machinery, and an actual "trade" for other goods or money. It seems as though IP laws are just another form of paper, to be passed around like money when nothing else is being produced but still have value like money.
And the arguments that the proponents make towards shutting the experiment down can only be based on Science. Half Science and half superstition or whatever combination since they really don't understand it at all. All this attempt to use language in a creative way to declare whether or not a theory based on numbers, words, observations and symbolic manipulation is crockery at best. I think in order for the the proponents to be successful, they should have to present another theory and maybe build another "experiment" and actually determine for themselves that physically and mathematically we will have huge black holes that will swallow up the planet. But that is what has been already done and they just don't want to listen.
Look at the logic. "That's a gain of two large points in five months." So for significantly large values of 2, x + 2 = 10%. Kinda makes me think that x is strictly less than 8. Another poster mentioned that his website saw anecdotal evidence that bing was making up approx Limiting the ease of using a third party search engine
Getting every little nook and cranny to report that Bing's share is increasing
Yeah there might even be a few trolls telling me how nice it is that Bing's searches are organized so pretty, but who cares when each category the weighed average is dominated by $$$. Sorry fanboys. Imagine if Google took this approach, but then again we could probably just google it.
Ok, so then persons should be shot who say that "All Sidekick data has been recovered" when the article says that "only a minority of Sidekick users are still affected" which may in fact mean that a sizeable number, say _anywhere_ between 1 and 1 million subscribers are still affected without being specific. Also the article says that Microsoft has, within a few days installed a more reliable backup system. Another poster commented that we should not be critical on Microsoft because they only purchased the company 18 months ago [therefore Microsoft did not have the proper amount of time to rectify the situation] yet the manage to find a solution. _Somehow_ with _some_ people on slashdot, Microsoft always manages to come up with a good defense for their actions even if it is the fact that "My MS software is working ok even though I am a hardcore Linux user" type posts. The meme on slashdot that because this is slashdot we should expect to see anti-MS posts is getting old. Please update your settings because the softies at Microsoft have taken over.
Yeah, what are they talking about. âThe new technology is a lot lighter, nimbler and easier to install,â(TM) make absolutely no sense. My .NET Framework upgrade to 3.0 caused absolutely no problems whatsoever. In fact I use TradElect at home on my .NET platform and it is fast and I am having no problems with it at all!
Does anyone know where I can download the mp3 file for this event? I hope the police were using ogg tho.