Of people on welfare who have children, only 10% have more than 4 kids.
MORE than 4 kids? How many of them have 4 kids? If you're that financially strapped, why are you having that many kids?
Yes, I know that being poor also means you can't afford birth control and doctors and other things without medical assistance, and there are a whole slew of societal reasons why the poor have more kids (including more free itme on their hands to have sex, unsupervised children because parent is busy working, etc..).
Frankly, I would have a lot less of a problem with many of the welfare queens if they actually did their job and took care of their kids like they're being paid by the state to do. Unfortunately, in my experience, they don't. So, despite having a full time stay at home mother, the kids still end up on the streets committing crimes, having more kids, and generally making their situations worse.
I'm fully aware that Welfare is a great program for many, and that many people use it wisely for a short period of time to get them back on their feet, and for those people the system works well. But come on, 10% with MORE than 4 kids? They probably have as many, if not more kids than those with fewer than 4 kids combined.
Should we turn a blind eye to those that abuse the system just because it works well for those that don't? I don't think so. Should we abandon the system because there are some that abuse the system? Not at all.
Just please, don't pretend the abuse isn't rampant. It is. I know, half my extended family abuses the system (with some having been on welfare for more than 20 years). Not just welfare, but SSI, Food Shelves, and a large number of other programs as well. They work very hard at gaming the system, and they have a network of people they are in regular contact with that discuss ways to find loopholes and exploit things. Not illegally, mind you, but it should be. And I don't even live in a poverty stricken area.
There have been a lot of changes to Welfare over the years in attempts to "fix" the problems, and in my experience they tend to just make it harder on the legitimate recipients. The career recipients just figure out new loopholes.
Typically, if you're doing that sort of work, you have a MSDN or similar agreement that overrides the EULA. MSDN allows you to install any of the OS's in virtual machines for testing.
You're right, of course, but you seem to attribute some sort of malice or sneakiness to the issue. Microsoft typically plans at least 2 RC's. The first is never expected to be a real "release candidate", but instead signifies that a milestone has been reached and it's the beginning of the "endgame" for lack of a better term.
You might call RC1 as the "Beta RC". When the bugs in the "Beta RC" are fixed, then it will be a real RC. No new features (unless it's something showstopping that they have learned their customers won't buy if it's not in there), and just firming up the release for shipment.
In previous beta cycles, they actually called it RC0. I always thought that was a bit weird though. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to scare the beta testers into reporting bugs they may be sitting on. RC1 signifies to the beta testers "We're going to ship like this if you don't submit your bugs", and there is typically a HUGE influx of new bugs reported when RC1 is called and shipped.
Actually, this is more of a function of the suckiness of the reading tools than of the e-books themselves.
I'm waiting for the day when we have "roll up" and easily transportable e-book readersthat give you the same resolution and readability as paper. Unfortunately, most such attempts so far have not been with pure "e-book readers", but PDA's and UMPC's and the like that are much too heavy, with too small of a reading surface and poorer resolution.
Actually, in a Windows environment, tere are at least a dozen common ports that need to be open between machines, including RPC (a common problem with vulnerabilities) for Remote Management. Further, multiple firewalls can cause a great deal of problems with legitimate apps that need two way communication (ftp in particular has a lof of problems here, especially if NAT'ing).
Firewalls and proxies only solve part of the problem. Sure, they can block activex, and other known issues, but they can't block 0-day stuff that doesn't involve common vectors. It also can't block 0-day viruses and trojans, especially if they're of the buffer overflow type rather than the attachment type.
And it won't help if someone brings in their laptop and connects it to your network, or they take a company laptop home and connect it to THEIR network, and get something.
While your argument is reasonable, it doesn't take a lot of things into account. For example, emailed viruses. Also, Yes, sites like Findlaw or CNN *CAN* have viruses or other malware, or at least appear to. A good example is DNS poisoning, in which a DNS server can be compromised to point the user to a fake site that's loaded with nasties.
You can't trust ANYTHING on the internet if you have machines with known flaws in them. Hell, half the time you can't even trust them when there aren't known flaws, but that's a different argument.
I think the point is that if new vulnerabilties are discovered in later versions, that might also effect Win2k, who's going to supply a patch to fix it? And if you don't fix it, you better quarantine it. No internet, ever.
I don't know if your scenario is "many" or not, but there are some significant shorcomings in your proposal. First, if any of these machines need to connect to the internet, the keeping them on an unsupported OS is dangerous. Second, even if they're not connecting to the internet, if there are ever going to be machines brought into the network (such as laptops) that could have viruses or trojans or worms, then your entire system could become compromised.
Frankly, in my mind, it's positively stupid for anyone to run Windows 2000 anymore, unless it's a closed network with no chance of an unsafe machine being brought into it.
What if you're not using Ubuntu or Debian? Or, what if you are, but need different default options?
for as "rare" as it is, I seem to keep running into software that's not in my distro (very common) (SUSE 10). Stuff like Analog, postfix.admin, etc... and invariably, when i go to install these apps by tarball, they require that the programs that I do have in my repository be configured in a different way than SUSE configures them.
The quintessential example is GNU Readline. GNU Readline is a library that is deliberately licensed under the GPL (not the LGPL) in order to "encourage" people to GPL the rest of their software if they need use of it. Basically, linking the Readline library into your application and distributing it requires you to GPL your entire application, even though merely linking to an unmodified library could hardly be called deriving the work from it.
This aspect of linking which requires relicensing is what makes GPL detractors claim the GPL is "viral". Merely placing GPL'd code in the same process space as a non-GPL'd program requires the non-GPL'd program to "catch" the GPL (if the author want's to distribute it).
No, SACD was not a DVD layer. SACD works entirely differnt.
SACD is a streming bit format. each bit signals either an up or down step on the waveform, rather than having sampled bytes indicating a complete level. This is why you can't really start an SACD song in the middle of the song.
While it's true that browsers costed money, that wasn't entirely accurate. Netscape always had beta versions available for free, and there was no enforcement of the "non-commercial" free download. Netscape was the better browser until IE3 (when they were even) and IE4 took the lead compared to the dung heap that was Communicator 4.x.
And, guess what? Even though IE was included with the OS in versions 1 and 2 and 3, it wasn't until IE4 that Microsoft started taking any major share away from Netscape. In other words, when the browser was actually superior.
Seriously, while I don't necessarily discount the evidence. I have to wonder if we're not drawing the wrong conclusions. Who's to say that the higher carbon dioxide levels in the past were the cause of the climate change? Maybe the climate change caused the carbon dioxide... And thus, perhaps higher carbon dioxide levels may not necessarily lead to a major climate change.
I just don't know if we can draw those kinds of conclusions from the data. Though it's certainly a strong possibility.
Funny, but I can go back to virtually every release candidate since Windows 95, and they all said the same thing "This is not release candidate quality".
There's a reason for that. Microsoft likes to call an RC early for OS's because this sends a wakup call to beta testers. Many of them wait to report bugs, assuming someone else will report them. Then, when RC1 hits, and their bug still isn't fix, they panic and start reporting everything.
The problem is, simply erasing files after they've been written isn't good enough. Those files can be recovered. What it should do is store them in fixed (ie non-swapable) memory for the length of the session, assuming you have enough memory or don't store them at all.
There are so many factors to consider. For example, if the government ran the telecommunications industry in the US, it could probably supply (even with government inefficiencies) Telephone, cable, and internet for a good deal less than what commercial providers do. Why? Monopolies make it easier to do things. You can use government land to run cables. you don't have to spend money competing with vendors, advertising, etc.. Plus you can use tax dollars to subsidize the cost.
In most of the cases where you find cheap internet in some country overseas, it's government owned and subsidized, or at worst there's a single corporate vendor. Furthermore, they typically only service a tiny percantage of the entire population, so your "multiply by millions" argument is off base. In most of those countries, the population can't afford a computer, much less internet access.
The price in other countries is deeply dependant upon a lot of other factors. For instance, does the government subsidize the cost? My guess is that yes, the government subsidizes the cost to make it cheap to those countries.
Actually, it's not so trivial to replace the rendering engine in IE for a lot of reasons, including legacy application support (think Quicken or Quickbooks). My guess is that the rendering engine of Expression *WILL* actually end up as the basis for the rendering engine in IE in some future version. They can develop an all new engine and use Expression as a test bed before they spend the effort to integrate it into IE.
Most of the time, Developers are happy to create a crappy looking, but highly functional web page for their application. Visual Studio has pretty poor HTML Designer support anyways. What will happen, more often than not, is that the developer will create the application and then he'll hand it off to a web designer that will make it look pretty. Expression is designed for the Web Designers to play around with the ASP front-end code without needing to use Visual Studio (which they wouldn't understand most of the time anyways and be frustrated with).
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever met anyone on welfare?
Yes. Half my extended family.
Of people on welfare who have children, only 10% have more than 4 kids.
MORE than 4 kids? How many of them have 4 kids? If you're that financially strapped, why are you having that many kids?
Yes, I know that being poor also means you can't afford birth control and doctors and other things without medical assistance, and there are a whole slew of societal reasons why the poor have more kids (including more free itme on their hands to have sex, unsupervised children because parent is busy working, etc..).
Frankly, I would have a lot less of a problem with many of the welfare queens if they actually did their job and took care of their kids like they're being paid by the state to do. Unfortunately, in my experience, they don't. So, despite having a full time stay at home mother, the kids still end up on the streets committing crimes, having more kids, and generally making their situations worse.
I'm fully aware that Welfare is a great program for many, and that many people use it wisely for a short period of time to get them back on their feet, and for those people the system works well. But come on, 10% with MORE than 4 kids? They probably have as many, if not more kids than those with fewer than 4 kids combined.
Should we turn a blind eye to those that abuse the system just because it works well for those that don't? I don't think so. Should we abandon the system because there are some that abuse the system? Not at all.
Just please, don't pretend the abuse isn't rampant. It is. I know, half my extended family abuses the system (with some having been on welfare for more than 20 years). Not just welfare, but SSI, Food Shelves, and a large number of other programs as well. They work very hard at gaming the system, and they have a network of people they are in regular contact with that discuss ways to find loopholes and exploit things. Not illegally, mind you, but it should be. And I don't even live in a poverty stricken area.
There have been a lot of changes to Welfare over the years in attempts to "fix" the problems, and in my experience they tend to just make it harder on the legitimate recipients. The career recipients just figure out new loopholes.
Can you say "So Gullable you'll believe any claim that's negative of Microsoft?"
Typically, if you're doing that sort of work, you have a MSDN or similar agreement that overrides the EULA. MSDN allows you to install any of the OS's in virtual machines for testing.
You're right, of course, but you seem to attribute some sort of malice or sneakiness to the issue. Microsoft typically plans at least 2 RC's. The first is never expected to be a real "release candidate", but instead signifies that a milestone has been reached and it's the beginning of the "endgame" for lack of a better term.
You might call RC1 as the "Beta RC". When the bugs in the "Beta RC" are fixed, then it will be a real RC. No new features (unless it's something showstopping that they have learned their customers won't buy if it's not in there), and just firming up the release for shipment.
In previous beta cycles, they actually called it RC0. I always thought that was a bit weird though. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to scare the beta testers into reporting bugs they may be sitting on. RC1 signifies to the beta testers "We're going to ship like this if you don't submit your bugs", and there is typically a HUGE influx of new bugs reported when RC1 is called and shipped.
Actually, this is more of a function of the suckiness of the reading tools than of the e-books themselves.
I'm waiting for the day when we have "roll up" and easily transportable e-book readersthat give you the same resolution and readability as paper. Unfortunately, most such attempts so far have not been with pure "e-book readers", but PDA's and UMPC's and the like that are much too heavy, with too small of a reading surface and poorer resolution.
Actually, in a Windows environment, tere are at least a dozen common ports that need to be open between machines, including RPC (a common problem with vulnerabilities) for Remote Management. Further, multiple firewalls can cause a great deal of problems with legitimate apps that need two way communication (ftp in particular has a lof of problems here, especially if NAT'ing).
Firewalls and proxies only solve part of the problem. Sure, they can block activex, and other known issues, but they can't block 0-day stuff that doesn't involve common vectors. It also can't block 0-day viruses and trojans, especially if they're of the buffer overflow type rather than the attachment type.
And it won't help if someone brings in their laptop and connects it to your network, or they take a company laptop home and connect it to THEIR network, and get something.
While your argument is reasonable, it doesn't take a lot of things into account. For example, emailed viruses. Also, Yes, sites like Findlaw or CNN *CAN* have viruses or other malware, or at least appear to. A good example is DNS poisoning, in which a DNS server can be compromised to point the user to a fake site that's loaded with nasties.
You can't trust ANYTHING on the internet if you have machines with known flaws in them. Hell, half the time you can't even trust them when there aren't known flaws, but that's a different argument.
I think the point is that if new vulnerabilties are discovered in later versions, that might also effect Win2k, who's going to supply a patch to fix it? And if you don't fix it, you better quarantine it. No internet, ever.
I don't know if your scenario is "many" or not, but there are some significant shorcomings in your proposal. First, if any of these machines need to connect to the internet, the keeping them on an unsupported OS is dangerous. Second, even if they're not connecting to the internet, if there are ever going to be machines brought into the network (such as laptops) that could have viruses or trojans or worms, then your entire system could become compromised.
Frankly, in my mind, it's positively stupid for anyone to run Windows 2000 anymore, unless it's a closed network with no chance of an unsafe machine being brought into it.
Actually, according to intel, the 80 cores would only consume 100 Watts total.
What if you're not using Ubuntu or Debian? Or, what if you are, but need different default options?
for as "rare" as it is, I seem to keep running into software that's not in my distro (very common) (SUSE 10). Stuff like Analog, postfix.admin, etc... and invariably, when i go to install these apps by tarball, they require that the programs that I do have in my repository be configured in a different way than SUSE configures them.
bah.
The quintessential example is GNU Readline. GNU Readline is a library that is deliberately licensed under the GPL (not the LGPL) in order to "encourage" people to GPL the rest of their software if they need use of it. Basically, linking the Readline library into your application and distributing it requires you to GPL your entire application, even though merely linking to an unmodified library could hardly be called deriving the work from it.
This aspect of linking which requires relicensing is what makes GPL detractors claim the GPL is "viral". Merely placing GPL'd code in the same process space as a non-GPL'd program requires the non-GPL'd program to "catch" the GPL (if the author want's to distribute it).
Yes, it is a weird format, but it allows a much higher resolution of sampled audio.
No, SACD was not a DVD layer. SACD works entirely differnt.
SACD is a streming bit format. each bit signals either an up or down step on the waveform, rather than having sampled bytes indicating a complete level. This is why you can't really start an SACD song in the middle of the song.
No, re-read the article. You only need to upgrade the firmware of HD-DVD players, not DVD players.
Actually, hardly anyone googles for "macintosh". They google for "mac". This shows a different story:
Google Trends: Mac vs. Ubuntu
Your view of events is a bit skewed, actually.
While it's true that browsers costed money, that wasn't entirely accurate. Netscape always had beta versions available for free, and there was no enforcement of the "non-commercial" free download. Netscape was the better browser until IE3 (when they were even) and IE4 took the lead compared to the dung heap that was Communicator 4.x.
And, guess what? Even though IE was included with the OS in versions 1 and 2 and 3, it wasn't until IE4 that Microsoft started taking any major share away from Netscape. In other words, when the browser was actually superior.
Seriously, while I don't necessarily discount the evidence. I have to wonder if we're not drawing the wrong conclusions. Who's to say that the higher carbon dioxide levels in the past were the cause of the climate change? Maybe the climate change caused the carbon dioxide... And thus, perhaps higher carbon dioxide levels may not necessarily lead to a major climate change.
I just don't know if we can draw those kinds of conclusions from the data. Though it's certainly a strong possibility.
Funny, but I can go back to virtually every release candidate since Windows 95, and they all said the same thing "This is not release candidate quality".
There's a reason for that. Microsoft likes to call an RC early for OS's because this sends a wakup call to beta testers. Many of them wait to report bugs, assuming someone else will report them. Then, when RC1 hits, and their bug still isn't fix, they panic and start reporting everything.
The problem is, simply erasing files after they've been written isn't good enough. Those files can be recovered. What it should do is store them in fixed (ie non-swapable) memory for the length of the session, assuming you have enough memory or don't store them at all.
There are so many factors to consider. For example, if the government ran the telecommunications industry in the US, it could probably supply (even with government inefficiencies) Telephone, cable, and internet for a good deal less than what commercial providers do. Why? Monopolies make it easier to do things. You can use government land to run cables. you don't have to spend money competing with vendors, advertising, etc.. Plus you can use tax dollars to subsidize the cost.
In most of the cases where you find cheap internet in some country overseas, it's government owned and subsidized, or at worst there's a single corporate vendor. Furthermore, they typically only service a tiny percantage of the entire population, so your "multiply by millions" argument is off base. In most of those countries, the population can't afford a computer, much less internet access.
The price in other countries is deeply dependant upon a lot of other factors. For instance, does the government subsidize the cost? My guess is that yes, the government subsidizes the cost to make it cheap to those countries.
Actually, it's not so trivial to replace the rendering engine in IE for a lot of reasons, including legacy application support (think Quicken or Quickbooks). My guess is that the rendering engine of Expression *WILL* actually end up as the basis for the rendering engine in IE in some future version. They can develop an all new engine and use Expression as a test bed before they spend the effort to integrate it into IE.
Here's what you're missing:
Most of the time, Developers are happy to create a crappy looking, but highly functional web page for their application. Visual Studio has pretty poor HTML Designer support anyways. What will happen, more often than not, is that the developer will create the application and then he'll hand it off to a web designer that will make it look pretty. Expression is designed for the Web Designers to play around with the ASP front-end code without needing to use Visual Studio (which they wouldn't understand most of the time anyways and be frustrated with).