And I've got a buddy with a 4 yr degree in business who works as a fry cook. Obviously a degree is not a guarantee of a "better" job and to some extent the field of your degree will limit or open certain opportunities, but any college degree teaches certain things and overall people with college degrees do better, earnings-wise, than people without them. While corporations are not hiring ethicists and philosophers outright, they are hiring people who can read and write and get projects finished. And one of the best ways to prove you can do that is by holding a college degree.
Hmmm. I think your nephew will be fine. For one, his degree program will have taught him to read, write, and think critically. This can be a valuable skill. It will also result in having a 4 year degree, which shows a certain level of persistence and ability to work with larger organizations (i.e. colleges and universities). The numbers are definitely in favor of college graduates outearning non-graduates-- whether this makes them more successful is a question for philosophers, so perhaps your nephew will be able to clarify.:)
For my part, I had a couple of intro computing classes in college and a seminar on cognitive science (which tied in with the linguistics I almost majored in). Yet every day I'm writing Perl and VBA and SQL and HTML and FOCUS and spending my entire day playing on computers big and small. It may have something to do with starting to use and program computers about 20 years ago, and no, I'm not a hardcore programmer or computer scientist, but I am an IT professional (I guess). But I have a degree in Studio Arts of all things. The only thing I love more than computers is photography, but there's no money in that. Sometimes our fallback skills and loves can be lucrative and even though our primary degree wasn't focused on those things, we still might be able to earn some scratch with them.
Your statement about karma is not quite correct and your statement about Christianity is a narrow truth stated as a general rule.
Karma is not the idea that you "pay back" for your "evil" deeds. It is the idea that any action you take has an effect on your life and subsequent reincarnation(s). Here is a good explanation of karma.
As for Christianity, there are numerous sects, and one of the more prominent is the Roman Catholic Church. Their program for salvation is significantly more complicated than simply "accepting Christ as your savior". While at their core, the various types of Christianity may have what appears to be a similar notion of what salvation is, what they expect the faithful to do as a result of their faith varies. Look at the variation in baptismal practices as a good indicator of attitudes around salvation.
When trying to sound edumacated, it's best if you spell stuff right. Mmmmkay?
And it's "Gutenberg". And what he contributed was the idea of movable type. Most of his invention relied on previously existing printing techniques. And moreso, the idea that you could print a book. Obviously the technology was there before to create books from wood blocks (indeed, in India relief printing was used to create books during the first millenium). In fact, it was probably more the (European) shortage of durable paper than printing techniques which was to blame for the lack of wider availability of books. That and a general illiteracy creates a bit of a chicken and egg issue. If no one can read, why make books? If there are no books, why learn to read?
The salient point of the article is not that Buddhism per se is a "happier religion" (which you kind of pointed out) but that there seems to be scientific evidence for the idea that a regular program of a certain kind of meditative practice can have a positive effect on the brain.
The activity, which meditation most certainly is, is not unlike parts of standard hypnotherapy or yoga. Concentrating on nothing or simply on breathing, putting the body into a state of complete relaxation, etc, are not unique ideas to Buddhism. In fact, the same positive effects may well flow from other more overtly religious activities like saying the Rosary.
But scientists haven't studied that as much I'm guessing-- perhaps because prominent Catholics aren't as interested in working with science as prominent Buddhists are. The Dalai Lama meets regularly with western scientists and pseudo-scientists to discuss similarities and differences between Buddhist thought and scientific theory. Further, Buddhism generally says that there is no infallible word of God, which may or may not be contradicted by scientific evidence, so Buddhists do not cling to their beliefs out of "faith", but generally welcome any opportunity for greater understanding.
And when it comes to Buddhist doctrine, reincarnation and/or non-rebirth are certainly more comforting "afterlife" theories than the prospect of eternal torment. Once you stop worrying that the slightest mistake on your part could result in infinite pain after death, you can relax a bit.;)
What about it? You don't have a legal right to create derived works from GPL software if you don't accept the terms of the GPL. If OpenTV can't or won't abide by the GPL then they are guilty of copyright infringement in a very big way. That's still illegal. In fact, I wonder if one couldn't spin the GPL as a security mechanism and make them out to be violating the DMCA as well.;)
Who lost money? How about the programmers OpenTV would have otherwise had to pay by the hour to produce proprietary code for their systems? The programmers who chose to give out their code under the GPL expected that code to be shared and shared alike, not hoarded by OpenTV. In all likelihood, had they wanted to facilitate OpenTV's private interests they would have asked to get paid for their services. It's not like the consideration these programmers are asking for is all that expensive or complicated.
First, RMS is involved with Free Software, so what the "open source" community wants is probably not foremost in his mind. Second, the Free Software movement posits that the only "potentially useful mix of semi-open [whatever that means] source commercial software" is a mix where there is 0% non-Free software. Third, in this case, the FSF is a non-profit charity organization. It may well put their non-profit charter at risk if they are helping private companies by advertising their software.
Fourth, I doubt that RMS or the FSF would even comment on this, except that GPL Ghostscript was part of the GNU project. As such, it may be that the policy in this case appears counter-intuitive (and it's certainly more complicated than a simple anti-advertising slant), but since the stated goal of GNU is to promote Free Software, the FSF needs to draw the line somewhere.
No. The law should clearly aim at reforming the behavior of young people when it is possible-- and part of that will be achieved by holding them personally responsible, not blaming their parents. Obviously having parents to use as a get-out-of-jail-free card is counter-productive. Please note that this does not mean putting juveniles into the adult justice system. These kids are locked out of adulthood (as things like this law show very clearly), so treating them like adults only when they misbehave is flatly hyprocitical.
What you say about encouraging parents to raise their kids to respect rules... that's plainly nonsense. Parents should be encouraged to raise children who can think for themselves and have learned to respect others. Rules aren't always correct. Treating other people well is also sometimes complex, and rules can't always help there. Additionally, some deplorable behavior is not actually against the rules.
Finally, while I'm not a huge fan of this law (obviously violent video games are popular all over the "developed" world, but the U.S. is the only place with a major violence problem, so saying the games are the problem is patently misleading), I don't see what the problem is. There are a great number of movies that I don't think should be restricted, but which it is illegal for anyone (even parents) to allow minors to see. In this case, the law does not prohibit parents buying these games for their children. This promotes parent-child communication about values, so what's the problem with that?
What you say is accurate from a scientific perspective, but the real problem lies in our unwilllingness to consider some fundamental questions about our presumed uniqueness. From a religious perspective many Westerners are not going to allow that chimps belong in "homo" because that might mean things like chimps could have "souls" or some sort of higher consciousness (such as the self-awareness we often presume to have ourselves, but won't admit other animals might have). This would be like letting the Darwinist/terrorists win.:)
The other interesting question about our human condition is: when did it first occur if it did not exist in our shared chimp-human ancestor? and how did it come to be at that time?
Just so you're aware, BitTorrent is neither anonymous, encrypted, or private in any meaningful way. Although you might encrypt the files and/or send the transmissions using a secure transport layer, any peer on the system needs to know your IP in order to be part of the swarm. If you watch the output of tcpdump on your firewall while running BT you'll be able to see quite clearly who you're getting/sharing files with. Additionally, most BT seeds are associated with a tracker so that information can be gathered regarding files and peers (i.e. number of downloads, amount shared by each peer, etc).
It would be kind of fun, a lot like being able to search the court records in Wisconsin.:)
Some of this information could only be gotten through means which are extremely shady in the ethics department. An entire cottage industry will spring up to provide anonymous services of one sort or another. But as for public records and the like... imagine what this sort of thing does to open secrets-- that is, turns them into open knowledge. People like William Bennett would be obviously spouting hypocritical trash from day one.
I have two concerns with this sort of database. The first is accuracy. Imagine looking up "ichimunki" and finding the person who used my name over at amazon.com to review a few books. That's not me (unless I'm suffering from multiple personality syndrome). But those reviews might get associated with me by accident. Also, once the Social Security Administration changed my birthdate on my social security record (I probably should have left it, since I could have retired 10 months earlier), but imagine my surprise to discover the discrepancy while talking with an IRS agent! Data accidents happen. Accuracy is important.
My other concern is access. If everyone has access to the whole database, then the possibility for abuse is much different than if access is highly restricted. Restricted access basically makes the database owners party to secrets. The risks of misuse of secret information... ok, blackmail, seem high. There needs to at least be full and complete access to one's own records (without review or censoring like the FBI does).
It's an interesting question and one to which the knee-jerk cries of Big Brother are not sufficient solutions. Someone somewhere has the money, the time, and the interest in doing this. At least if it's DARPA we have some theoretical oversight, it being a government agency.
Maybe. When you start to tally up the components of this system you're looking at a pretty expensive hand-build. And you're looking at the time to put the parts together. And install an OS. So while you might enjoy spending your time that way, most companies would rather be focusing on doing whatever it is they're actually good at doing.
The GPL covers private sourcecode modification, so strictly speaking it is a Use License, aka EULA. Had you read the licence rather than propaganda, you would know that.
Had you taken some time to think, you'd be less of an asshole. I guess the world's not perfect, though.
The GPL does not cover use, it covers distribution. In fact, one of the underlying premises in Free Software is that users may use the software. And privately modifying the source code does not require any sort of a license because that is not illegal. Dumbass.
I bet you're happy to assume the GPL is valid, though?
Fairly pathetic troll, but it's Monday so: The GPL gives permission to do things that would otherwise be illegal. So what would be the point of invalidating the GPL? "Please! I'm begging you! I don't want to be able to copy this software. Take these onerous freedoms away!"
Any trade secret that becomes common knowledge is no longer protected, therefore is in the public domain.
Not necessarily. The specific ingredients list for Coca-Cola is a trade secret. If it were to become known, then it would not have any protection because it's a list of ingredients. You can't copyright that. Similarly, if SCO has a way of doing something (like an algorithm) then they couldn't protect that anymore because normally they would have needed to get a patent to prevent others from using it.
However, if code contained in the Linux kernel or other GNU/Linux library or application is derived directly from SCO UnixWare code, then that Linux code is quite possibly infringing SCO's copyright. You can't just use it. It is not in the public domain anymore than a Steven King novel is (even though none of the text of King's novels are secret).
SCO most certainly can revoke a license if they can show that IBM materially breached a contract they signed regarding that license.
I doubt MS is "paying off" SCO because MS is afraid of being targeted, rather MS sees that these claims by SCO that Linux is infringing as positive-- if Linux has a cloudy legal future, then MS can continue to undercut Linux-- and they can help SCO stay afloat by licensing something they don't even intend to use. It's bankrolling straight up plain and simple, if you ask me.
Re:Get rid of the pennies
on
Making Change
·
· Score: 1
If rounding down is really dragging them down that much, they can raise their prices by 3 cents an item and make back all that "lost" revenue.
I think the summary is more like "blah blah blah" (or is that "beep beep beep"). Like Apple has any chance in the next five years of unseating Microsoft-- no matter how great their OS is by comparison. And I think opening with Sorry, Linux desktop fans: When it comes to desktop operating systems, it's currently a two-way race between Windows and the Mac OS is the biggest indication that she's full of it. Linux doesn't lose on account of the UI itself... it loses for other reasons: the need to install it (really more about the learning curve than anything-- installing RH8 isn't any harder than installing Mac OS X) and the lack of "killer" apps (commercial or free).
When it comes to the race, saying the race is between Apple and Microsoft is like saying you're going to have a freight hauling race between an go-cart and a semi. For whatever reason, Apple actually seems to have superior quality, but nobody's buying! Apple has been a niche player forever now. MS users aren't in a hurry for the next Windows. Most of them are just now barely getting into XP. No need for MS to try and rush anything or worry about Apple.
You probably won't see many robots in real life until they're a cheaper source of labor than illegal immigrants or family members under the age of 15.:)
Re:I hate math...
on
Making Change
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, I think you meant either "40" or "forty". There is no number known as "fourty".
The whole notion of altering the face value of coinage is a bit silly. First of all, judicious use of a 50 cent piece would make many transactions much simpler, as would actually taking advantage of the two dollar bill. I used to work in a restaurant (as both a financial manager and a cashier) where we used all available denominations under $20. Once you get into it, it's just as easy to do, and slightly faster.
Most of this mess can be avoided by pricing things sensibly. Any price can be adjusted so that the after tax price (if tax is applicable) is a nice round number. Of course, due to rounding this sometimes breaks down on multiple item purchases, but anyone with half a brain can notice which price combinations result in bad totals and adjust the underlying prices to compensate. Or you can just take advantage of the "give a penny, take a penny" method to avoid dealing with units under five cents. You know, round in the customer's favor.
Just be glad it's not the problem they have in Japan where a $2 item costs 240 yen and a monthly rent on an apartment can be in the hundreds of thousands. Their yen is worth less than a penny, but it's the base unit in which they count monetary value. It's like expressing every price in cents.
Re:The first /.-proof website?
on
Gentoo Games
·
· Score: 1
Well, what if only part of the image needs to change?!?! No need reloading the whole image. And in terms of maintenance this is much more efficient since you would only have to ssh into your database server, log in to the mysql CLI and do a quick update query for the record holding that portion of the image. This simple CLI procedure is much more intuitive than some pointy-and-grunt FTP upload of an entire image. Not to mention the enormous bandwidth savings of just updating the part that needs to be updated. Doing it right in the first place is a much more scalable approach in the long term. What if someday you need to host 1000s of various content-free splash images. Can you imagine trying to maintain all that as static content?
Slashdot Mirror
Forget that. I'm going to encode mine using CSS, that way not only do they have to store them, but reading them would violate the DMCA.
And I've got a buddy with a 4 yr degree in business who works as a fry cook. Obviously a degree is not a guarantee of a "better" job and to some extent the field of your degree will limit or open certain opportunities, but any college degree teaches certain things and overall people with college degrees do better, earnings-wise, than people without them. While corporations are not hiring ethicists and philosophers outright, they are hiring people who can read and write and get projects finished. And one of the best ways to prove you can do that is by holding a college degree.
Hmmm. I think your nephew will be fine. For one, his degree program will have taught him to read, write, and think critically. This can be a valuable skill. It will also result in having a 4 year degree, which shows a certain level of persistence and ability to work with larger organizations (i.e. colleges and universities). The numbers are definitely in favor of college graduates outearning non-graduates-- whether this makes them more successful is a question for philosophers, so perhaps your nephew will be able to clarify. :)
For my part, I had a couple of intro computing classes in college and a seminar on cognitive science (which tied in with the linguistics I almost majored in). Yet every day I'm writing Perl and VBA and SQL and HTML and FOCUS and spending my entire day playing on computers big and small. It may have something to do with starting to use and program computers about 20 years ago, and no, I'm not a hardcore programmer or computer scientist, but I am an IT professional (I guess). But I have a degree in Studio Arts of all things. The only thing I love more than computers is photography, but there's no money in that. Sometimes our fallback skills and loves can be lucrative and even though our primary degree wasn't focused on those things, we still might be able to earn some scratch with them.
Your statement about karma is not quite correct and your statement about Christianity is a narrow truth stated as a general rule.
Karma is not the idea that you "pay back" for your "evil" deeds. It is the idea that any action you take has an effect on your life and subsequent reincarnation(s). Here is a good explanation of karma.
As for Christianity, there are numerous sects, and one of the more prominent is the Roman Catholic Church. Their program for salvation is significantly more complicated than simply "accepting Christ as your savior". While at their core, the various types of Christianity may have what appears to be a similar notion of what salvation is, what they expect the faithful to do as a result of their faith varies. Look at the variation in baptismal practices as a good indicator of attitudes around salvation.
hoi-paloi. No. Hoi Polloi.
When trying to sound edumacated, it's best if you spell stuff right. Mmmmkay?
And it's "Gutenberg". And what he contributed was the idea of movable type. Most of his invention relied on previously existing printing techniques. And moreso, the idea that you could print a book. Obviously the technology was there before to create books from wood blocks (indeed, in India relief printing was used to create books during the first millenium). In fact, it was probably more the (European) shortage of durable paper than printing techniques which was to blame for the lack of wider availability of books. That and a general illiteracy creates a bit of a chicken and egg issue. If no one can read, why make books? If there are no books, why learn to read?
The salient point of the article is not that Buddhism per se is a "happier religion" (which you kind of pointed out) but that there seems to be scientific evidence for the idea that a regular program of a certain kind of meditative practice can have a positive effect on the brain.
;)
The activity, which meditation most certainly is, is not unlike parts of standard hypnotherapy or yoga. Concentrating on nothing or simply on breathing, putting the body into a state of complete relaxation, etc, are not unique ideas to Buddhism. In fact, the same positive effects may well flow from other more overtly religious activities like saying the Rosary.
But scientists haven't studied that as much I'm guessing-- perhaps because prominent Catholics aren't as interested in working with science as prominent Buddhists are. The Dalai Lama meets regularly with western scientists and pseudo-scientists to discuss similarities and differences between Buddhist thought and scientific theory. Further, Buddhism generally says that there is no infallible word of God, which may or may not be contradicted by scientific evidence, so Buddhists do not cling to their beliefs out of "faith", but generally welcome any opportunity for greater understanding.
And when it comes to Buddhist doctrine, reincarnation and/or non-rebirth are certainly more comforting "afterlife" theories than the prospect of eternal torment. Once you stop worrying that the slightest mistake on your part could result in infinite pain after death, you can relax a bit.
What about it? You don't have a legal right to create derived works from GPL software if you don't accept the terms of the GPL. If OpenTV can't or won't abide by the GPL then they are guilty of copyright infringement in a very big way. That's still illegal. In fact, I wonder if one couldn't spin the GPL as a security mechanism and make them out to be violating the DMCA as well. ;)
Who lost money? How about the programmers OpenTV would have otherwise had to pay by the hour to produce proprietary code for their systems? The programmers who chose to give out their code under the GPL expected that code to be shared and shared alike, not hoarded by OpenTV. In all likelihood, had they wanted to facilitate OpenTV's private interests they would have asked to get paid for their services. It's not like the consideration these programmers are asking for is all that expensive or complicated.
First, RMS is involved with Free Software, so what the "open source" community wants is probably not foremost in his mind. Second, the Free Software movement posits that the only "potentially useful mix of semi-open [whatever that means] source commercial software" is a mix where there is 0% non-Free software. Third, in this case, the FSF is a non-profit charity organization. It may well put their non-profit charter at risk if they are helping private companies by advertising their software.
Fourth, I doubt that RMS or the FSF would even comment on this, except that GPL Ghostscript was part of the GNU project. As such, it may be that the policy in this case appears counter-intuitive (and it's certainly more complicated than a simple anti-advertising slant), but since the stated goal of GNU is to promote Free Software, the FSF needs to draw the line somewhere.
No. The law should clearly aim at reforming the behavior of young people when it is possible-- and part of that will be achieved by holding them personally responsible, not blaming their parents. Obviously having parents to use as a get-out-of-jail-free card is counter-productive. Please note that this does not mean putting juveniles into the adult justice system. These kids are locked out of adulthood (as things like this law show very clearly), so treating them like adults only when they misbehave is flatly hyprocitical.
What you say about encouraging parents to raise their kids to respect rules... that's plainly nonsense. Parents should be encouraged to raise children who can think for themselves and have learned to respect others. Rules aren't always correct. Treating other people well is also sometimes complex, and rules can't always help there. Additionally, some deplorable behavior is not actually against the rules.
Finally, while I'm not a huge fan of this law (obviously violent video games are popular all over the "developed" world, but the U.S. is the only place with a major violence problem, so saying the games are the problem is patently misleading), I don't see what the problem is. There are a great number of movies that I don't think should be restricted, but which it is illegal for anyone (even parents) to allow minors to see. In this case, the law does not prohibit parents buying these games for their children. This promotes parent-child communication about values, so what's the problem with that?
What you say is accurate from a scientific perspective, but the real problem lies in our unwilllingness to consider some fundamental questions about our presumed uniqueness. From a religious perspective many Westerners are not going to allow that chimps belong in "homo" because that might mean things like chimps could have "souls" or some sort of higher consciousness (such as the self-awareness we often presume to have ourselves, but won't admit other animals might have). This would be like letting the Darwinist/terrorists win. :)
The other interesting question about our human condition is: when did it first occur if it did not exist in our shared chimp-human ancestor? and how did it come to be at that time?
Just so you're aware, BitTorrent is neither anonymous, encrypted, or private in any meaningful way. Although you might encrypt the files and/or send the transmissions using a secure transport layer, any peer on the system needs to know your IP in order to be part of the swarm. If you watch the output of tcpdump on your firewall while running BT you'll be able to see quite clearly who you're getting/sharing files with. Additionally, most BT seeds are associated with a tracker so that information can be gathered regarding files and peers (i.e. number of downloads, amount shared by each peer, etc).
It would be kind of fun, a lot like being able to search the court records in Wisconsin. :)
Some of this information could only be gotten through means which are extremely shady in the ethics department. An entire cottage industry will spring up to provide anonymous services of one sort or another. But as for public records and the like... imagine what this sort of thing does to open secrets-- that is, turns them into open knowledge. People like William Bennett would be obviously spouting hypocritical trash from day one.
I have two concerns with this sort of database. The first is accuracy. Imagine looking up "ichimunki" and finding the person who used my name over at amazon.com to review a few books. That's not me (unless I'm suffering from multiple personality syndrome). But those reviews might get associated with me by accident. Also, once the Social Security Administration changed my birthdate on my social security record (I probably should have left it, since I could have retired 10 months earlier), but imagine my surprise to discover the discrepancy while talking with an IRS agent! Data accidents happen. Accuracy is important.
My other concern is access. If everyone has access to the whole database, then the possibility for abuse is much different than if access is highly restricted. Restricted access basically makes the database owners party to secrets. The risks of misuse of secret information... ok, blackmail, seem high. There needs to at least be full and complete access to one's own records (without review or censoring like the FBI does).
It's an interesting question and one to which the knee-jerk cries of Big Brother are not sufficient solutions. Someone somewhere has the money, the time, and the interest in doing this. At least if it's DARPA we have some theoretical oversight, it being a government agency.
Maybe. When you start to tally up the components of this system you're looking at a pretty expensive hand-build. And you're looking at the time to put the parts together. And install an OS. So while you might enjoy spending your time that way, most companies would rather be focusing on doing whatever it is they're actually good at doing.
The GPL covers private sourcecode modification, so strictly speaking it is a Use License, aka EULA. Had you read the licence rather than propaganda, you would know that.
Had you taken some time to think, you'd be less of an asshole. I guess the world's not perfect, though.
The GPL does not cover use, it covers distribution. In fact, one of the underlying premises in Free Software is that users may use the software. And privately modifying the source code does not require any sort of a license because that is not illegal. Dumbass.
I bet you're happy to assume the GPL is valid, though?
Fairly pathetic troll, but it's Monday so: The GPL gives permission to do things that would otherwise be illegal. So what would be the point of invalidating the GPL? "Please! I'm begging you! I don't want to be able to copy this software. Take these onerous freedoms away!"
This, of course, assumes that EULAs are valid contracts. Many of us would say they are not.
Any trade secret that becomes common knowledge is no longer protected, therefore is in the public domain.
Not necessarily. The specific ingredients list for Coca-Cola is a trade secret. If it were to become known, then it would not have any protection because it's a list of ingredients. You can't copyright that. Similarly, if SCO has a way of doing something (like an algorithm) then they couldn't protect that anymore because normally they would have needed to get a patent to prevent others from using it.
However, if code contained in the Linux kernel or other GNU/Linux library or application is derived directly from SCO UnixWare code, then that Linux code is quite possibly infringing SCO's copyright. You can't just use it. It is not in the public domain anymore than a Steven King novel is (even though none of the text of King's novels are secret).
That's why I said "if". Of course a lot depends on the language of the contract.
SCO most certainly can revoke a license if they can show that IBM materially breached a contract they signed regarding that license.
I doubt MS is "paying off" SCO because MS is afraid of being targeted, rather MS sees that these claims by SCO that Linux is infringing as positive-- if Linux has a cloudy legal future, then MS can continue to undercut Linux-- and they can help SCO stay afloat by licensing something they don't even intend to use. It's bankrolling straight up plain and simple, if you ask me.
If rounding down is really dragging them down that much, they can raise their prices by 3 cents an item and make back all that "lost" revenue.
I think the summary is more like "blah blah blah" (or is that "beep beep beep"). Like Apple has any chance in the next five years of unseating Microsoft-- no matter how great their OS is by comparison. And I think opening with Sorry, Linux desktop fans: When it comes to desktop operating systems, it's currently a two-way race between Windows and the Mac OS is the biggest indication that she's full of it. Linux doesn't lose on account of the UI itself... it loses for other reasons: the need to install it (really more about the learning curve than anything-- installing RH8 isn't any harder than installing Mac OS X) and the lack of "killer" apps (commercial or free).
When it comes to the race, saying the race is between Apple and Microsoft is like saying you're going to have a freight hauling race between an go-cart and a semi. For whatever reason, Apple actually seems to have superior quality, but nobody's buying! Apple has been a niche player forever now. MS users aren't in a hurry for the next Windows. Most of them are just now barely getting into XP. No need for MS to try and rush anything or worry about Apple.
You probably won't see many robots in real life until they're a cheaper source of labor than illegal immigrants or family members under the age of 15. :)
Actually, I think you meant either "40" or "forty". There is no number known as "fourty".
The whole notion of altering the face value of coinage is a bit silly. First of all, judicious use of a 50 cent piece would make many transactions much simpler, as would actually taking advantage of the two dollar bill. I used to work in a restaurant (as both a financial manager and a cashier) where we used all available denominations under $20. Once you get into it, it's just as easy to do, and slightly faster.
Most of this mess can be avoided by pricing things sensibly. Any price can be adjusted so that the after tax price (if tax is applicable) is a nice round number. Of course, due to rounding this sometimes breaks down on multiple item purchases, but anyone with half a brain can notice which price combinations result in bad totals and adjust the underlying prices to compensate. Or you can just take advantage of the "give a penny, take a penny" method to avoid dealing with units under five cents. You know, round in the customer's favor.
Just be glad it's not the problem they have in Japan where a $2 item costs 240 yen and a monthly rent on an apartment can be in the hundreds of thousands. Their yen is worth less than a penny, but it's the base unit in which they count monetary value. It's like expressing every price in cents.
Well, what if only part of the image needs to change?!?! No need reloading the whole image. And in terms of maintenance this is much more efficient since you would only have to ssh into your database server, log in to the mysql CLI and do a quick update query for the record holding that portion of the image. This simple CLI procedure is much more intuitive than some pointy-and-grunt FTP upload of an entire image. Not to mention the enormous bandwidth savings of just updating the part that needs to be updated. Doing it right in the first place is a much more scalable approach in the long term. What if someday you need to host 1000s of various content-free splash images. Can you imagine trying to maintain all that as static content?