The other reason to ask for a zip code, even when you're paying cash, is to get demographic information for where your customers are. If you're getting a lot of customers from certain zip codes, it can help you plan where to open another store.
Generally, if you want to learn the content of a bill, you can read the plain language version that's passed out of committee. That's the version that matters, that's the version that the members of Congress read, and that's the version that's controlling. The version of the bill that's translated is the legislation that is passed on. If that does not match up with the intent from the committee, then it is corrected to match the plain language version.
And as for whether some sort of tkdiff makes sense, maybe it does, but really for only a select few people who actually are writing and or editing the bills. Of course, if there was something free and open to the public, that wouldn't be a bad thing either. But generally, there's just not a whole lot of demand.
IBM supports software patents just as ardently as electrical patents... so long as the patented invention is novel, non-obvious, adequately described, etc.
(And, really, who could oppose that position?...)
How about someone who believes that the "patented invention" in this case is merely a functional descriptive material? The fact is that software, the actual program itself, is adequately, and quite strongly protected by copyright law. Copyright should be the sole source of protection for programs. Just because one program and another program perform the same function does not mean that one program writer should be able to prevent the other program writer from using that program.
The problem is that software patents should not be patented subject matter to begin with. There is almost nothing that is novel about using a computer program to perform a task. The mere fact that the process involves a computer program should not oust others from being able to write program legally to perform those tasks.
You obviously have never tried to get individual health coverage before. There are two things to note: 1. There are some people insurers won't cover, no matter what the premium, because they will cost the company money, regardless. It doesn't matter what you pay them, because you are an extremely bad risk. For instance, people with diabetes are generally in this category. Forget about getting individual coverage if you have diabetes or have had surgery in the past year. The actuarial tables say that no matter what premium they charge, the insurance company is likely to lose money. And if anything else is true, an insurance company is usually risk averse. 2. Health insurance suffers from the twin dragons of adverse selection and moral hazard. Insurers try to avoid people who are bad insurance risks - thus the people who are to be covered gets lower and lower through adverse selection, because you can't make money off sick people. And moral hazard allows people who have insurance somehow to make poor health choices and not have to pay the consequences of it. The result? Sick people can't get insurance, because they're sick, and people who have insurance cost insurance companies money doing things that get them sick because they don't pay for it directly. Both adverse selection and moral hazard are problems with health insurance, making it an incredibly bad market to be ruled only by competitive forces.
As for poor children getting health care, if for some reason you actually think they do without government intervention, then you aren't paying attention. Why do you think that S-CHIP is such a big issue right now? That's how they get it. Expanding S-CHIP to those above the poverty line is not so crazy an idea - kids have no choice who their parents are, and if their parents pay for the $350,000 house, and the boat, and the fancy car, we shouldn't penalize the kid by making it harder for him or her to get medical care.
IANAL, but... Depending on the state, if you do say that they were asking you to do something illegal, your claim unemployment benefit may be upheld. The burden may be on the employer to prove that you should not get unemployment benefits.
1. The event where they were actually together (1971) happened before Jane Fonda went over to Vietnam in 1972. 2. At the time that Fonda went over there, Kerry publicly decried her actions. 3. There is no evidence that they really knew each other personally other than as passing acquantainces.
If you actually quoted it, it's not saying that it's the fastest desktop computer, it is saying that it is the world's fastest "Personal computer". Apple was the company that coined the term personal computer, and it actually can make an argument that it is the fastest personal computer.
Whether it's the fastest desktop is another question - there are probably some workstations that are quicker than it, but as a personal computer, I do believe that it has regained the speed crown.
However, UNIX is not the brand name of the Open Group. Apple is the brand name of Apple Computers, and the analogy doesn't hold. Apple invented the term "Personal Computer". How much do they get a year for that now?
From what I recall, a number of the maps like that are based off actual missions that the Army performed in Afghanistan. In fact, a number (greater than one) of the development team spent time in Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom. The mission isn't meant to be racist - it's meant to be a representation of what happened over there.
Re:I'm on an OS X box , and the naughty secret is.
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 1
I run on a G3 iMac DV 400 Mhz with 512 Megs of ram at home and a G4 800 Mhz PowerMac with 512 Megs of RAM at work, and generally never get a spinning beach ball either place. I've run OS X since the public beta, it's been my primary OS since OS 10.1. If you're getting a spinning beach ball constantly, this is what I'd suggest. 1. Wipe the HD and do a clean install of OS X 10.2. 2. Make sure you have all the patches installed to the software that you do have installed, especially for Microsoft software. 3. Defrag your drive. OS X hurts even more than OS 9 in terms of fragmenting HFS+, a disk format that is prone to fragmentation (this is probably the cause of the open with dialog box slowing you down - it's looking for the applications on your HD, and if they're not in a easy place to access, well, you're SOL - for me, it was also slow, but just about 5 seconds). 4. For the web browser window being blank, quit using MS Internet Explorer, and use something better like Chimera. Or scroll the window in IE. This is an IE bug. 5. Avoid running 15 different apps at the same time. 512 Megs of RAM is enough. 6. Quit the racism - I'm not white or rich, and I still manage to save and use Apple HW and SW. And the fact of the matter is that MOST companies that sell things are going to market to rich white people because you know, THEY HAVE MONEY. 7. Your dog slowness is not inherent to the system.
The SEC's money is going to tax lawyers and accountants. If you want to prosecute those who violate securities laws, you're going to have the pay the lawyers who are going to do the prosecution. And you're going to have to pay the accountants to figure out the numbers.
Unfortunately, to get good people for those positions, the government has to pay a fair amount.
Does anybody remember how years ago there was a fuss about how Windows NT was rated so and so by the NSA to be secure? Well, if you actually looked at the security rating, the securty rating only allowed it to be used on non-networked machines that were physically secure, or some such. Even MS can pass security tests if a) they're not connected to any network, and b) physical access to the machine is restricted. Not extremely useful, but you can still do stuff, I guess.
It's not nuts. Cringely has a fairly decent technical background, but his main background (what he taught at Stanford) was business and business administration. However, I think you're overreacting. He does not suggest that everyone lose his or her anonymity - he suggests that everyone has to identify themselves, or others don't have to interact/interface with their protocols. There would be consequences for anonymity, but people wouldn't have to give it up. As for the security problems of Windows, you're just missing the point. He's not looking at the technical side of the problem: he's looking at the social side of the problem - who benefits, what we can stop, and what we can do. There has to be a reason that Microsoft is so shitty about security. Cringely provided one I hadn't thought of (namely, they're doing it to ruin the Net).
I know this is a troll, but I want to comment on two things this post was implicitly saying: (1) Sex and violence must be separated. (2) Aggression is a very very bad thing.
(1) is a rather standard assertion from people who understand neither sex nor violence. (2) is a standard assertion of those who accept most current norms of behavior. Both spring from the ideal that gentleness and meekness are the virtues of those who are greatest. However, this only depends on our valuing gentleness and meekness in our current ethical and social norms. Unfortunately, aggression has come to be associated with violent behavior (quite rightly), and has been tainted by the current fixation on the elimination of violence. The problem is that violence will always be with us - it will always be useful, and moreover, it is necessary for our continued survival and prosperity.
Violence is the use of force. Sometimes force must be used, either to prevent violence upon oneself, or to accomplish a goal that is otherwise unattainable. The showing of force, any force, of assertiveness, of initiative, has come to be associated with aggression, and any aggression has come to be associated with unwarranted violence.
Violence and sex have been associated since the beginning of recorded history. To deny their mutual association is to deny the obvious: namely that violence and aggression have been responsible for more sexual acts than any aphrodesiac, any gentleness, any frothy feelings of love. Whether there was a lack of consent is another question entirely, and that is a question that is forgetten by those who submit that all sex is rape. Even though the act is violent, one need not withhold consent - one may commit violence upon oneself.
Maybe I have done enough to show that (1) and (2) are both in some respects false, but I doubt that I will convince many. So, to conclude:
Re:Dissappointed to hear it is biased.
on
Republic.Com
·
· Score: 1
Hitler was a right wing freak. On the political spectrum from left to right you generally have: nazism, fascism, reactionary, conservative, moderate, liberal, socialism, communism. Hitler was not a socialist - far from it, he was a fascist. National Socialism is as far from the core ideas that Karl Marx preached as the Taliban is from the core ideas Mohammed preached. Hitler's system had a great deal of private property, and the rhetoric of the Nazi's were almost exactly the same as the rhetoric of the fascists in Italy. The doctrine of political power through strength, national unity is a fascist doctrine, carried even further in Nazi propaganda to call for racial purity. That is far removed from the socialist idea of equality of persons. That's why, in the end, Germany sided with Italy, not with Russia. Titles mean little - you should look at what the actual platform called for. --
Yours,
Mac OS was developed in the early-1980s around the idea of providing the best possible user experience. Apple succeeded in making Mac OS a best-of-breed operating system for personal computers: Mac OS has set the standards against which modern graphical user interfaces are now modeled.
Not a good start to the article. The operating system that Apple developed is poor at best; a single application crash almost always brings down the machine.
You left out the first sentence starting it out: "Mac OS was developed in the early-1980s around the idea of providing the best possible user experience."
What do you mean it's not a good start to the article? The article is about how the Mac OS has one of the most well-thought out GUI's, and Mac OS IS a "best-of-breed" in the user interface arena. Blasting Mac OS for lack of system stability when they're talking about how it was designed for user interface above all else is nearsighted, and frankly shows an ignorance of the basic realities of computing in the 80's. NO commercial personal computing operating system had great system stability back then.
The article is about taking the "best of breeds" from two arenas, the GUI arena and the reliability and scalability arenas and melding them together.
Dissing Mac OS as "poor" is stupid. One, a single application crash does not "almost always" bring down the machine. Frequently, yes, but I've always experienced more fatal reboot necessitating errors with Windows than with the current versions of the Mac OS. And frankly, many many people use the Mac OS daily and get tons of work done on them. Rock solid stability is not the only facet of an OS: otherwise why would Windows be so popular (aside from monopoly considerations)?
You praise the interface, then diss the OS. If the interface is so damn good, then why is the OS "poor at best"? If an OS is the standard against which modern GUI are now modeled, that means that the Mac OS is far better than "poor at best". As a matter of fact, the Mac OS belongs in the hall of fame of OSes and showing the world that user interface matters.
Slashdot Mirror
The other reason to ask for a zip code, even when you're paying cash, is to get demographic information for where your customers are. If you're getting a lot of customers from certain zip codes, it can help you plan where to open another store.
Generally, if you want to learn the content of a bill, you can read the plain language version that's passed out of committee. That's the version that matters, that's the version that the members of Congress read, and that's the version that's controlling. The version of the bill that's translated is the legislation that is passed on. If that does not match up with the intent from the committee, then it is corrected to match the plain language version.
And as for whether some sort of tkdiff makes sense, maybe it does, but really for only a select few people who actually are writing and or editing the bills. Of course, if there was something free and open to the public, that wouldn't be a bad thing either. But generally, there's just not a whole lot of demand.
IBM supports software patents just as ardently as electrical patents... so long as the patented invention is novel, non-obvious, adequately described, etc.
(And, really, who could oppose that position?...)
How about someone who believes that the "patented invention" in this case is merely a functional descriptive material? The fact is that software, the actual program itself, is adequately, and quite strongly protected by copyright law. Copyright should be the sole source of protection for programs. Just because one program and another program perform the same function does not mean that one program writer should be able to prevent the other program writer from using that program.
The problem is that software patents should not be patented subject matter to begin with. There is almost nothing that is novel about using a computer program to perform a task. The mere fact that the process involves a computer program should not oust others from being able to write program legally to perform those tasks.
You obviously have never tried to get individual health coverage before. There are two things to note:
1. There are some people insurers won't cover, no matter what the premium, because they will cost the company money, regardless. It doesn't matter what you pay them, because you are an extremely bad risk. For instance, people with diabetes are generally in this category. Forget about getting individual coverage if you have diabetes or have had surgery in the past year. The actuarial tables say that no matter what premium they charge, the insurance company is likely to lose money. And if anything else is true, an insurance company is usually risk averse.
2. Health insurance suffers from the twin dragons of adverse selection and moral hazard. Insurers try to avoid people who are bad insurance risks - thus the people who are to be covered gets lower and lower through adverse selection, because you can't make money off sick people. And moral hazard allows people who have insurance somehow to make poor health choices and not have to pay the consequences of it. The result? Sick people can't get insurance, because they're sick, and people who have insurance cost insurance companies money doing things that get them sick because they don't pay for it directly. Both adverse selection and moral hazard are problems with health insurance, making it an incredibly bad market to be ruled only by competitive forces.
As for poor children getting health care, if for some reason you actually think they do without government intervention, then you aren't paying attention. Why do you think that S-CHIP is such a big issue right now? That's how they get it. Expanding S-CHIP to those above the poverty line is not so crazy an idea - kids have no choice who their parents are, and if their parents pay for the $350,000 house, and the boat, and the fancy car, we shouldn't penalize the kid by making it harder for him or her to get medical care.
IANAL, but... Depending on the state, if you do say that they were asking you to do something illegal, your claim unemployment benefit may be upheld. The burden may be on the employer to prove that you should not get unemployment benefits.
What's even funnier is that IE 6 for the Mac was already coded and ready to ship, but they decided to shelve it instead of release it.
1. The event where they were actually together (1971) happened before Jane Fonda went over to Vietnam in 1972.
2. At the time that Fonda went over there, Kerry publicly decried her actions.
3. There is no evidence that they really knew each other personally other than as passing acquantainces.
Yeah, here's a question: Where exactly did Apple tweak their specs to make their system look faster?
They didn't use the IBM compiler. They didn't use the Altivec optimization.
They used the worst case scenario for both machines and theirs came ahead.
If you actually quoted it, it's not saying that it's the fastest desktop computer, it is saying that it is the world's fastest "Personal computer". Apple was the company that coined the term personal computer, and it actually can make an argument that it is the fastest personal computer.
Whether it's the fastest desktop is another question - there are probably some workstations that are quicker than it, but as a personal computer, I do believe that it has regained the speed crown.
However, UNIX is not the brand name of the Open Group. Apple is the brand name of Apple Computers, and the analogy doesn't hold. Apple invented the term "Personal Computer". How much do they get a year for that now?
From what I recall, a number of the maps like that are based off actual missions that the Army performed in Afghanistan. In fact, a number (greater than one) of the development team spent time in Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom. The mission isn't meant to be racist - it's meant to be a representation of what happened over there.
I run on a G3 iMac DV 400 Mhz with 512 Megs of ram at home and a G4 800 Mhz PowerMac with 512 Megs of RAM at work, and generally never get a spinning beach ball either place. I've run OS X since the public beta, it's been my primary OS since OS 10.1. If you're getting a spinning beach ball constantly, this is what I'd suggest.
1. Wipe the HD and do a clean install of OS X 10.2.
2. Make sure you have all the patches installed to the software that you do have installed, especially for Microsoft software.
3. Defrag your drive. OS X hurts even more than OS 9 in terms of fragmenting HFS+, a disk format that is prone to fragmentation (this is probably the cause of the open with dialog box slowing you down - it's looking for the applications on your HD, and if they're not in a easy place to access, well, you're SOL - for me, it was also slow, but just about 5 seconds).
4. For the web browser window being blank, quit using MS Internet Explorer, and use something better like Chimera. Or scroll the window in IE. This is an IE bug.
5. Avoid running 15 different apps at the same time. 512 Megs of RAM is enough.
6. Quit the racism - I'm not white or rich, and I still manage to save and use Apple HW and SW. And the fact of the matter is that MOST companies that sell things are going to market to rich white people because you know, THEY HAVE MONEY.
7. Your dog slowness is not inherent to the system.
The SEC's money is going to tax lawyers and accountants. If you want to prosecute those who violate securities laws, you're going to have the pay the lawyers who are going to do the prosecution. And you're going to have to pay the accountants to figure out the numbers.
Unfortunately, to get good people for those positions, the government has to pay a fair amount.
Does anybody remember how years ago there was a fuss about how Windows NT was rated so and so by the NSA to be secure? Well, if you actually looked at the security rating, the securty rating only allowed it to be used on non-networked machines that were physically secure, or some such. Even MS can pass security tests if a) they're not connected to any network, and b) physical access to the machine is restricted. Not extremely useful, but you can still do stuff, I guess.
It's not nuts. Cringely has a fairly decent technical background, but his main background (what he taught at Stanford) was business and business administration. However, I think you're overreacting. He does not suggest that everyone lose his or her anonymity - he suggests that everyone has to identify themselves, or others don't have to interact/interface with their protocols. There would be consequences for anonymity, but people wouldn't have to give it up. As for the security problems of Windows, you're just missing the point. He's not looking at the technical side of the problem: he's looking at the social side of the problem - who benefits, what we can stop, and what we can do. There has to be a reason that Microsoft is so shitty about security. Cringely provided one I hadn't thought of (namely, they're doing it to ruin the Net).
I know this is a troll, but I want to comment on two things this post was implicitly saying: (1) Sex and violence must be separated. (2) Aggression is a very very bad thing.
/\/\3 VV4R32 |)00|)!
(1) is a rather standard assertion from people who understand neither sex nor violence. (2) is a standard assertion of those who accept most current norms of behavior. Both spring from the ideal that gentleness and meekness are the virtues of those who are greatest. However, this only depends on our valuing gentleness and meekness in our current ethical and social norms. Unfortunately, aggression has come to be associated with violent behavior (quite rightly), and has been tainted by the current fixation on the elimination of violence. The problem is that violence will always be with us - it will always be useful, and moreover, it is necessary for our continued survival and prosperity.
Violence is the use of force. Sometimes force must be used, either to prevent violence upon oneself, or to accomplish a goal that is otherwise unattainable. The showing of force, any force, of assertiveness, of initiative, has come to be associated with aggression, and any aggression has come to be associated with unwarranted violence.
Violence and sex have been associated since the beginning of recorded history. To deny their mutual association is to deny the obvious: namely that violence and aggression have been responsible for more sexual acts than any aphrodesiac, any gentleness, any frothy feelings of love. Whether there was a lack of consent is another question entirely, and that is a question that is forgetten by those who submit that all sex is rape. Even though the act is violent, one need not withhold consent - one may commit violence upon oneself.
Maybe I have done enough to show that (1) and (2) are both in some respects false, but I doubt that I will convince many. So, to conclude:
1 4/\/\ 3V1L L337!!!!! G1\/3
--
Yours,
Hitler was a right wing freak. On the political spectrum from left to right you generally have: nazism, fascism, reactionary, conservative, moderate, liberal, socialism, communism. Hitler was not a socialist - far from it, he was a fascist. National Socialism is as far from the core ideas that Karl Marx preached as the Taliban is from the core ideas Mohammed preached. Hitler's system had a great deal of private property, and the rhetoric of the Nazi's were almost exactly the same as the rhetoric of the fascists in Italy. The doctrine of political power through strength, national unity is a fascist doctrine, carried even further in Nazi propaganda to call for racial purity. That is far removed from the socialist idea of equality of persons. That's why, in the end, Germany sided with Italy, not with Russia. Titles mean little - you should look at what the actual platform called for.
--
Yours,
You left out the first sentence starting it out: "Mac OS was developed in the early-1980s around the idea of providing the best possible user experience."
What do you mean it's not a good start to the article? The article is about how the Mac OS has one of the most well-thought out GUI's, and Mac OS IS a "best-of-breed" in the user interface arena. Blasting Mac OS for lack of system stability when they're talking about how it was designed for user interface above all else is nearsighted, and frankly shows an ignorance of the basic realities of computing in the 80's. NO commercial personal computing operating system had great system stability back then.
The article is about taking the "best of breeds" from two arenas, the GUI arena and the reliability and scalability arenas and melding them together.
Dissing Mac OS as "poor" is stupid. One, a single application crash does not "almost always" bring down the machine. Frequently, yes, but I've always experienced more fatal reboot necessitating errors with Windows than with the current versions of the Mac OS. And frankly, many many people use the Mac OS daily and get tons of work done on them. Rock solid stability is not the only facet of an OS: otherwise why would Windows be so popular (aside from monopoly considerations)?
You praise the interface, then diss the OS. If the interface is so damn good, then why is the OS "poor at best"? If an OS is the standard against which modern GUI are now modeled, that means that the Mac OS is far better than "poor at best". As a matter of fact, the Mac OS belongs in the hall of fame of OSes and showing the world that user interface matters.
--
Yours,