If all your time is spent word-processing, I highly recommend learning keyboard shortcuts. In Word and OOo alike, they save many clicks. For instance: double spacing is Ctrl-2 in both applications.
Remember, young audiences will be bored to tears if you regale them on things they already know, or the history of anything unless it's exciting.
Our 9 and 10 year olds already know that "computers are used for everything". They probably don't care (yet) about how they came into being. Instead, why not focus on what no one tells these kids: that the age of the Internet and the personal computer gives them a degree of unparalleled personal power.
Show them how computers only ever do what a human tells them to. Give them fun logic puzzles and explain simply how they are really just programs. Explain how the ability to use logic and creativity together make the computer a powerful tool. Illustrate how computing gives them choices -- they don't have to use the software (not even the OS) that came with the computer, they can do whatever they can figure out how to do.
Talk about the cool things computers will be able to do in the future. Have them work with a really simple encryption (secret messages! cool!) method, and explain how businesses and individuals use more complicated versions to keep their private messages private. Just about all kids love the idea of secret messages -- use it!
Don't lie. Don't tell them it's all easy. Do tell them that it's all possible, if they work hard enough to learn. Make computing interesting and accessible, don't bore them with history and "hey, computers control your car, your games, and even the clock on the wall!"
You have a very potent opportunity to motivate and educate. Don't waste it! Make sure every kid -- and especially the girls -- know that working with computers is rewarding and not just for "smart kids".
I really hate that usage. It implies that there is one set group of terrorists (the terrorists), and if we could only just find and eliminate those people, we'd all be safe. News flash: people become terrorists, terrorism will always be a problem to deal with.
What's wrong with dropping the definite article? Terrorists could attack many a target. "The terrorists" is only useful if we have already established which terrorists.
Microsoft's "Virtual PC" for Windows. It gives you a complete virtualized PC
Well, not complete. Virtual PC is great if you need to run multiple versions/copies of Windows for testing purposes. However, VirtualPC isn't a complete VM -- if total isolation is required, Virtual PC isn't a good choice. However, if you don't need the total isolation of something like VMware, Virtual PC will probably work (and it performs better than VMware because it's not a complete VM).
I use VMware for isolation testing (malware, patches, &c.), but Virtual PC for version-compatibility testing (i.e. "Will this XP software work on our 2k machines?").
Did he give the royalties to the samba team that made the howto possible or pocket the cash?
I make money supporting and developing for SQL Server -- but I don't give any money to Microsoft. Guess I'm not worthy of respect. This guy did a ton of work with Samba, read some documentation that already existed, and wrote a farily comprehensive guide to getting Samba set up in a business environment. He deserved to be compensated for his work.
Now, I agree it would be admirable of him to donate at least some of his proceeds to the Samba project. However, he's in no way required to, even by the bounds of ettiquette. By your logic, anyone who write a Windows for Dummies or equivalent book should pay royalties to Microsoft.
So I'm still waiting for a reasonable migration path from NT Server to Samba.
I've done a few of these. Migrating ACL's and file data is easy -- NT Server does have support for POSIX ACL's, and MS-based ACL's can be converted to POSIX by both Samba and NT.
The only difficulty is cloning user data, which is incredibly simple if your PDC handles all user/group info. Samba can authenticate (and replicate) LDAP or even native NT directory information. If you move to Samba as a PDC, you replicate userdata by LDAP before shutting off your NT PDC and dropping your Samba box in PDC mode.
It's somewhat timeconsuming, as the data is best copied from old->new devices (though just buying one "temp" machine to hold the data from each old machine as the machine is converted is certainly do-able). However, it is relatively painless, especially since Samba3 has gone production.
I actually do this work on a consulting basis, and I've never had a major issue. I'm happy to answer basic questions if you send me a private msg (no e-mail here).
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
there is often just one [i]critical[/i] application (which varies from user to user) that does need the extra power.
This raises an interesting thought. If only one (or a few) applications require the peak of the chip speed and power, perhaps there is a market for power-conserving, throttled CPU's other than in notebooks.
I have one notebook, but I love the throttling capabilities of it. I don't need all 600MHz of my processor when I'm reading e-mail; but, when I'm testing code or running a particularly nasty GIMP plugin, it's nice to have. So, the technology already exists and works.
Notebooks, of course, are a poor choice for anyone concerned with matters like upgradability, cost, etc. (thus, why I still have a cheap 600Mhz notebook). But, that doesn't mean I wouldn't mind the power savings of a throttled CPU on my desktop machine. It may be a desktop, but I still don't need 2.1GHz to read e-mail.:) But, it's nice to have when I run 3D models or process audio...
My experience with any form of social or technological infrastructure here is that it takes much longer to be adopted or upgraded. London, Tokyo, Paris, Sydney all update their public transport systems much more frequently that the states. They seem to have newer airports too.
There are three main factors to why the US often lags behind in pervasive adoption of technology:
Unwillingness to cooperate
Large geographic area
A highly litigious society
As for (1) and (2), these are things that can't really be changed; which is OK, because they aren't nearly as large an impediment to progress as (3).
If you own a business of any size, and you provide any service to the public, your pricing and ROI calculations must include the cost of inevitable legislation. And those costs are just for defending against largely frivolous claims. If, gods forbid, you are actually liable for anything -- even through an honest mistake -- there's a good chance your business won't make it out of litigation alive.
So, everyone waits until someone enters the market (usually either small businesses or huge businesses taking a rare risk) and survives for a while. Then, everyone else will jump in the pool, but have to be careful not to compete too well lest they get sued (even illegitimate lawsuits cost money to defend).
Until we make the barrier of entry much lower by fixing the civil law system, the US will continue to lag behind on anything even mildly "risky".
I very much miss grammar checking... I wouldn't think it would be any harder than coding AI for chess games
The problem isn't so much that OO.o lacks grammar checking, it's that no word-processor has decent grammar checking.
It's a much harder problem than it might seem. Chess games, for example, have a finite set of rules (and you cannot deviate from them) and proceed in a more-or-less logical fashion. Language, on the other hand, is tremendously flexible and often illogical. Not to mention the countless exceptions to grammatical rules, and the disagreements that arise as to which usages are correct (e.g. should punctuation go inside or outside quotation marks?).
Consider simple things (for humans) like distinguishing between the singular or plural form of a word -- what happens when they match?
"The data are irregular" and "The data is irregular" are both correct. (Note for pedants: the latter implies the concept of "data set", and such implications are not only commonplace in English, but entirely correct.) So, how does a grammar checker determine whether you are implying the singular or plural of a noun in order to check for verb agreement?
Hell, humans get it wrong even when we make a conscious effort to be picky and pedantic (I certainly do. Spot the grammatical errors in this post alone!). How can you expect a computer to appreciate nuance?
Personally, I think Office in general and Word in particular is the best product MS has ever produced. It does everything I want it too, lets me produce great looking documents, and in general works smoothly. I think that people's main beef with Word is the fact that it was produced by Microsoft.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, to suggest that "people's main beef with Word is... it was produced by Microsoft" is naive.
My main three beefs with Word are its large footprint (bloat), high price, and platform lock-in. Add to this problems with stability, annoying default settings (like AutoReplace and "check grammar as you type"), and the occasional "whoops, I just irreparably damaged the file you were working on".
As to the large footprint, this is a problem with every serious Word contender -- OpenOffice isn't exactly tiny either. However, considering the feature set that most users require, something like AbiWord makes up for its reduced feature-set with an incredibly small footprint.
The most compelling factor is price. If I need just a "rich text" word-processing environment, why would I shell out for Word when AbiWord will work quite well for free? Likewise, if I need full word-processing capabilities, why not use OpenOffice? Granted, I think Word still does a few things better than OpenOffice; but, it's tough to beat the pricetag.
Platform lock-in is a major detractor as well. Word works great if all you have are Windows and MacOS workstations. Of course, if you have both, you're back to the price issue -- buying word-processing software for both machines. OpenOffice, on the other hand, runs on just about any desktop OS -- Windows, Linux, MacOS, Solaris, to name a few. As I often move between Windows and Linux, the cross-platform availability is essential.
Now, if MS would both make a Linux version of Word and change their licensing rules to allow me to buy one "concurrent-use" package to cover all three of my PC's, I might think Word was worth considering again.
As for the rest, there are little annoyances with every word-processing package I have ever used. The catch is, if I'm paying for it, I expect it to happen far less often. This was the same gripe I had with ApplixWare.
I honestly don't care who writes my software, as long as it works, is reasonably-priced, and has the features I require. I'm hardly a zealot. Still, Word is most decidedly not my first choice for word-processing software.
Unless you have a VERY unique look, or spend lots of time on TV or on the front page no one is going to know who you are. Thats a bogus argument.
Read the grandparent. The entirety of the point is that, as a whistle-blower, you run the risk of becoming a high-profile "celebrity" for a time. So you would be on TV and in the papers; maybe not on the front page of NYT, but visible enough to people who make hiring decisions and follow that sort of news.
Look up the history of DR-DOS if you want reminders.
I'm well aware of that history, but Linux as a dual-boot is targeted toward the desktop market. And, despite my personal, pro-Linux opinion on the matter, the fact remains that Linux is not going to compete with MS on the desktop for a long while.
DR-DOS, on the other hand, was successfully competing with MS-DOS. I don't put it past MS to break Linux compatibility by doing things like altering filesystems and making migration harder. But sabotaging dual-boot capability is likely not high on the list.
Funny thing, technology has given media the power of pictures! Yeah, you could get plastic surgery too... but how many people would risk that pain and cost just for blowing the whistle on fraud?
If a commanding officer tells a soldier to rape women, torture innocent children, etc, then is that soldier is completely innocent of any crime, simply because he was ordered to do so??
How about a little perspective, here? These guys weren't asked to rape or torture anyone -- they were asked to run a few scripts. The point made at the Nuremburg trials was that one has a moral duty to refuse orders to commit reprehensible acts. What these guys did was illegal, sure; they should be punished for it, too, because they probably even knew it was illegal. But, they didn't engineer the idea, and so they are merely accessories to the real crime (IMO).
Ever speed when you're running late for work? Well, you broke the law. Aren't you glad the cop who writes you the ticket for that doesn't equate you with a rapist or torturer?
You follow the orders while collecting information, your boss gets canned and sent to jail and when you get fired you file a whistle-blower lawsuit. Then it is a lose/lose for your boss and a win/win for you. And the best part is that you have covered your ace.
And the media picks up your story mid-lawsuit, gaining you a big award. Which gets drastically reduced on appeal. And, now every HR rat in the country knows that you're "the snitch" -- you'll never work in a decent job again.
I'm reading a great number of posts in many threads regarding the gender bias in technical fields. Granted, a good chunk of this bias exists because we are only now moving past the culture of "girls aren't supposed to be good at tech stuff". However, some of the disparity is actually a result of much deeper gender differences.
Now, in case anyone is readying the flamethrower, I consider myself a feminist along the line of "feminism is the notion that women are equal to men." However, part of recognizing the equality of the genders is acknowledging and celebrating their inherent differences.
I believe that a good part of the reason that women don't enter technical fields is because many of them find the work uninteresting. Not that women don't appreciate the challenges of technical work -- but, rather, that women tend to be more socially motivated than men. (Yes, I know, some of that is socialized behavior; but some isn't). As a result, while solving interesting problems is just as big a draw for intelligent women as it is for intelligent men, women are more likely to have a distaste for being chained to a computer all day -- they would rather have jobs that allow them to interact with humans thoroughout the day.
Yes, I know that's a sweeping generalization, and there are many exceptions -- some of the best developers I know are women, and most of them love their jobs. However, in general, men tend to be more comfortable in the impersonal technical fields, and women in the more social professions. (By social, I mean "interacting with humans" is a significant part of the job). That same function is partly responsible for the disproportionately large number of women in fields like nursing.
As an aside, my mother-in-law is adjunct faculty for a local college's nursing program. I've scanned through some of the textbooks for things like the Advanced Cardiology Care certificate (a nursing program) -- any woman who can work in those advanced nursing fields is every bit as intelligent and cabaple as advanced IT people.
So, I don't think it's a question of capability (clearly it's not), but one of motivation: most women would rather work in social jobs, where as men often are completely comfortable in the impersonal work environments.
Even as SCO describes the case -- by directly quoting (without attribution) a Westlaw headnote...
So first, SCO accuses IBM of copyright infringement. Then, SCO demonstrably commits (admittedly minor) copyright infringment in its court filing for that same suit! And all IBM's lawyers do is mention it in a parenthetical. Well done, IBM!
The calm, cool, confident, and respectful manner in which IBM is handling itself in court is admirable; IMHO, this puts them head-and-shoulders above SCO's legal team.
a tit-for-tat strategy (basically, revenge) is by far the most effective way to ensure compliance.
Yes, but that's an impossible strategy without an extremely controlling and invasive government. In order for the 'tit-for-tat' strategy to work, enforcement groups must actually catch and successfully prosecute a large percentage of the offenders.
Part of the reason the War on Drugs fails so dismally is that there is no hope of catching any significant portion of the offenders -- so, offenders have relatively little fear of reprisal. Further, even if it were possible to nab every single offender, the level of spending, invasive technology use (e.g. wiretapping, tracking, etc.), and general loss of civil liberties would be so drastic a change as to cause a massive public outcry. Even the anti-drug crowd would likely not approve.
The better solution from the government's standpoint is to slowly increase its power until such a campaign can be effectively launched with little fear of public outcry.
So, while the prosecution of these spammers and phishers will hopefully send a message that there is some risk to these activities -- thereby eliminating the "casual offenders" -- there is essentially no hope of curtailing this activity without the willingness of citizens to give up a great deal of personal freedom.
Ultimately, the arrest/prosecution of these criminals will halt the stupid "hey I can make a quick buck" scams, but lead to a greater sophistication of scams (and spams). As a result, there will be fewer of these originating in the US, but they will be harder to detect overall.
Did you know that you would have to take 1,000,000 pictures a day to fill up a 100 terabyte disk in one lifetime?
I don't know if your math is right, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is. Consider this:
30fps video cameras: 30fps * 60sec * 60min * 24h = 2,592,000 pictures per day. So, if I recorded, say 12hours of video a day, this would fill up in my lifetime. Never mind sound recording and multiple versions (edited/unedited/etc.).
Of course, the same applies if I have 12 people shooting for an hour a day. If we say "a lifetime" is 100 years, then also imagine this: 1200 people shooting 1 hour of footage a day (by the above math) would fill 100TB in just 1 year.
And none of this takes into consideration higher-resolution imaging like 3d-scanning, medical imaging, and so on. There may be little use for the home user, but there will always be uses for more storage.
Slashdot Mirror
If all your time is spent word-processing, I highly recommend learning keyboard shortcuts. In Word and OOo alike, they save many clicks. For instance: double spacing is Ctrl-2 in both applications.
Remember, young audiences will be bored to tears if you regale them on things they already know, or the history of anything unless it's exciting.
Our 9 and 10 year olds already know that "computers are used for everything". They probably don't care (yet) about how they came into being. Instead, why not focus on what no one tells these kids: that the age of the Internet and the personal computer gives them a degree of unparalleled personal power.
Show them how computers only ever do what a human tells them to. Give them fun logic puzzles and explain simply how they are really just programs. Explain how the ability to use logic and creativity together make the computer a powerful tool. Illustrate how computing gives them choices -- they don't have to use the software (not even the OS) that came with the computer, they can do whatever they can figure out how to do.
Talk about the cool things computers will be able to do in the future. Have them work with a really simple encryption (secret messages! cool!) method, and explain how businesses and individuals use more complicated versions to keep their private messages private. Just about all kids love the idea of secret messages -- use it!
Don't lie. Don't tell them it's all easy. Do tell them that it's all possible, if they work hard enough to learn. Make computing interesting and accessible, don't bore them with history and "hey, computers control your car, your games, and even the clock on the wall!"
You have a very potent opportunity to motivate and educate. Don't waste it! Make sure every kid -- and especially the girls -- know that working with computers is rewarding and not just for "smart kids".
it's people's nature to want something for nothing.
...
want a free iPod? and a free Gmail Account? [67.64.95.209]
Apparently so.
The terrorists would...
I really hate that usage. It implies that there is one set group of terrorists (the terrorists), and if we could only just find and eliminate those people, we'd all be safe. News flash: people become terrorists, terrorism will always be a problem to deal with.
What's wrong with dropping the definite article? Terrorists could attack many a target. "The terrorists" is only useful if we have already established which terrorists.
Never just the engineer when he says, "The change is trivial; nothing else will be effected."
Well, yeah. I wouldn't trust an engineer that didn't know the difference between "affect" and "effect" either.
Microsoft's "Virtual PC" for Windows. It gives you a complete virtualized PC
Well, not complete. Virtual PC is great if you need to run multiple versions/copies of Windows for testing purposes. However, VirtualPC isn't a complete VM -- if total isolation is required, Virtual PC isn't a good choice. However, if you don't need the total isolation of something like VMware, Virtual PC will probably work (and it performs better than VMware because it's not a complete VM).
I use VMware for isolation testing (malware, patches, &c.), but Virtual PC for version-compatibility testing (i.e. "Will this XP software work on our 2k machines?").
I apologize - I use BSD
I forgive you. Please come home now?
Love,
Tux
Did he give the royalties to the samba team that made the howto possible or pocket the cash?
I make money supporting and developing for SQL Server -- but I don't give any money to Microsoft. Guess I'm not worthy of respect. This guy did a ton of work with Samba, read some documentation that already existed, and wrote a farily comprehensive guide to getting Samba set up in a business environment. He deserved to be compensated for his work.
Now, I agree it would be admirable of him to donate at least some of his proceeds to the Samba project. However, he's in no way required to, even by the bounds of ettiquette. By your logic, anyone who write a Windows for Dummies or equivalent book should pay royalties to Microsoft.
So I'm still waiting for a reasonable migration path from NT Server to Samba.
I've done a few of these. Migrating ACL's and file data is easy -- NT Server does have support for POSIX ACL's, and MS-based ACL's can be converted to POSIX by both Samba and NT.
The only difficulty is cloning user data, which is incredibly simple if your PDC handles all user/group info. Samba can authenticate (and replicate) LDAP or even native NT directory information. If you move to Samba as a PDC, you replicate userdata by LDAP before shutting off your NT PDC and dropping your Samba box in PDC mode.
It's somewhat timeconsuming, as the data is best copied from old->new devices (though just buying one "temp" machine to hold the data from each old machine as the machine is converted is certainly do-able). However, it is relatively painless, especially since Samba3 has gone production.
I actually do this work on a consulting basis, and I've never had a major issue. I'm happy to answer basic questions if you send me a private msg (no e-mail here).
I have one notebook, but I love the throttling capabilities of it. I don't need all 600MHz of my processor when I'm reading e-mail; but, when I'm testing code or running a particularly nasty GIMP plugin, it's nice to have. So, the technology already exists and works.
Notebooks, of course, are a poor choice for anyone concerned with matters like upgradability, cost, etc. (thus, why I still have a cheap 600Mhz notebook). But, that doesn't mean I wouldn't mind the power savings of a throttled CPU on my desktop machine. It may be a desktop, but I still don't need 2.1GHz to read e-mail.
Nothing is impossible.
Oh yeah!?! What about Cold Fusion! Hah!
As for (1) and (2), these are things that can't really be changed; which is OK, because they aren't nearly as large an impediment to progress as (3).
If you own a business of any size, and you provide any service to the public, your pricing and ROI calculations must include the cost of inevitable legislation. And those costs are just for defending against largely frivolous claims. If, gods forbid, you are actually liable for anything -- even through an honest mistake -- there's a good chance your business won't make it out of litigation alive.
So, everyone waits until someone enters the market (usually either small businesses or huge businesses taking a rare risk) and survives for a while. Then, everyone else will jump in the pool, but have to be careful not to compete too well lest they get sued (even illegitimate lawsuits cost money to defend).
Until we make the barrier of entry much lower by fixing the civil law system, the US will continue to lag behind on anything even mildly "risky".
It's a much harder problem than it might seem. Chess games, for example, have a finite set of rules (and you cannot deviate from them) and proceed in a more-or-less logical fashion. Language, on the other hand, is tremendously flexible and often illogical. Not to mention the countless exceptions to grammatical rules, and the disagreements that arise as to which usages are correct (e.g. should punctuation go inside or outside quotation marks?).
Consider simple things (for humans) like distinguishing between the singular or plural form of a word -- what happens when they match?
"The data are irregular" and "The data is irregular" are both correct. (Note for pedants: the latter implies the concept of "data set", and such implications are not only commonplace in English, but entirely correct.) So, how does a grammar checker determine whether you are implying the singular or plural of a noun in order to check for verb agreement?
Hell, humans get it wrong even when we make a conscious effort to be picky and pedantic (I certainly do. Spot the grammatical errors in this post alone!). How can you expect a computer to appreciate nuance?
My main three beefs with Word are its large footprint (bloat), high price, and platform lock-in. Add to this problems with stability, annoying default settings (like AutoReplace and "check grammar as you type"), and the occasional "whoops, I just irreparably damaged the file you were working on".
As to the large footprint, this is a problem with every serious Word contender -- OpenOffice isn't exactly tiny either. However, considering the feature set that most users require, something like AbiWord makes up for its reduced feature-set with an incredibly small footprint.
The most compelling factor is price. If I need just a "rich text" word-processing environment, why would I shell out for Word when AbiWord will work quite well for free? Likewise, if I need full word-processing capabilities, why not use OpenOffice? Granted, I think Word still does a few things better than OpenOffice; but, it's tough to beat the pricetag.
Platform lock-in is a major detractor as well. Word works great if all you have are Windows and MacOS workstations. Of course, if you have both, you're back to the price issue -- buying word-processing software for both machines. OpenOffice, on the other hand, runs on just about any desktop OS -- Windows, Linux, MacOS, Solaris, to name a few. As I often move between Windows and Linux, the cross-platform availability is essential.
Now, if MS would both make a Linux version of Word and change their licensing rules to allow me to buy one "concurrent-use" package to cover all three of my PC's, I might think Word was worth considering again.
As for the rest, there are little annoyances with every word-processing package I have ever used. The catch is, if I'm paying for it, I expect it to happen far less often. This was the same gripe I had with ApplixWare.
I honestly don't care who writes my software, as long as it works, is reasonably-priced, and has the features I require. I'm hardly a zealot. Still, Word is most decidedly not my first choice for word-processing software.
Look up the history of DR-DOS if you want reminders.
I'm well aware of that history, but Linux as a dual-boot is targeted toward the desktop market. And, despite my personal, pro-Linux opinion on the matter, the fact remains that Linux is not going to compete with MS on the desktop for a long while.
DR-DOS, on the other hand, was successfully competing with MS-DOS. I don't put it past MS to break Linux compatibility by doing things like altering filesystems and making migration harder. But sabotaging dual-boot capability is likely not high on the list.
Easy to fix that name recognition problem
Funny thing, technology has given media the power of pictures! Yeah, you could get plastic surgery too... but how many people would risk that pain and cost just for blowing the whistle on fraud?
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the article?
Yep. They grew the jaw in a titanium cage *on his shoulder*. So, the removed the titanium *from his shoulder* before implanting the new jaw.
Ever speed when you're running late for work? Well, you broke the law. Aren't you glad the cop who writes you the ticket for that doesn't equate you with a rapist or torturer?
Real win-win.
I'm reading a great number of posts in many threads regarding the gender bias in technical fields. Granted, a good chunk of this bias exists because we are only now moving past the culture of "girls aren't supposed to be good at tech stuff". However, some of the disparity is actually a result of much deeper gender differences.
Now, in case anyone is readying the flamethrower, I consider myself a feminist along the line of "feminism is the notion that women are equal to men." However, part of recognizing the equality of the genders is acknowledging and celebrating their inherent differences.
I believe that a good part of the reason that women don't enter technical fields is because many of them find the work uninteresting. Not that women don't appreciate the challenges of technical work -- but, rather, that women tend to be more socially motivated than men. (Yes, I know, some of that is socialized behavior; but some isn't). As a result, while solving interesting problems is just as big a draw for intelligent women as it is for intelligent men, women are more likely to have a distaste for being chained to a computer all day -- they would rather have jobs that allow them to interact with humans thoroughout the day.
Yes, I know that's a sweeping generalization, and there are many exceptions -- some of the best developers I know are women, and most of them love their jobs. However, in general, men tend to be more comfortable in the impersonal technical fields, and women in the more social professions. (By social, I mean "interacting with humans" is a significant part of the job). That same function is partly responsible for the disproportionately large number of women in fields like nursing.
As an aside, my mother-in-law is adjunct faculty for a local college's nursing program. I've scanned through some of the textbooks for things like the Advanced Cardiology Care certificate (a nursing program) -- any woman who can work in those advanced nursing fields is every bit as intelligent and cabaple as advanced IT people.
So, I don't think it's a question of capability (clearly it's not), but one of motivation: most women would rather work in social jobs, where as men often are completely comfortable in the impersonal work environments.
The calm, cool, confident, and respectful manner in which IBM is handling itself in court is admirable; IMHO, this puts them head-and-shoulders above SCO's legal team.
Part of the reason the War on Drugs fails so dismally is that there is no hope of catching any significant portion of the offenders -- so, offenders have relatively little fear of reprisal. Further, even if it were possible to nab every single offender, the level of spending, invasive technology use (e.g. wiretapping, tracking, etc.), and general loss of civil liberties would be so drastic a change as to cause a massive public outcry. Even the anti-drug crowd would likely not approve.
The better solution from the government's standpoint is to slowly increase its power until such a campaign can be effectively launched with little fear of public outcry.
So, while the prosecution of these spammers and phishers will hopefully send a message that there is some risk to these activities -- thereby eliminating the "casual offenders" -- there is essentially no hope of curtailing this activity without the willingness of citizens to give up a great deal of personal freedom.
Ultimately, the arrest/prosecution of these criminals will halt the stupid "hey I can make a quick buck" scams, but lead to a greater sophistication of scams (and spams). As a result, there will be fewer of these originating in the US, but they will be harder to detect overall.
30fps video cameras: 30fps * 60sec * 60min * 24h = 2,592,000 pictures per day. So, if I recorded, say 12hours of video a day, this would fill up in my lifetime. Never mind sound recording and multiple versions (edited/unedited/etc.).
Of course, the same applies if I have 12 people shooting for an hour a day. If we say "a lifetime" is 100 years, then also imagine this: 1200 people shooting 1 hour of footage a day (by the above math) would fill 100TB in just 1 year.
And none of this takes into consideration higher-resolution imaging like 3d-scanning, medical imaging, and so on. There may be little use for the home user, but there will always be uses for more storage.