intel has introduced a new form factor standard a) that amd can't follow because their memory controller is integrated into the cpu and the btx standard specifies that the memory must be too far away from the cpu, and in an orientation that would make equal length traces almost impossible b) whose sole purpose is to provide additional cooling capacity to a processor that ran way hotter than anyone expected, and that intel has now announced will be phased out in favor of the p3 descended pentium-m
and somehow this is a winner? btx will die off with the prescott's. i give it 2 years max.
if that's all it takes, couldn't you just take an ordinary case and turn it upside down? (After turning all of the cd/dvd drives "right side up", of course)
I never said the Segway was perfect, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the Segway's gyro stabilization over Maddox's third wheel. Of course, I'd also choose walking over either the Segway or the third wheel....
Re:Some little problems...
on
Segway vs. Roomba
·
· Score: 2, Informative
A lot of people like to point out this little piece of drivel, but it's complete BS. Considering the center of gravity of a Segway with a rider is about 3-4 feet off the ground, that wheel would be absolutely usesless in keeping you from going over the handle bars hitting the tiniest bump. Or even stopping. Or keeping you from tipping over backwards going up the smallest of hills. You could make it just as stable with a third wheel, if you were determined to go that route, but it would never be nearly as compact. Alternatively, you could make is just as compact, as in Maddox's picture, and give up pretty much all of your stability.
I guess it's not really equivalent, the point was that it's not really just 2 guys running for president, they do have to beat out a lot of other people to get there. In some ways it seems more like a sports tournament than an election.
As for how Kerry was chosen, it's a complex process. Officially, each party's candidate is nominated at that party's national convention. The people who do the nominating are theoretically free to nominate whoever they want, however in practice the nomination goes to whoever won the most state primary elections. The primary elections happen in each state in the spring before a major election. The rules governing who votes in each primary vary from state to state- In most states, only people who have registered as a member of a political party can vote in that party's primary. In some states people who registered as independent can vote in whichever primary they want. In other states anyone can vote in whichever primary they want. To top it all off, the primaries don't happen at the same time in each state, so in many elections the candidate who will get the nomination is already more or less determined by the time about 15 of the 50 states have had their primaries.
The wierd voting rules, combined with the fact that the representatives at the conventions can nominate whoever they want regardless of the primary results makes the Primaries a difficult process to understand, even for many Americans who follow politics. It often seems like the process is actually detrimental to the end goal. In most of the country, the only people who pay much attention to the Primaries are the people who are very interested in that party's politics. The end result seems to be that many times both parties will nominate candidates that will appeal to a very narrow range of very dedicated voters within that party, but not to anyone else (for example, George Bush and John Kerry)
We actually have a sort of two level system in the U.S., although the reality is that even most people who live here don't pay much attention to the first level. The shortcoming with the first level is that a) Instead of the top two candidates going on the final election, the top one candidate from each side goes to the final election. b) In most states, people can only vote for one of the candidates on their side in the first level.
It's really a screwed up system though, because a lot of times the people who win in the first step are not the same people who would do well in the final election, due to the rules about only being able to vote for people from your party.
I've greatly over simplified things, of course, but if you're not familiar with it, and you really want to see an example of screwed up democracy, you should read about the Primary Elections we have....
I wondered about this too. After all, we have to live through these awful campaigns for like 8 months anyway. What the harm of wating a few more days to count the vote. I really wanted to see one of the networks take back and re-call a state again this year. The major TV networks have turned the U.S. elections into a giant spectator sport, and it pisses me off....
Interesting, considering the exit polls were sponsored by several major news outlets, including ABC, CBS, FOX, a couple of major newspapers.....
All of which, of course, would gladly help Bush steal the election right out from under the noses of the Democrats.
Seriously, even if all of the organizations were strongly right leaning, don't you think that some Democrat staff member might have leaked this information out to the Democratic National Committee? Don't you think that somebody would be raising hell about this besides one lone blogger.
One thing that conspiracy nuts never figure out- It is almost impossible for even two people to keep a secret for long. As the number of people in the know increases, the chances of it being blown goes up exponentially. And you expect us to believe that at least 5 major news organizations, of which maybe one or two has a real interest in seeing Bush re-elected, are all working together to cover up a major theft of the election?
More likely, he's pissed that he got burned by posting preliminary exit poll results that didn't match either the final election results or the final polls (despite many warnings that the preliminary results mean nothing at all) and is looking for a scapegoat for his mistake.
I think a lot of people are greatly exaggerating winamp's "demise" all that has happened is that the last programmer that worked for NullSoft before AOL aquired it has quit AOL. To be honest, I expected it would have happened years sooner. They probably won't be making any more major releases, but 5.x is pretty solid, and should last for a long time to come. And it seems there is still a very active community around WinAmp as well.
I will agree that WinAmp has declined significantly from where it used to be. I think there are a few major reasons for this. 1) AOL corporate culture didn't agree with the NullSoft programmers, which slowed down new development. 2) WinAmp 3.x really turned off a lot of people. They quickly turned around and came out with WinAmp 5.x, but not quickly enough to regain a lot of people that they lost. 3) Windows Media Player got good enough that people who aren't that picky about the features and just want something that plays music are content to use the software bundled with windows, rather than downloading a separate program (the rule of defaults, which contributed greatly to the demise of netscape and may other companies competing against Microsoft: If the software that comes with the operating system is "good enough" 80+% of users will never bother to change it even if there is something substantially better available.)
the ogg plugin is pretty much useless, and as far as i can tell is completely unsupported (as of the last time i looked). it took on the order of 5-10 seconds per file just to read the the metadata when i tried to load my ogg library. after about 10 minutes, i gave up waiting and uninstalled itunes. i would say just keep using winamp. the existing versions aren't going away anytime soon, they are still being maintained, and it seems there is still a thriving community around it. the only thing that has changed is that all of the original developers have stopped working on it, so there are not likely to be anymore significant advances. i've also come across a lot of people like foobar2000 (i personally don't)
Well, I see two potential theories here, and neither one involves malicious intent on AOL's part.
1) One is that there were some people at AOL that had big plans for Netscape or WinAmp, but either didn't stay long enough to see them through (turnover at AOL, even in executive positions, is stunningly high) or ended up with so many hands in the proverbial cookie jar that they never got anywhere with it. AOL is a huge organization, and has something of a reputation for one hand not knowing what the other is doing. It's possible that they bought all these software companies with good intentions, and then couldn't figuer out how to do anything productive with them. I think this is probably true in the case of WinAmp, as WMP was barely a blip on the radar when AOL acquired NullSoft.
2) AOL wanted them as a bargaining chip to use against Microsoft. AOL got a pretty sweet deal from Microsoft a long time ago when it agreed to use IE as the browser in the AOL client. But they also know that Microsoft could turn on them. By having another browser that they (at the time) nominally controlled development on, AOL had a ready defence against any muscling that Microsoft might do in an attempt to marginalize them. If Microsoft ever tried to take over their market, AOL could threathen to take IE out of their client and replace it with Mozilla. This would almost instantly drop IE's marketshare by as much as 25%, something that Microsoft wouldn't want to risk. In this scenario, AOL would be forced to more or less support their acquisitions, even if they never used them, as killing them off would destroy their real usefulness.
Of course it is possible that they originally purchased these and other companies for one of the two reasons above, and then found out that they could get a better deal with Microsoft by "allowing" the project to die out- A sort of one-shot bargaining tool.
There are some people who can accept the fact that they don't enjoy their jobs, but do them anyway to make a living and get their enjoyment from things outside of work. Good for them. I don't look down on them for that, but neither could I ever commit myself to that attitude.
People who say that "Work isn't supposed to be fun..." may honestly be trying to help you. They may actually be a happy person with that attitude (or maybe they've just watched Office Space too many times). But what it comes down to is no one else can tell you what will make you happy. Everyone has to figure it out for (him/her)self. And one thing that I've learned well recently is that you can't be afraid of risk or change when it comes to committing yourself to a course of action that you think might make you a happier person.
Good luck with your company. I will warn you that it's going to be a lot of work, and you will probably have some tough times ahead getting started. Starting your own company is not for the faint of heart. But the rewards are worth it if you can make it work, even if only for a little while.
Finally, some free business advice: If you are going into a business where you will be dealing with clients, know when to drop them if they are causing you problems. A lot of the problems my company had (there were three of us) were due to an inability to come to an agreement on when to cut off a troublesome client (i.e. they were not paying enough for the work being done or were asking for work that was not in the original agreement). And never take on friends or relatives as clients, if you can help it. If you do, know that they will take advantage of you, whether intentionally or not.
I had a good friend in high school who used to say something like "There are no victims, only volunteers." (I don't remember her exact words, but I've seen that quote several times in the time since then, and it's the same idea) I never really understood what she meant until many years later- I had a much more sheltered life than most people at that age. A lot of people feel trapped in their job, or trapped in the financial situation, or trapped in whatever. Nobody is really trapped- It's just easier for most people to blame their circumstances on things beyond their control than to accept the fact that they can change them if they really want to.
I'm not trying to preach to you or anyone else. This is a lesson it took me a long time to learn for myself. There are good jobs out there, even in this economy. I know a lot of people who bitch about their job- about how they hate the company, hate their boss, hate the work they do.... I know them because I used to work with them. And bitch with them. But after a while, I left for a much better job. But they are still there bitching because that's easier than looking for a new job.
If you can't respect the people you work for, then you need a new job. The people who tell you "Welcome to the world" are bitter because they believe they can't improve their lot (or possibly they are laughing at someone who hasn't found the way out yet). If you listen to them you will end up the same way. If you are as smart as you say you are, you have a degree (any degree), and you love what you do, there are good jobs out there for you. Go ahead and apply to Google and Pixar. It can't hurt. But don't stop there. The secret is that fun companies to work for are not always going to be obvious by what they do. In fact it might be in a market that you would have never expected. My current job is in a financial market research company. I didn't know a thing about financial markets when I started here, but they needed somebody with my skills, and they've developed an amazing work environment over the last 12 years or so that they've been in business. Had I not started sending out resumes to every potential employer in the area, I never would have heard of them....
Other posters have suggested getting out on your own. Personally, I've done it, and it wasn't for me. But it was a great experience for me regardless. I think everyone should at least try it out and see if they like it. Some will never go back. Those who do will usually learn valuable lessons from having had a different perspective on the way they work.
Re:Drop out of the system
on
Cube Farm
·
· Score: 1
But then again, people only have kids if they're well off enough that they can afford the kid... right?
If only this were true. On a slightly related note....
CHICAGO--In a report with dire implications for the intellectual future of America, a University of Chicago study revealed Monday that the nation's uneducated are breeding twice as soon and twice as often as those with university diplomas. "The average member of the American underclass spawns at age 15, compared to age 30 for the average college-educated professional," study leader Kenneth Stalls said. "America's intellectual elite, as a result, is badly losing the genetic marathon, with two generations of dullards born for every one generation of cultured literates." Added Stalls: "At this rate, by the year 2100 there will be five smart people on Earth, swallowed whole by more than 12 billion mouth-breathers incapable of understanding the binary exponentiation that swamped the Earth with their like." High-school dropout Mandi Drucker, 16, said of the findings, "All I know is, we're in love."
Caldera aso made a pretty good and quite popular linux distribution once upon a time, if i remember corectly, and contirbuted quite a bit to the IA-64 linux port.
I suppose that may only be true about shared phone/DSL lines. I've never dealt with DSL on a dedicated line before. I was under the impression that you still had to pay for the dedicated line from the phone company, even if you don't have phone service on it, and that any relevant taxes would be on that bill, not your DSL bill. However, that is hearsay, and I don't know with any certainty how the billing on a dedicated line works.
That's how most of the world works. They are called laws. There is no physical barrier that prevents me from speeding, or running red lights. However, I don't do either, because I don't want to get a ticket. Moreover, regardless of the ticket, I know that it's bad for my well being and that of drivers around me.
Yes, in theory one registrar could request transfers for all the domains in the world. However, this would almost certainly be noticed, and that regsitrar would have to return all of the domains, and would almost certainly go out of business as well. In other words, they wouldn't do it, for their well being, and the well being of the customers.
I will admit that the new guidelines don't completely protect against the possibility of fraud on the part of the registrars. However, the old ones didn't either. The new change removes one of the primary abuses of the old system, namely that losing registrars could put such onerous restrictions on how a registrant could prove his identity so as to make it almost impossible for a disgruntled registrant to move to a new registrar.
Also, he lost an election to a dead guy before Bush appointed him.
although it is rather amusing, this is not really relevant in any way. although it was the late governor mel carnahan's name that was printed on the ballot, the acting governor of missouri had made it well known that if carnahan won the election, he would appoint carnahan's wife to fill the position. mrs. carnahan said that she would accept the appointment and even filmed a campaign commercial.
in short, ashcroft didn't really lose the senate seat to "a dead guy", he lost to the late (and i believe well respected) governor's wife.
and, as many other people pointed out, as the former attorney general of missouri, he had just as much qualification to be the attorney general of the united states as any state governor has to be president of the united states.
That the press and most (maybe) of the electorate falls for this is the main reason why so many on the left are willing to believe the election was rigged.
Actually, I would say that the opposite is true. The fact that so much of the electorate falls for a stunt like this so easily is what makes it plausible that Bush could win by such a margin without resorting to tampering with the electoral process itself. If the electorate as a whole showed signs of critical thinking and making decisions based on facts rather than soundbites, then I would think that the only way Bush could have won this election was through fraud. However, that is obviously not the case, and so far I see no reason to believe that Bush's victory was anything but legitimate.
Yes, there are indications of irregularities, but there always will be, and I suspect there are irregularites in Kerry's favor as well (although I doubt we'll ever hear about those) And even if Bush had gotten enough fraudulent votes to swing a key state in his favor, I doubt that he could have created the 3 million odd margin in the popular vote through fraud. Not that popular vote means anything in our electoral system, but on the off chance it turns out that Kerry legitimately won the electoral vote, it will be amusing to see all the people who complained about gore getting 500,000 more popular votes but losing the electoral vote happily accept kerry as the winner of the electoral vote despite losing by 3,500,000 in the popular vote.
I hear a lot of people who say that you should still keep a landline because cell phones or voip services may not work in a power outage. You know what? most phones won't work in a power outage anymore either. I can count the number of people I know who still own a corded phone on my fingers, even while wearing mittens. Personally, I have been using my cell phone exclusively for ayear and a half, and if there were a large power outage, I put better odds on me being able to call someone on my cell phone than most people I know being able to use their land lines.
Slashdot Mirror
let me get this straight....
intel has introduced a new form factor standard
a) that amd can't follow because their memory controller is integrated into the cpu and the btx standard specifies that the memory must be too far away from the cpu, and in an orientation that would make equal length traces almost impossible
b) whose sole purpose is to provide additional cooling capacity to a processor that ran way hotter than anyone expected, and that intel has now announced will be phased out in favor of the p3 descended pentium-m
and somehow this is a winner? btx will die off with the prescott's. i give it 2 years max.
if that's all it takes, couldn't you just take an ordinary case and turn it upside down? (After turning all of the cd/dvd drives "right side up", of course)
One more question:
What is the worst search engine?
Google: MSN at #4
Ask Jeeves: No mention of MSN on the first page
Yeah, if Internet Explorer and Outlook Express disintegrated, I'd feel much better about using windows too....
Or find yourself a new job where CYA doesn't have to be your first reaction to everything that could possibly happen during the work day.
Touche...
I never said the Segway was perfect, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the Segway's gyro stabilization over Maddox's third wheel. Of course, I'd also choose walking over either the Segway or the third wheel....
A lot of people like to point out this little piece of drivel, but it's complete BS. Considering the center of gravity of a Segway with a rider is about 3-4 feet off the ground, that wheel would be absolutely usesless in keeping you from going over the handle bars hitting the tiniest bump. Or even stopping. Or keeping you from tipping over backwards going up the smallest of hills. You could make it just as stable with a third wheel, if you were determined to go that route, but it would never be nearly as compact. Alternatively, you could make is just as compact, as in Maddox's picture, and give up pretty much all of your stability.
I guess it's not really equivalent, the point was that it's not really just 2 guys running for president, they do have to beat out a lot of other people to get there. In some ways it seems more like a sports tournament than an election.
As for how Kerry was chosen, it's a complex process. Officially, each party's candidate is nominated at that party's national convention. The people who do the nominating are theoretically free to nominate whoever they want, however in practice the nomination goes to whoever won the most state primary elections. The primary elections happen in each state in the spring before a major election. The rules governing who votes in each primary vary from state to state- In most states, only people who have registered as a member of a political party can vote in that party's primary. In some states people who registered as independent can vote in whichever primary they want. In other states anyone can vote in whichever primary they want. To top it all off, the primaries don't happen at the same time in each state, so in many elections the candidate who will get the nomination is already more or less determined by the time about 15 of the 50 states have had their primaries.
The wierd voting rules, combined with the fact that the representatives at the conventions can nominate whoever they want regardless of the primary results makes the Primaries a difficult process to understand, even for many Americans who follow politics. It often seems like the process is actually detrimental to the end goal. In most of the country, the only people who pay much attention to the Primaries are the people who are very interested in that party's politics. The end result seems to be that many times both parties will nominate candidates that will appeal to a very narrow range of very dedicated voters within that party, but not to anyone else (for example, George Bush and John Kerry)
We actually have a sort of two level system in the U.S., although the reality is that even most people who live here don't pay much attention to the first level. The shortcoming with the first level is that
a) Instead of the top two candidates going on the final election, the top one candidate from each side goes to the final election.
b) In most states, people can only vote for one of the candidates on their side in the first level.
It's really a screwed up system though, because a lot of times the people who win in the first step are not the same people who would do well in the final election, due to the rules about only being able to vote for people from your party.
I've greatly over simplified things, of course, but if you're not familiar with it, and you really want to see an example of screwed up democracy, you should read about the Primary Elections we have....
What about sequoia systems and ess systems? are those ok then?
I wondered about this too. After all, we have to live through these awful campaigns for like 8 months anyway. What the harm of wating a few more days to count the vote. I really wanted to see one of the networks take back and re-call a state again this year. The major TV networks have turned the U.S. elections into a giant spectator sport, and it pisses me off....
Interesting, considering the exit polls were sponsored by several major news outlets, including ABC, CBS, FOX, a couple of major newspapers.....
All of which, of course, would gladly help Bush steal the election right out from under the noses of the Democrats.
Seriously, even if all of the organizations were strongly right leaning, don't you think that some Democrat staff member might have leaked this information out to the Democratic National Committee? Don't you think that somebody would be raising hell about this besides one lone blogger.
One thing that conspiracy nuts never figure out- It is almost impossible for even two people to keep a secret for long. As the number of people in the know increases, the chances of it being blown goes up exponentially. And you expect us to believe that at least 5 major news organizations, of which maybe one or two has a real interest in seeing Bush re-elected, are all working together to cover up a major theft of the election?
More likely, he's pissed that he got burned by posting preliminary exit poll results that didn't match either the final election results or the final polls (despite many warnings that the preliminary results mean nothing at all) and is looking for a scapegoat for his mistake.
I think a lot of people are greatly exaggerating winamp's "demise" all that has happened is that the last programmer that worked for NullSoft before AOL aquired it has quit AOL. To be honest, I expected it would have happened years sooner. They probably won't be making any more major releases, but 5.x is pretty solid, and should last for a long time to come. And it seems there is still a very active community around WinAmp as well.
I will agree that WinAmp has declined significantly from where it used to be. I think there are a few major reasons for this.
1) AOL corporate culture didn't agree with the NullSoft programmers, which slowed down new development.
2) WinAmp 3.x really turned off a lot of people. They quickly turned around and came out with WinAmp 5.x, but not quickly enough to regain a lot of people that they lost.
3) Windows Media Player got good enough that people who aren't that picky about the features and just want something that plays music are content to use the software bundled with windows, rather than downloading a separate program (the rule of defaults, which contributed greatly to the demise of netscape and may other companies competing against Microsoft: If the software that comes with the operating system is "good enough" 80+% of users will never bother to change it even if there is something substantially better available.)
the ogg plugin is pretty much useless, and as far as i can tell is completely unsupported (as of the last time i looked). it took on the order of 5-10 seconds per file just to read the the metadata when i tried to load my ogg library. after about 10 minutes, i gave up waiting and uninstalled itunes. i would say just keep using winamp. the existing versions aren't going away anytime soon, they are still being maintained, and it seems there is still a thriving community around it. the only thing that has changed is that all of the original developers have stopped working on it, so there are not likely to be anymore significant advances. i've also come across a lot of people like foobar2000 (i personally don't)
Just think, in a year or so it could be the next iTunes killer..
Yeah, because the netscape soucre code really turned into an Internet Explorer killer in a year or so.... (or six)
Well, I see two potential theories here, and neither one involves malicious intent on AOL's part.
1) One is that there were some people at AOL that had big plans for Netscape or WinAmp, but either didn't stay long enough to see them through (turnover at AOL, even in executive positions, is stunningly high) or ended up with so many hands in the proverbial cookie jar that they never got anywhere with it. AOL is a huge organization, and has something of a reputation for one hand not knowing what the other is doing. It's possible that they bought all these software companies with good intentions, and then couldn't figuer out how to do anything productive with them. I think this is probably true in the case of WinAmp, as WMP was barely a blip on the radar when AOL acquired NullSoft.
2) AOL wanted them as a bargaining chip to use against Microsoft. AOL got a pretty sweet deal from Microsoft a long time ago when it agreed to use IE as the browser in the AOL client. But they also know that Microsoft could turn on them. By having another browser that they (at the time) nominally controlled development on, AOL had a ready defence against any muscling that Microsoft might do in an attempt to marginalize them. If Microsoft ever tried to take over their market, AOL could threathen to take IE out of their client and replace it with Mozilla. This would almost instantly drop IE's marketshare by as much as 25%, something that Microsoft wouldn't want to risk. In this scenario, AOL would be forced to more or less support their acquisitions, even if they never used them, as killing them off would destroy their real usefulness.
Of course it is possible that they originally purchased these and other companies for one of the two reasons above, and then found out that they could get a better deal with Microsoft by "allowing" the project to die out- A sort of one-shot bargaining tool.
There are some people who can accept the fact that they don't enjoy their jobs, but do them anyway to make a living and get their enjoyment from things outside of work. Good for them. I don't look down on them for that, but neither could I ever commit myself to that attitude.
People who say that "Work isn't supposed to be fun..." may honestly be trying to help you. They may actually be a happy person with that attitude (or maybe they've just watched Office Space too many times). But what it comes down to is no one else can tell you what will make you happy. Everyone has to figure it out for (him/her)self. And one thing that I've learned well recently is that you can't be afraid of risk or change when it comes to committing yourself to a course of action that you think might make you a happier person.
Good luck with your company. I will warn you that it's going to be a lot of work, and you will probably have some tough times ahead getting started. Starting your own company is not for the faint of heart. But the rewards are worth it if you can make it work, even if only for a little while.
Finally, some free business advice: If you are going into a business where you will be dealing with clients, know when to drop them if they are causing you problems. A lot of the problems my company had (there were three of us) were due to an inability to come to an agreement on when to cut off a troublesome client (i.e. they were not paying enough for the work being done or were asking for work that was not in the original agreement). And never take on friends or relatives as clients, if you can help it. If you do, know that they will take advantage of you, whether intentionally or not.
I had a good friend in high school who used to say something like "There are no victims, only volunteers." (I don't remember her exact words, but I've seen that quote several times in the time since then, and it's the same idea) I never really understood what she meant until many years later- I had a much more sheltered life than most people at that age. A lot of people feel trapped in their job, or trapped in the financial situation, or trapped in whatever. Nobody is really trapped- It's just easier for most people to blame their circumstances on things beyond their control than to accept the fact that they can change them if they really want to.
I'm not trying to preach to you or anyone else. This is a lesson it took me a long time to learn for myself. There are good jobs out there, even in this economy. I know a lot of people who bitch about their job- about how they hate the company, hate their boss, hate the work they do.... I know them because I used to work with them. And bitch with them. But after a while, I left for a much better job. But they are still there bitching because that's easier than looking for a new job.
If you can't respect the people you work for, then you need a new job. The people who tell you "Welcome to the world" are bitter because they believe they can't improve their lot (or possibly they are laughing at someone who hasn't found the way out yet). If you listen to them you will end up the same way. If you are as smart as you say you are, you have a degree (any degree), and you love what you do, there are good jobs out there for you. Go ahead and apply to Google and Pixar. It can't hurt. But don't stop there. The secret is that fun companies to work for are not always going to be obvious by what they do. In fact it might be in a market that you would have never expected. My current job is in a financial market research company. I didn't know a thing about financial markets when I started here, but they needed somebody with my skills, and they've developed an amazing work environment over the last 12 years or so that they've been in business. Had I not started sending out resumes to every potential employer in the area, I never would have heard of them....
Other posters have suggested getting out on your own. Personally, I've done it, and it wasn't for me. But it was a great experience for me regardless. I think everyone should at least try it out and see if they like it. Some will never go back. Those who do will usually learn valuable lessons from having had a different perspective on the way they work.
But then again, people only have kids if they're well off enough that they can afford the kid... right?
If only this were true. On a slightly related note....
Study: Uneducated Outbreeding Intelligentsia 2-To-1
CHICAGO--In a report with dire implications for the intellectual future of America, a University of Chicago study revealed Monday that the nation's uneducated are breeding twice as soon and twice as often as those with university diplomas. "The average member of the American underclass spawns at age 15, compared to age 30 for the average college-educated professional," study leader Kenneth Stalls said. "America's intellectual elite, as a result, is badly losing the genetic marathon, with two generations of dullards born for every one generation of cultured literates." Added Stalls: "At this rate, by the year 2100 there will be five smart people on Earth, swallowed whole by more than 12 billion mouth-breathers incapable of understanding the binary exponentiation that swamped the Earth with their like." High-school dropout Mandi Drucker, 16, said of the findings, "All I know is, we're in love."
--The Onion
Volume 31 Issue 18--13 May 1997
Caldera aso made a pretty good and quite popular linux distribution once upon a time, if i remember corectly, and contirbuted quite a bit to the IA-64 linux port.
I suppose that may only be true about shared phone/DSL lines. I've never dealt with DSL on a dedicated line before. I was under the impression that you still had to pay for the dedicated line from the phone company, even if you don't have phone service on it, and that any relevant taxes would be on that bill, not your DSL bill. However, that is hearsay, and I don't know with any certainty how the billing on a dedicated line works.
That's how most of the world works. They are called laws. There is no physical barrier that prevents me from speeding, or running red lights. However, I don't do either, because I don't want to get a ticket. Moreover, regardless of the ticket, I know that it's bad for my well being and that of drivers around me.
Yes, in theory one registrar could request transfers for all the domains in the world. However, this would almost certainly be noticed, and that regsitrar would have to return all of the domains, and would almost certainly go out of business as well. In other words, they wouldn't do it, for their well being, and the well being of the customers.
I will admit that the new guidelines don't completely protect against the possibility of fraud on the part of the registrars. However, the old ones didn't either. The new change removes one of the primary abuses of the old system, namely that losing registrars could put such onerous restrictions on how a registrant could prove his identity so as to make it almost impossible for a disgruntled registrant to move to a new registrar.
Also, he lost an election to a dead guy before Bush appointed him.
although it is rather amusing, this is not really relevant in any way. although it was the late governor mel carnahan's name that was printed on the ballot, the acting governor of missouri had made it well known that if carnahan won the election, he would appoint carnahan's wife to fill the position. mrs. carnahan said that she would accept the appointment and even filmed a campaign commercial.
in short, ashcroft didn't really lose the senate seat to "a dead guy", he lost to the late (and i believe well respected) governor's wife.
and, as many other people pointed out, as the former attorney general of missouri, he had just as much qualification to be the attorney general of the united states as any state governor has to be president of the united states.
That the press and most (maybe) of the electorate falls for this is the main reason why so many on the left are willing to believe the election was rigged.
Actually, I would say that the opposite is true. The fact that so much of the electorate falls for a stunt like this so easily is what makes it plausible that Bush could win by such a margin without resorting to tampering with the electoral process itself. If the electorate as a whole showed signs of critical thinking and making decisions based on facts rather than soundbites, then I would think that the only way Bush could have won this election was through fraud. However, that is obviously not the case, and so far I see no reason to believe that Bush's victory was anything but legitimate.
Yes, there are indications of irregularities, but there always will be, and I suspect there are irregularites in Kerry's favor as well (although I doubt we'll ever hear about those) And even if Bush had gotten enough fraudulent votes to swing a key state in his favor, I doubt that he could have created the 3 million odd margin in the popular vote through fraud. Not that popular vote means anything in our electoral system, but on the off chance it turns out that Kerry legitimately won the electoral vote, it will be amusing to see all the people who complained about gore getting 500,000 more popular votes but losing the electoral vote happily accept kerry as the winner of the electoral vote despite losing by 3,500,000 in the popular vote.
I hear a lot of people who say that you should still keep a landline because cell phones or voip services may not work in a power outage. You know what? most phones won't work in a power outage anymore either. I can count the number of people I know who still own a corded phone on my fingers, even while wearing mittens. Personally, I have been using my cell phone exclusively for ayear and a half, and if there were a large power outage, I put better odds on me being able to call someone on my cell phone than most people I know being able to use their land lines.