Because China will sever all political ties with any countries (or the UN) that DO recognize Taiwan. It really has nothing to do with the countries in question actually not agreeing with Taiwan's stance, but simply it has to do with not wanting to piss off China (whatever your need or motivations are for caring). Those countries that do recognize Taiwan generally don't care about China, or do it for principle (i.e. the Vatican).
Most of our little pastic toys/trinkets are now made in China and not Taiwan. Even Taiwanese companies are shifting much of their manufacturing to China. It's all part of the Big Game of Musical Chairs - when a country's standard of living rises, many of the jobs leave.
Actually, "ROC" doesn't stand for A Republic of China, but rather THE Republic of China. As in the "real government of China in exile, the PRC (People's Republic of China) being illegitimate" (which is basically what really did happen, the "old" government of China fled to Taiwan and the communists took over). So no, the ROC terminology is just as offensive to mainland Chinese.
I don't know about that, MS-Office (which Outlook is part of) is one of the major cash cow for Microsoft, if not the biggest. I wouldn't be so sure that MS would be willing to sacrifice Outlook as long as they get to keep Exchange. I think the other way around may be more likely.
The endless upgrade cycle of Windows is how they make their bread and butter on (that, and MS Office's endless upgrade cycle). Each time they manage to milk $100 from you (assuming you buy the upgrade from a retail store).
No offense, but nobody is going to go read a bunch of self-congratulating MSDN articles about their "innovation" just to see your point. It would be nice if you could provide at least one example of why you think any of these things are innovative. Until then, I guess we have to believe it's innovative because you said so.
I have some evidence that if they are any decent construction standards for hurricane resistent housing, they are completely inadequate. Just look at any pictures from after any hurricane that shows these wooden construction houses turned into matchsticks (usually with sobbing resident in the yard).
From Western Pennsylvania here (as close to a disaster free area as there is such a thing) I just feel numb from the endless cycle of destruction pictures from the hurricane zone. For the life of me, I can't figure why people don't move, or build bunker-like houses. I assure it would take me a single incident of destruction to learn that lesson.
Well, you're correct that probably most places in this country are exposed to some sort of disaster (hurricane, earthquake, tornadoes, forest fire, etc) BUT there is a need to mitigate risks a bit. Building a city a few feet under sea water is bound to be a disaster at some point or another. Now this was done a few hundred years ago, so whatever caused the to do it, I guess they had to live with it. But with the city pretty much destroyed, should we rebuild it??? I am not taking a position either way.
You think it's cold hearted to suggest anything but rebuilding, but why? The same thing happened after the tsunami in Asia. Many communities are being rebuilt further away from the sea. Why not? It's just good common sense - if you have a significant exposure to disaster, and you have the opportunity to address the problem (you have to pretty much rebuild anyway) why not do it? In the case of New Orleans, I am not taking a position either way - it should be studied.
Personally, as far as Hurricanes are concerned, I just don't get it. Year after year you see big chunks of Florida and other states destroyed to the ground. Year after year, it gets rebuild. And year after year it's same shoddy wooden construction. What's up with that? Why doesn't the government (state or federal) impose some construction standards for Hurricane areas? My wife is from Taiwan, they get hit by typhoons (same as a hurricane) all the time, plus the eartquakes. And you know what? Construction is all brick, concrete, steel, etc. Very little destruction, very little death. ( I know, in New Orleans it's not the hurricane per se that did the most destruction, it's the breach of the levies caused by the hurricane. This was just a side rant)
lol.... No, ripping off someone else's copyrighted work and reimplementing it in another medium (flash) doesn't give you any (copy-)rights on the result. If someday you feel bored and decide to reimplement Monopoly(TM) into flash and put it on your website, I can guarantee you'll get sued out of existence.
Laws are put on the books to prosecute real crimes (i.e. hacking into Mastercard and get their user database) - no law maker anticipated a situation like this, I can guarantee you that. These laws are usually a toolbox for prosecutors/police to put the bad people in prison. They get used selectively depending on the severity and circumstances of the crime. "Hacking" into the laptop you're given to take home may technically be against that law, it doesn't mean that it was the right thing for the school to refer this to the police, or for the police to charge the kids.
Nobody ever disputed that they broke the law. The outrage came from what the school and police did about it. Yes, they were warned before. No, a felony charge is still not the right response. Taking the laptop away would have been the appropriate punishment (and I venture to say, it would have gotten the "message" out just as well. These kids want these laptops). A temporary suspension from school would have been another appropriate response.
And for the record, yes, I think that kids know right from wrong. But no, they usually are not mature enough to neccessarily understand the consequences of their actions. Think about your childhood - have you ever trespassed onto other people's property while playing in the neighborhood? (I have) Were you fully aware of the legal consequences or dangers of doing so? (I wasn't) Come on, be honest now. I would bet the worse punishment you could think of was being escorted by a police officer to your house and being grounded for a little bit. Police charges were probably not on the radar screen.
I used to be less tolerant before I had a child of my own. I would be outraged if my child was charged with a felony for something like this (if you haven't guessed from my outrage at somebody else's child having been charged).
Yes, I know - it seems to be the popular thing to do to "make examples" out of people. "Send a message" blah blah. I am sorry, I don't think it's appropriate to do that with children. To (potentially) mess up a child's life just so that you can "send a message" should be a crime in itself.
You also seem to believe that this was the plan all along. Give them a good scare, then end up giving them 15 hours of community service. Yeah right. I am sure the worldwide media attention this case received had plenty to do with the appropriate punishment they did end up getting (as opposed to the ridiculous crime they were charged with). Call me cynical, but I don't believe it was the plan at all. It just ended up to be the only way out the authorities got themselves into without sounding like they completely caved in to the negative media attention.
And lastly, I have a problem with you comparing this case with dangerous driving. Speeding and moving into the incoming traffic has real physical, possibly deadly, dangers to you and to others on the road. Need I say more, really? changing the admin password on the computer they carry with them all day long so that they can browse the net without the filter, or the damage-less little prank they played with a teacher is totally benign, and the punishment needed to fit the "crime". But really, what should happen is getting these policies that made such an infractions a crime to begin with re-examined.
Because computer are notoriously bad at math problems... Oh wait! That's what they excel at! That is yet the dumbest idea I have seen yet. Do you know just how fast I can write a script to solve "90 + 1" (which is the problem I just saw on blogs.sun.com)
Their Beta stuff is lightyears better than at least one their competitor's Production stuff. I consider their Beta stuff to be Production quality and use it daily.
You can expect all you want from Google, but you have not right to expect anything from them. They're a company in business to make a profit, and as long as they don't break any laws they do whatever they want. You can choose to not do business with them if you don't like them.
Not so from your government. It is your right if not your obligation to demand transparency and accountability from the government. You don't have a choice about doing business with it.
Are you comparing a government with Google? From our government we're expecting transparency and accountability. So banning certain news outlet is definetely a no-no. I have no problem with a company banning specific news outlet, or for that matter ALL news outlet (sometimes I wish more companies would do so - i.e. SCO where the FUD is rather high).
It is not a double standard. It's two different standards for two very different types of organization.
How is NOT talking to a news source using shareholder resources? Arguably, it's the other way around. It saves them resources (money, time, etc).
Google sent an internal edict not to talk to cnet. They haven't issues press releases, or talked about it. All the resources being expanded here is on Cnet's side. They've been real busy writing about it (like this non-apology).
Sure anybody can file suit, this is the US of A. I didn't say however you will win. Arguably forcing him to defend himself (even if it's one brief to ask for a dismissal) will cost him something. Death of a thousand papercut I guess. Not that I advocate meritless suits.
This is a single civil that's being settled. Anybody else can file their own civil suit againsts him (including every single ISP in the world, like Microsoft did), not to mantion he could get sued criminally by the US government and/or any of the 50 states. He's far from the off the hook on his past behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few days there is news of a new lawsuit against him. Think death of a thousand papercut here.
This is a civil lawsuit (not sure what Spitzer's exact involvement was in this, other than PR). You don't go to jail when you loose a civil lawsuit. The worste that could have happen to Richter is to have to pay more money.
Settling this case does not prevent him for getting sued criminally by either the federal government, or any of the 50 states (except maybe New York at this point). That is if he broke any criminal law, which I think he has (and so says the article).
The most interesting part for me is that MS has admitted contributing to GAIM and SAMBA, and that PR (and legal?) approved of this disclosure. I think that should put the conspiracy theorist a bit at ease that MS will end up suing either or both of these projects at some point. If they did, I think their legal standing would be rather weak (arguably, it already was, but then again, I am not a conspiracy theorist).
Some light flavor of IIS (containing web server and ftp) is on the Windows 2000/XP Professional disk. You do not need the server edition to do these things.
Of course, it doesn't install by default (what home user needs a FTP server?) and your IT department rightfully did not install it on your WORK laptop. Most companies do not want rogue web servers on their network.
If reading massive amounts is part of your job (perhaps reading manuscripts) then yes, this is a neat skill. Otherwise, the question is not as much can you read 600 words per minute but do you want to read 600 words per minute. As the poster described there is an element of fun in pacing yourself and savoring the moment. Not only do I not read as fast as I could (and I've read stuff pretty fast in college, never for fun and I've never timed myself) but I often take long breaks between chapters. It allows me to think (and dream about, etc) a little about what I read.
It's not unlike eating slowly, or drinking a good glass of wine slowly. Sure, I can get drunk and full pretty fast, but the act of eating and drinking is fun (I don't mean at McDonalds), why do you want it to end so fast? Maybe this analogy seems appropriate to me because I am a european living in the US. We can stay at the table for hours. In the US, 30 minutes or less seems like the norm. What's the hurry?
I had to look it up on Amazon. "Wheel of Time" is a book by Robert Jordan. Actually a series of books. Book 1 is 832 pages in paper back. If he read it in 4 hours then he read 3.4 pages a minute. If he is not b*shitting alltogether, then it's a Rainman-like (Autistic Savant) skill. Good for him I guess. Personally, I prefer to take my time and enjoy a good book. I've done plenty of fast reading/scanning (although probably not THAT fast) in College. But it was to pass a test or write a paper. I didn't enjoy reading those books, even those that were good books.
At best they're scanning. Might be good enough to get you an understanding of a simple book (most fiction work). But there is nothing particularly enjoyable in doing so (in my opinion) and they definetely miss the subtleties of the stories.
Now I am probably going to get all kinds of replies saying that no, they indeed read and absorb every last word. Sorry, I don't believe it.
Slashdot Mirror
Because China will sever all political ties with any countries (or the UN) that DO recognize Taiwan. It really has nothing to do with the countries in question actually not agreeing with Taiwan's stance, but simply it has to do with not wanting to piss off China (whatever your need or motivations are for caring). Those countries that do recognize Taiwan generally don't care about China, or do it for principle (i.e. the Vatican).
Most of our little pastic toys/trinkets are now made in China and not Taiwan. Even Taiwanese companies are shifting much of their manufacturing to China. It's all part of the Big Game of Musical Chairs - when a country's standard of living rises, many of the jobs leave.
Actually, "ROC" doesn't stand for A Republic of China, but rather THE Republic of China. As in the "real government of China in exile, the PRC (People's Republic of China) being illegitimate" (which is basically what really did happen, the "old" government of China fled to Taiwan and the communists took over). So no, the ROC terminology is just as offensive to mainland Chinese.
I don't know about that, MS-Office (which Outlook is part of) is one of the major cash cow for Microsoft, if not the biggest. I wouldn't be so sure that MS would be willing to sacrifice Outlook as long as they get to keep Exchange. I think the other way around may be more likely.
Windows 98
Windows 95
etc.
The endless upgrade cycle of Windows is how they make their bread and butter on (that, and MS Office's endless upgrade cycle). Each time they manage to milk $100 from you (assuming you buy the upgrade from a retail store).
No offense, but nobody is going to go read a bunch of self-congratulating MSDN articles about their "innovation" just to see your point. It would be nice if you could provide at least one example of why you think any of these things are innovative. Until then, I guess we have to believe it's innovative because you said so.
I have some evidence that if they are any decent construction standards for hurricane resistent housing, they are completely inadequate. Just look at any pictures from after any hurricane that shows these wooden construction houses turned into matchsticks (usually with sobbing resident in the yard).
From Western Pennsylvania here (as close to a disaster free area as there is such a thing) I just feel numb from the endless cycle of destruction pictures from the hurricane zone. For the life of me, I can't figure why people don't move, or build bunker-like houses. I assure it would take me a single incident of destruction to learn that lesson.
Well, you're correct that probably most places in this country are exposed to some sort of disaster (hurricane, earthquake, tornadoes, forest fire, etc) BUT there is a need to mitigate risks a bit. Building a city a few feet under sea water is bound to be a disaster at some point or another. Now this was done a few hundred years ago, so whatever caused the to do it, I guess they had to live with it. But with the city pretty much destroyed, should we rebuild it??? I am not taking a position either way.
You think it's cold hearted to suggest anything but rebuilding, but why? The same thing happened after the tsunami in Asia. Many communities are being rebuilt further away from the sea. Why not? It's just good common sense - if you have a significant exposure to disaster, and you have the opportunity to address the problem (you have to pretty much rebuild anyway) why not do it? In the case of New Orleans, I am not taking a position either way - it should be studied.
Personally, as far as Hurricanes are concerned, I just don't get it. Year after year you see big chunks of Florida and other states destroyed to the ground. Year after year, it gets rebuild. And year after year it's same shoddy wooden construction. What's up with that? Why doesn't the government (state or federal) impose some construction standards for Hurricane areas? My wife is from Taiwan, they get hit by typhoons (same as a hurricane) all the time, plus the eartquakes. And you know what? Construction is all brick, concrete, steel, etc. Very little destruction, very little death. ( I know, in New Orleans it's not the hurricane per se that did the most destruction, it's the breach of the levies caused by the hurricane. This was just a side rant)
lol.... No, ripping off someone else's copyrighted work and reimplementing it in another medium (flash) doesn't give you any (copy-)rights on the result. If someday you feel bored and decide to reimplement Monopoly(TM) into flash and put it on your website, I can guarantee you'll get sued out of existence.
Laws are put on the books to prosecute real crimes (i.e. hacking into Mastercard and get their user database) - no law maker anticipated a situation like this, I can guarantee you that. These laws are usually a toolbox for prosecutors/police to put the bad people in prison. They get used selectively depending on the severity and circumstances of the crime. "Hacking" into the laptop you're given to take home may technically be against that law, it doesn't mean that it was the right thing for the school to refer this to the police, or for the police to charge the kids.
Nobody ever disputed that they broke the law. The outrage came from what the school and police did about it. Yes, they were warned before. No, a felony charge is still not the right response. Taking the laptop away would have been the appropriate punishment (and I venture to say, it would have gotten the "message" out just as well. These kids want these laptops). A temporary suspension from school would have been another appropriate response.
And for the record, yes, I think that kids know right from wrong. But no, they usually are not mature enough to neccessarily understand the consequences of their actions. Think about your childhood - have you ever trespassed onto other people's property while playing in the neighborhood? (I have) Were you fully aware of the legal consequences or dangers of doing so? (I wasn't) Come on, be honest now. I would bet the worse punishment you could think of was being escorted by a police officer to your house and being grounded for a little bit. Police charges were probably not on the radar screen.
I used to be less tolerant before I had a child of my own. I would be outraged if my child was charged with a felony for something like this (if you haven't guessed from my outrage at somebody else's child having been charged).
Yes, I know - it seems to be the popular thing to do to "make examples" out of people. "Send a message" blah blah. I am sorry, I don't think it's appropriate to do that with children. To (potentially) mess up a child's life just so that you can "send a message" should be a crime in itself.
You also seem to believe that this was the plan all along. Give them a good scare, then end up giving them 15 hours of community service. Yeah right. I am sure the worldwide media attention this case received had plenty to do with the appropriate punishment they did end up getting (as opposed to the ridiculous crime they were charged with). Call me cynical, but I don't believe it was the plan at all. It just ended up to be the only way out the authorities got themselves into without sounding like they completely caved in to the negative media attention.
And lastly, I have a problem with you comparing this case with dangerous driving. Speeding and moving into the incoming traffic has real physical, possibly deadly, dangers to you and to others on the road. Need I say more, really? changing the admin password on the computer they carry with them all day long so that they can browse the net without the filter, or the damage-less little prank they played with a teacher is totally benign, and the punishment needed to fit the "crime". But really, what should happen is getting these policies that made such an infractions a crime to begin with re-examined.
Yes, that would defeat a computer, and many many humans as well.
Because computer are notoriously bad at math problems... Oh wait! That's what they excel at! That is yet the dumbest idea I have seen yet. Do you know just how fast I can write a script to solve "90 + 1" (which is the problem I just saw on blogs.sun.com)
Their Beta stuff is lightyears better than at least one their competitor's Production stuff. I consider their Beta stuff to be Production quality and use it daily.
You can expect all you want from Google, but you have not right to expect anything from them. They're a company in business to make a profit, and as long as they don't break any laws they do whatever they want. You can choose to not do business with them if you don't like them.
Not so from your government. It is your right if not your obligation to demand transparency and accountability from the government. You don't have a choice about doing business with it.
That's a BIG difference.
Are you comparing a government with Google? From our government we're expecting transparency and accountability. So banning certain news outlet is definetely a no-no. I have no problem with a company banning specific news outlet, or for that matter ALL news outlet (sometimes I wish more companies would do so - i.e. SCO where the FUD is rather high).
It is not a double standard. It's two different standards for two very different types of organization.
How is NOT talking to a news source using shareholder resources? Arguably, it's the other way around. It saves them resources (money, time, etc).
Google sent an internal edict not to talk to cnet. They haven't issues press releases, or talked about it. All the resources being expanded here is on Cnet's side. They've been real busy writing about it (like this non-apology).
Sure anybody can file suit, this is the US of A. I didn't say however you will win. Arguably forcing him to defend himself (even if it's one brief to ask for a dismissal) will cost him something. Death of a thousand papercut I guess. Not that I advocate meritless suits.
This is a single civil that's being settled. Anybody else can file their own civil suit againsts him (including every single ISP in the world, like Microsoft did), not to mantion he could get sued criminally by the US government and/or any of the 50 states. He's far from the off the hook on his past behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few days there is news of a new lawsuit against him. Think death of a thousand papercut here.
This is a civil lawsuit (not sure what Spitzer's exact involvement was in this, other than PR). You don't go to jail when you loose a civil lawsuit. The worste that could have happen to Richter is to have to pay more money.
Settling this case does not prevent him for getting sued criminally by either the federal government, or any of the 50 states (except maybe New York at this point). That is if he broke any criminal law, which I think he has (and so says the article).
The most interesting part for me is that MS has admitted contributing to GAIM and SAMBA, and that PR (and legal?) approved of this disclosure. I think that should put the conspiracy theorist a bit at ease that MS will end up suing either or both of these projects at some point. If they did, I think their legal standing would be rather weak (arguably, it already was, but then again, I am not a conspiracy theorist).
Some light flavor of IIS (containing web server and ftp) is on the Windows 2000/XP Professional disk. You do not need the server edition to do these things.
Of course, it doesn't install by default (what home user needs a FTP server?) and your IT department rightfully did not install it on your WORK laptop. Most companies do not want rogue web servers on their network.
If reading massive amounts is part of your job (perhaps reading manuscripts) then yes, this is a neat skill. Otherwise, the question is not as much can you read 600 words per minute but do you want to read 600 words per minute. As the poster described there is an element of fun in pacing yourself and savoring the moment. Not only do I not read as fast as I could (and I've read stuff pretty fast in college, never for fun and I've never timed myself) but I often take long breaks between chapters. It allows me to think (and dream about, etc) a little about what I read.
It's not unlike eating slowly, or drinking a good glass of wine slowly. Sure, I can get drunk and full pretty fast, but the act of eating and drinking is fun (I don't mean at McDonalds), why do you want it to end so fast? Maybe this analogy seems appropriate to me because I am a european living in the US. We can stay at the table for hours. In the US, 30 minutes or less seems like the norm. What's the hurry?
I had to look it up on Amazon. "Wheel of Time" is a book by Robert Jordan. Actually a series of books. Book 1 is 832 pages in paper back. If he read it in 4 hours then he read 3.4 pages a minute. If he is not b*shitting alltogether, then it's a Rainman-like (Autistic Savant) skill. Good for him I guess. Personally, I prefer to take my time and enjoy a good book. I've done plenty of fast reading/scanning (although probably not THAT fast) in College. But it was to pass a test or write a paper. I didn't enjoy reading those books, even those that were good books.
At best they're scanning. Might be good enough to get you an understanding of a simple book (most fiction work). But there is nothing particularly enjoyable in doing so (in my opinion) and they definetely miss the subtleties of the stories.
Now I am probably going to get all kinds of replies saying that no, they indeed read and absorb every last word. Sorry, I don't believe it.