Considering what the Yes Men could have done and didn't do, I'd say both sides are showing signs of great restraint here. Not that I like the W.T.O. or anything, but can't anyone else see the inherent humour value of this whole thing?
BTW, I wonder if anyone has ever "crashed" a computer conference pretending to from Microsoft and gotten away with it? (Or for that matter, crashed a computer conference as a/. representative...)
Well, based on the article, it could use oranges that have already fallen off of the trees as a fuel source. Considering that those oranges aren't shipped to consumers anyway, how is this a problem?
Yes, if you "programmed" one of these things to eat grain or corn, then you might have a problem with 'robot-caused famines', but I doubt there's enough sugar in grain to support the fuel cycle in this type of robot.
Now, my question is, in the case of using those oranges as fuel, has anyone considered what the short and long-term effects of the citric acid on the robot parts might be?
Ye gods, that's sick. Do you suppose that Turing would have wanted to have his rotting corpse displayed?
I'm all for honouring the people who made the computer age possible, but there's got to be a better way... wax replicas, maybe.
Besides, let's face it, outside of Golden Age science fiction, most scientists are not broad-shouldered, square-jawed, manly explorers of the unknown. Who the Hell(tm) wants to look at a bunch of lab-coated geeks? (If you find any, especially if they're cute women, let me know, so I can dig up a lab coat.)
And you're going to get wierd looks if you're older then 30 and are good with computers. In this day of script kiddies and 733t h4x0rs, they can't comprehend adults being able to do anything other then answer e-mail.
I daresay that the cost of those AOL CDs raises the prices of AOL subscriptions for those who use AOL (like me, unfortunately). Also, they wonderfully idiotic marketing morons don't seem to realize that they don't need to send 15 AOL CDs to someone who already has AOL.
How true. Especially if you're on mailing lists and getting e-mails from people who you might not know anyway, it gets real difficult to differentiate some of the spam from actual legitimate e-mail. (Of course, not including a subject line doesn't help any...)
Some of it is really easy to tell. For instance, Amy and all of her friend who want to show me how they're working their way through college... no imagination in the subject lines. But when I get e-mails that fall in that gray area, over 50% of the time, I'm deleting spam e-mail, thanks to the wonders of AOL who seems to have sold my address to every jackass with a porn site.
And then there's the fact that not all spam URLs are easily identifiable. Mind you, I generally do not click on a URL in an e-mail unless it comes from someone I know and I can actually verify that they sent it. But with the numerous ways to re-direct URLs, what looks innocuous isn't always the case.
Of course, the harsh solution is to first kill all the spammers. Harsh to spammers at least.
They try to, at least from my experiences. I've gotten dozens of screen names, if not the entire account canceled, but I honestly have no idea if that will do anything. Does AOL block addresses? In other words, if Joe Spammer at 1313 Jerk St., East Armpit, SC is a spammer who loses his AOL account, is anyone from that address banned, or can Joe just continue to buy new accounts?
Also, one thing to keep in mind is that if you are on AOL, and you get e-mail from blah@aol.com (unless it's from a mailing list or something) then the address is most likely forged.
Kierthos
(Yeah, I use AOL... at least it's not MSN)
Well, I'd say it could go under either since it affects a large amount of how people view web pages. What with the new focus on web pages involving every new little toy or executable code under the sun, it is not that surprising that problems exist with some (if not all) of the plugins that are "necessary" to get the most of a User's web-surfing experience.
And really, the story will go under what the author placed it under. Considering how many hoax posts make/., it's not surprising that even some of the real ones are badly categorized. (None of the anime posts, AFAIK)
If the constitution only applied to the government, then any U.S. citizen would not have the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. unless they were a part of the government.
Since this is patently not true, your first statement falls flat.
As to the 50 anti-whatever protesters on my theoretical lawn: If my lawn were public property, then I would be unable to legally force them to disperse. However, since most "front lawns" are private property of the landowner, then the protesters are trespassing, and therefore may be legally carted away by the cops if they do not honour my request to get off my lawn.
Furthermore, even if they are on public property, they can be asked to disperse by the authorities if they are causing a public hazard by their assembly. (I.e. if the protesters insist on blocking traffic in front of the state house, they can be busted.)
Now, as for Yahoo: They are a private business. They can choose not to allow auctions of Nazi paraphenalia. While I do not support the Nazi ideology in any way, shape or form, to the best of my knowledge, the public espousement of the Nazi ideology or public display of any symbology associated with it is only illegal in Germany. As such, I do not support Yahoo's actions, even though I sympathize with their reasoning. In other words, I don't mind that they are no longer allowing auctions of Nazi paraphenalia, but it's still a form of censorship....
However, since it is business censorship, there's not a whole lot that can be done other then going to another auction site. I doubt Yahoo will lose much money or sleep over their decision.
if he didn't have a contract for payment. If he did, then it's breach of contract if he's not paid. But if it was just a "Gentlemen's Agreement", then he's out the bucks.
At least he has a marketable skill now. He can teach other shut-ins and agoraphobics how to survive off of the 'Net...
Well, they were right. Now mind you, CNN isn't who I'd go to for astronomical news 90+% of the time, but they do update their site fairly often and are pretty accurate with what they report.
That notwithstanding, I'm probably going to see what I can see both times, "clear skies permitting" and see who's right. I'm going to be up anyways, might as well catch a glimpse of something burning up in the atmosphere besides the Iridium satellites.
Anyone know (from prior observations, perhaps) how this stacks up in "ooh ahh" factor in comparison to the Perseid meteor shower? (I think it's the Perseid... it's 2:20 in the morning and my brain obviously isn't functioning all that well.)
Bzzz... wrong on all counts, except for the glasses, which are not horn-rimmed.
Why do you find it so hard to believe that de Jager is not a con artist? He isn't. There probably would have been many problems then there were without him and all the subsequent media attention to the Y2K problem. Mind you, I believe that most of the media attention was playing to the fears of the audience and little else, but if it got any companies that weren't working on updating their computers to do so, fine by me.
And as evidence suggests, it was a necessary fix. I don't really like the way that they solved it, as it just moved the problem back 30 years, but it does give a lot more breathing room. Given that Wall Street's first fix didn't work, that SRS's first fix didn't work, that NASA's first fix didn't work (I could go on) then I'd say that all the attention was needed.
As for your opinion on my existence: You're not a friend, you're not family. Therefore, I don't care what your opinion is.
Just my 2 shekels.
Kierthos
(Is it just me, or are some people taking/. too seriously these days?)
Also, you'd have to have some kind of fuel-efficient lift system. VTOL on the Harrier eats so much fuel it's not even funny, and it's downright impossible for the current SUV-esque POS engines to provide enough power for lift. So unless there is some breakthrough in 'engine technology' or you can build Mr. Fusion as the power drive, then don't expect to see flying cars (outside of bad movies) for many years yet.
Now, if they do get them built, simply hook a GPS system into the car autopilot to avoid any obstacles. By the time a flying car is feasible, imagine how much the GPS system will have improved.
Clearly you know not of what you speak. The highly publicized Y2K bug has been around almost as long as computers. Because of efforts to cut costs and to "increase" the efficiency of computers, it has been (and actually still is) the standard to only use 2 bytes for the year in a date. De Jager was merely one of the many people over the years to point the fact that when the year 2000 came around, there would be a lot of results, damn few of them good. Some results were predictable, in the cases of where computers would print bills or docuements with the year 1900 on them, and figure interest on bank accounts as such. (Actually, bank results varied, depending on what system they used.)
As a point of fact, the Y2K bug is still with us, as many of the consultants just used a 'pivot year' of 2030, and kept the year part of the date as two bytes. Any 'year' equal to or below 30 is figured to have a 20 in front of it, any above 30 are figured to have a 19 in front of it.
Under that 'fix', New Year's Day of 2001 would still be recorded as 01-01-01, with the computer intrinsically treating it as 2001 with regards to any other functions. However, under that same fix, New Year's Day of 2031 (01-01-31) would be treated as New Year's Day of 1931. This is obviously a mid-term fix, as there is now a 30 year period of time to finally drag computers out of the 'Dark Ages' and allocate 4 bytes for years (which assuming that humanity does not destroy itself by then, will not be a problem until the year 10000).
This applies to Mac and Windows based computers only. I believe that Linux based computers have their own problems around 2004. (I think.)
Odd. I've run ProEngineer on a 400 MHz machine with no problems. My brother runs various CAD programs and 3-D grapics modelers on his 750 MHz with no problem. Yes, it might be a bit faster with a 2 GHz processor, but considering the lack of improvement in time for rendering when he went from 400 MHz to 750 MHz, I don't know that there would be that much of a difference.
And imaging processing in publishing and the music and video industries seem to be doing just fine. In fact, in the latter, I suspect that the processor means less as opposed to the human reaction. It doesn't matter how fast the processor renders the latest Pixar animated movie as it still requires a human to create the original models and manipulate them through the correct animation.
As for the home uses, again, the current processors seem to be doing just fine. In fact, I'd say I need to get better speakers rather then upgrade my processor for listening to mp3s. Mind you, if I want to listen to mp3s, render pictures in Bryce, and read my e-mail at the same time, something is going to suffer, but that's probably going to happen on any processor if task allocation is not done properly.
And games? Okay, is there a game out there yet that requires a minimum of a 1 GHz processor? Yeah, most run better on them (well, except for a lot of the old Nintendo ROMs), but is there a game that you must have a 1 GHz for, let alone the mythical (right now) 2 GHz?
I don't doubt that people will find a need. But right now, it's so rare that I don't think, IMAO, that it is financially feasible to produce a 2 GHz processor. The market for them would be too limited.
Okay, if it is the only ISP available for someone, then they are probably one of the Filipinos in a remote village (like where the article mentions they just hooked in a sat dish for the ISP connection). How many of these villagers do you figure are going to want to surf for porn, even know that it exists, or even where to find it?
The Church is not forcing people to sit down and use their ISP. They are not forcing people to find out which sites are blocked (Try to go to playboy.com, I dare you!), and they are not forcing people to use the ISP.
A vast majority, percentage wise, of Filipinos are devout Catholics anyway, and probably support the Internet-values of the Church.
So how does this affect you? Not at all, unless you absolutely rely on this ISP. If you don't rely on it, then why the big noise about it? Big deal. There's plenty of ISPs that will let you look at "Hot Asian Babes" or whatever gets you off.
Yes, it's censorship. But big deal. It's censorship that the vast number of people using the ISP probably accept.
They are not "imposing" their standards. The Filipinos still have the choice of whether to use the ISP or not. Mind you, in the village that just got the satellite dish, they only have that one choice. But how many villagers in this village that just now got the sat dish are going to go surfing for porn? Most of them are good Catholics anyway, and are probably, as typical beginning Users, going to use the ISP to communicate with other villages and keep up to date on the news.
Furthermore, they are the biggest ISP in the Philipines, but they are not the only one. They are hardly imposing their views on the whole country, and if you've ever seen the area around the U.S. Naval Base (Subic Bay?) then you'll know that not all Filipinos are upright Christians. Now, considering that there are other ISP choices for all but the remote villages, who are getting the opportunity to use the Internet through the grace of the Church, is it really that surprising that they would filter porn out?
Is it wrong? Maybe. Only if you're looking to get those "needed" hits from the Philipines for your porn site would you be screaming. Is it immoral? Only to those 'blind fools' who believe that any form of filtering is evil. (It isn't. Sometimes filtering is necessary.)
Should be an option that a Filipino can turn off? No. This is the Catholic Church providing the ISP. If it was a clickable option, the Church would be acting hypocritically. With other ISPs, I'd be more upset, but in this case, it's expected.
Would I choose this ISP? No. I have a wide range of other choices. Even if this was available in the U.S. for the same rates, I'd stay with the system I use because I am familiar with it. Is it the best? Hardly. But it is familiar and I know how to deal with it.
Actually, you're wrong. Yes, Catholic missionaries did go to the Phillipines. They did convert Filipinos. But the Filipinos (well, a large number of them) thought that the Catholic Church was good enough that they independantly (of the missionaries) contacted the Church about settings up their own bishoprics.
Now, as for whether or not they pay taxes on the ISP, I would venture that they do. Even considering the good relations that the Filipinos and the Catholic Church have, while a church's internal activities are free from taxation (at least in the U.S.), any external business is taxable. If a church in the U.S. performs any kind of commerce with an outside business, they pay any applicable sales tax. However, at least in the U.S., they are exempt from state and federal taxes on church related income, as well, AFAIK, from land taxes, etc. I imagine it is very similar in the Philipines.
Yes they do. It's a free market down there for ISPs. If you don't like it, you choose another ISP. It's that simple.
If that ISP was the only one available to them, then it would be a royal pain in the arse. And most likely illegal. (Only if they dissuaded any other ISPs from setting up shop. It's not a monopoly if no one else is in the business through free will.)
And they are paying for the service, supposedly, with full knowledge of what is and isn't available. Or don't you read User Agreements?
What do you need a 2GHz or a 2.5GHz processor for? Quite honestly, unless there are some really spiffy programs out there that I've completely missed, your typical User does not need that much speed. It's going to waste. Even in most corporations, it's going to waste.
Your typical computer User:
1) Reads and writes e-mail.
2) Surfs the net.
3) Writes text files.
4) Plays games.
5) Collects mp3s.
Of all of these, only (4) requires any kind of decent processor, and even then, most games do not require anything above 750 MHz, at least from I've noticed.
Most corporations, unless they are into Aerodynamic plotting of surfaces, nuclear reaction tracking of radioactive particles, or the like do not need that much computer, as most of the corp Users will be using it to read/write e-mail, write documents, and goof off.
Again, it isn't needed.
Now, I'm not saying that it won't be built. Americans in particular are in love with "faster and better" more then any other culture (save for perhaps the Japanese), and so we will see a 2 GHz and faster processors. But for most Users, it just isn't necessary, and is a waste of money to try and stay SOTA.
Well, I'm not necessarily going to boycott Intel and the Pentium 4 for the bugs it has (although that is good enough reason), but for the price tag anything Intel has on it.
I'm close to being in the market for a new computer (couple more months of paying off bills and I should have the cash to start), and I was comparing prices. Even if the Pentium 3 wasn't such a dog, I wouldn't get it. There are much cheaper alternatives. That and I was absolutely amazed at how cheap hard drives are now. (Sue me, I haven't comparison shopped computers in three years.)
I'm probably going to go with an AMD Athlon. And not because of this article. With the money I save on that, I can get a bigger hard drive, a scanner and some other neat toys.
It's a promotion, but is it a good one? He's already said he doesn't want it. And maybe there's a pay raise, maybe there isn't.
He's happy at the job he's at. He doesn't want to deal with some of the shit that comes with the job. So, a smart person would have him stay where he is, taking temporary duties until they found a permanent replacement.
Corporations are rarely smart when it comes to personnel decisions like this. As another example, they will often fire personnel to bring up short-term profits (not paying as many people) no matter how much it hurts long-term profits in lost worktime or training new personnel.
The point is to have fun. Anyone can write drool-proof code (that's code that is so easy to understand that even a baby can do it. usually involves commenting every line). It's difficult to write code that looks as if an epileptic cat jumped on the keyboard that does something. (It's easy to write garbage code that does nothing.)
Ever seen the Obfuscated "Twelve Days of Christmas" code? It not only looks like it doesn't do anything, it looks like it would be impossible to do anything. Much less print out a single character. But it does.
It's a challenge. Why do people climb mountains? Because they're there. Why do coders write obfuscated code? Because they can.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering what the Yes Men could have done and didn't do, I'd say both sides are showing signs of great restraint here. Not that I like the W.T.O. or anything, but can't anyone else see the inherent humour value of this whole thing?
/. representative...)
BTW, I wonder if anyone has ever "crashed" a computer conference pretending to from Microsoft and gotten away with it? (Or for that matter, crashed a computer conference as a
Kierthos
Well, based on the article, it could use oranges that have already fallen off of the trees as a fuel source. Considering that those oranges aren't shipped to consumers anyway, how is this a problem?
Yes, if you "programmed" one of these things to eat grain or corn, then you might have a problem with 'robot-caused famines', but I doubt there's enough sugar in grain to support the fuel cycle in this type of robot.
Now, my question is, in the case of using those oranges as fuel, has anyone considered what the short and long-term effects of the citric acid on the robot parts might be?
Kierthos
Ye gods, that's sick. Do you suppose that Turing would have wanted to have his rotting corpse displayed?
I'm all for honouring the people who made the computer age possible, but there's got to be a better way... wax replicas, maybe.
Besides, let's face it, outside of Golden Age science fiction, most scientists are not broad-shouldered, square-jawed, manly explorers of the unknown. Who the Hell(tm) wants to look at a bunch of lab-coated geeks? (If you find any, especially if they're cute women, let me know, so I can dig up a lab coat.)
And you're going to get wierd looks if you're older then 30 and are good with computers. In this day of script kiddies and 733t h4x0rs, they can't comprehend adults being able to do anything other then answer e-mail.
Just my 2 shekels.
Kierthos
I daresay that the cost of those AOL CDs raises the prices of AOL subscriptions for those who use AOL (like me, unfortunately). Also, they wonderfully idiotic marketing morons don't seem to realize that they don't need to send 15 AOL CDs to someone who already has AOL.
I use the damn things as coasters.
Kierthos
How true. Especially if you're on mailing lists and getting e-mails from people who you might not know anyway, it gets real difficult to differentiate some of the spam from actual legitimate e-mail. (Of course, not including a subject line doesn't help any...)
Some of it is really easy to tell. For instance, Amy and all of her friend who want to show me how they're working their way through college... no imagination in the subject lines. But when I get e-mails that fall in that gray area, over 50% of the time, I'm deleting spam e-mail, thanks to the wonders of AOL who seems to have sold my address to every jackass with a porn site.
And then there's the fact that not all spam URLs are easily identifiable. Mind you, I generally do not click on a URL in an e-mail unless it comes from someone I know and I can actually verify that they sent it. But with the numerous ways to re-direct URLs, what looks innocuous isn't always the case.
Of course, the harsh solution is to first kill all the spammers. Harsh to spammers at least.
Kierthos
They try to, at least from my experiences. I've gotten dozens of screen names, if not the entire account canceled, but I honestly have no idea if that will do anything. Does AOL block addresses? In other words, if Joe Spammer at 1313 Jerk St., East Armpit, SC is a spammer who loses his AOL account, is anyone from that address banned, or can Joe just continue to buy new accounts?
Also, one thing to keep in mind is that if you are on AOL, and you get e-mail from blah@aol.com (unless it's from a mailing list or something) then the address is most likely forged.
Kierthos
(Yeah, I use AOL... at least it's not MSN)
Well, I'd say it could go under either since it affects a large amount of how people view web pages. What with the new focus on web pages involving every new little toy or executable code under the sun, it is not that surprising that problems exist with some (if not all) of the plugins that are "necessary" to get the most of a User's web-surfing experience.
/., it's not surprising that even some of the real ones are badly categorized. (None of the anime posts, AFAIK)
And really, the story will go under what the author placed it under. Considering how many hoax posts make
Just my 2 shekels.
Kierthos
If the constitution only applied to the government, then any U.S. citizen would not have the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. unless they were a part of the government.
Since this is patently not true, your first statement falls flat.
As to the 50 anti-whatever protesters on my theoretical lawn: If my lawn were public property, then I would be unable to legally force them to disperse. However, since most "front lawns" are private property of the landowner, then the protesters are trespassing, and therefore may be legally carted away by the cops if they do not honour my request to get off my lawn.
Furthermore, even if they are on public property, they can be asked to disperse by the authorities if they are causing a public hazard by their assembly. (I.e. if the protesters insist on blocking traffic in front of the state house, they can be busted.)
Now, as for Yahoo: They are a private business. They can choose not to allow auctions of Nazi paraphenalia. While I do not support the Nazi ideology in any way, shape or form, to the best of my knowledge, the public espousement of the Nazi ideology or public display of any symbology associated with it is only illegal in Germany. As such, I do not support Yahoo's actions, even though I sympathize with their reasoning. In other words, I don't mind that they are no longer allowing auctions of Nazi paraphenalia, but it's still a form of censorship....
However, since it is business censorship, there's not a whole lot that can be done other then going to another auction site. I doubt Yahoo will lose much money or sleep over their decision.
Just my 2 shekels.
Kierthos
If there is a Communist conspiracy to take out M$, then I will gladly be a Communist.
Kierthos
if he didn't have a contract for payment. If he did, then it's breach of contract if he's not paid. But if it was just a "Gentlemen's Agreement", then he's out the bucks.
At least he has a marketable skill now. He can teach other shut-ins and agoraphobics how to survive off of the 'Net...
Kierthos
Well, they were right. Now mind you, CNN isn't who I'd go to for astronomical news 90+% of the time, but they do update their site fairly often and are pretty accurate with what they report.
That notwithstanding, I'm probably going to see what I can see both times, "clear skies permitting" and see who's right. I'm going to be up anyways, might as well catch a glimpse of something burning up in the atmosphere besides the Iridium satellites.
Kierthos
Anyone know (from prior observations, perhaps) how this stacks up in "ooh ahh" factor in comparison to the Perseid meteor shower? (I think it's the Perseid... it's 2:20 in the morning and my brain obviously isn't functioning all that well.)
Kierthos
Bzzz... wrong on all counts, except for the glasses, which are not horn-rimmed.
/. too seriously these days?)
Why do you find it so hard to believe that de Jager is not a con artist? He isn't. There probably would have been many problems then there were without him and all the subsequent media attention to the Y2K problem. Mind you, I believe that most of the media attention was playing to the fears of the audience and little else, but if it got any companies that weren't working on updating their computers to do so, fine by me.
And as evidence suggests, it was a necessary fix. I don't really like the way that they solved it, as it just moved the problem back 30 years, but it does give a lot more breathing room. Given that Wall Street's first fix didn't work, that SRS's first fix didn't work, that NASA's first fix didn't work (I could go on) then I'd say that all the attention was needed.
As for your opinion on my existence: You're not a friend, you're not family. Therefore, I don't care what your opinion is.
Just my 2 shekels.
Kierthos
(Is it just me, or are some people taking
Also, you'd have to have some kind of fuel-efficient lift system. VTOL on the Harrier eats so much fuel it's not even funny, and it's downright impossible for the current SUV-esque POS engines to provide enough power for lift. So unless there is some breakthrough in 'engine technology' or you can build Mr. Fusion as the power drive, then don't expect to see flying cars (outside of bad movies) for many years yet.
Now, if they do get them built, simply hook a GPS system into the car autopilot to avoid any obstacles. By the time a flying car is feasible, imagine how much the GPS system will have improved.
Kierthos
Clearly you know not of what you speak. The highly publicized Y2K bug has been around almost as long as computers. Because of efforts to cut costs and to "increase" the efficiency of computers, it has been (and actually still is) the standard to only use 2 bytes for the year in a date. De Jager was merely one of the many people over the years to point the fact that when the year 2000 came around, there would be a lot of results, damn few of them good. Some results were predictable, in the cases of where computers would print bills or docuements with the year 1900 on them, and figure interest on bank accounts as such. (Actually, bank results varied, depending on what system they used.)
As a point of fact, the Y2K bug is still with us, as many of the consultants just used a 'pivot year' of 2030, and kept the year part of the date as two bytes. Any 'year' equal to or below 30 is figured to have a 20 in front of it, any above 30 are figured to have a 19 in front of it.
Under that 'fix', New Year's Day of 2001 would still be recorded as 01-01-01, with the computer intrinsically treating it as 2001 with regards to any other functions. However, under that same fix, New Year's Day of 2031 (01-01-31) would be treated as New Year's Day of 1931. This is obviously a mid-term fix, as there is now a 30 year period of time to finally drag computers out of the 'Dark Ages' and allocate 4 bytes for years (which assuming that humanity does not destroy itself by then, will not be a problem until the year 10000).
This applies to Mac and Windows based computers only. I believe that Linux based computers have their own problems around 2004. (I think.)
Kierthos
Odd. I've run ProEngineer on a 400 MHz machine with no problems. My brother runs various CAD programs and 3-D grapics modelers on his 750 MHz with no problem. Yes, it might be a bit faster with a 2 GHz processor, but considering the lack of improvement in time for rendering when he went from 400 MHz to 750 MHz, I don't know that there would be that much of a difference.
And imaging processing in publishing and the music and video industries seem to be doing just fine. In fact, in the latter, I suspect that the processor means less as opposed to the human reaction. It doesn't matter how fast the processor renders the latest Pixar animated movie as it still requires a human to create the original models and manipulate them through the correct animation.
As for the home uses, again, the current processors seem to be doing just fine. In fact, I'd say I need to get better speakers rather then upgrade my processor for listening to mp3s. Mind you, if I want to listen to mp3s, render pictures in Bryce, and read my e-mail at the same time, something is going to suffer, but that's probably going to happen on any processor if task allocation is not done properly.
And games? Okay, is there a game out there yet that requires a minimum of a 1 GHz processor? Yeah, most run better on them (well, except for a lot of the old Nintendo ROMs), but is there a game that you must have a 1 GHz for, let alone the mythical (right now) 2 GHz?
I don't doubt that people will find a need. But right now, it's so rare that I don't think, IMAO, that it is financially feasible to produce a 2 GHz processor. The market for them would be too limited.
Kierthos
Okay, if it is the only ISP available for someone, then they are probably one of the Filipinos in a remote village (like where the article mentions they just hooked in a sat dish for the ISP connection). How many of these villagers do you figure are going to want to surf for porn, even know that it exists, or even where to find it?
The Church is not forcing people to sit down and use their ISP. They are not forcing people to find out which sites are blocked (Try to go to playboy.com, I dare you!), and they are not forcing people to use the ISP.
A vast majority, percentage wise, of Filipinos are devout Catholics anyway, and probably support the Internet-values of the Church.
So how does this affect you? Not at all, unless you absolutely rely on this ISP. If you don't rely on it, then why the big noise about it? Big deal. There's plenty of ISPs that will let you look at "Hot Asian Babes" or whatever gets you off.
Yes, it's censorship. But big deal. It's censorship that the vast number of people using the ISP probably accept.
Kierthos
They are not "imposing" their standards. The Filipinos still have the choice of whether to use the ISP or not. Mind you, in the village that just got the satellite dish, they only have that one choice. But how many villagers in this village that just now got the sat dish are going to go surfing for porn? Most of them are good Catholics anyway, and are probably, as typical beginning Users, going to use the ISP to communicate with other villages and keep up to date on the news.
Furthermore, they are the biggest ISP in the Philipines, but they are not the only one. They are hardly imposing their views on the whole country, and if you've ever seen the area around the U.S. Naval Base (Subic Bay?) then you'll know that not all Filipinos are upright Christians. Now, considering that there are other ISP choices for all but the remote villages, who are getting the opportunity to use the Internet through the grace of the Church, is it really that surprising that they would filter porn out?
Is it wrong? Maybe. Only if you're looking to get those "needed" hits from the Philipines for your porn site would you be screaming. Is it immoral? Only to those 'blind fools' who believe that any form of filtering is evil. (It isn't. Sometimes filtering is necessary.)
Should be an option that a Filipino can turn off? No. This is the Catholic Church providing the ISP. If it was a clickable option, the Church would be acting hypocritically. With other ISPs, I'd be more upset, but in this case, it's expected.
Would I choose this ISP? No. I have a wide range of other choices. Even if this was available in the U.S. for the same rates, I'd stay with the system I use because I am familiar with it. Is it the best? Hardly. But it is familiar and I know how to deal with it.
Kierthos
Actually, you're wrong. Yes, Catholic missionaries did go to the Phillipines. They did convert Filipinos. But the Filipinos (well, a large number of them) thought that the Catholic Church was good enough that they independantly (of the missionaries) contacted the Church about settings up their own bishoprics.
Now, as for whether or not they pay taxes on the ISP, I would venture that they do. Even considering the good relations that the Filipinos and the Catholic Church have, while a church's internal activities are free from taxation (at least in the U.S.), any external business is taxable. If a church in the U.S. performs any kind of commerce with an outside business, they pay any applicable sales tax. However, at least in the U.S., they are exempt from state and federal taxes on church related income, as well, AFAIK, from land taxes, etc. I imagine it is very similar in the Philipines.
Kierthos
How so? This is clearly another example of the Church's stance on abstinence.
Kierthos
Yes they do. It's a free market down there for ISPs. If you don't like it, you choose another ISP. It's that simple.
If that ISP was the only one available to them, then it would be a royal pain in the arse. And most likely illegal. (Only if they dissuaded any other ISPs from setting up shop. It's not a monopoly if no one else is in the business through free will.)
And they are paying for the service, supposedly, with full knowledge of what is and isn't available. Or don't you read User Agreements?
Kierthos
What do you need a 2GHz or a 2.5GHz processor for? Quite honestly, unless there are some really spiffy programs out there that I've completely missed, your typical User does not need that much speed. It's going to waste. Even in most corporations, it's going to waste.
Your typical computer User:
1) Reads and writes e-mail.
2) Surfs the net.
3) Writes text files.
4) Plays games.
5) Collects mp3s.
Of all of these, only (4) requires any kind of decent processor, and even then, most games do not require anything above 750 MHz, at least from I've noticed.
Most corporations, unless they are into Aerodynamic plotting of surfaces, nuclear reaction tracking of radioactive particles, or the like do not need that much computer, as most of the corp Users will be using it to read/write e-mail, write documents, and goof off.
Again, it isn't needed.
Now, I'm not saying that it won't be built. Americans in particular are in love with "faster and better" more then any other culture (save for perhaps the Japanese), and so we will see a 2 GHz and faster processors. But for most Users, it just isn't necessary, and is a waste of money to try and stay SOTA.
Just my 2 shekels.
Kierthos
Well, I'm not necessarily going to boycott Intel and the Pentium 4 for the bugs it has (although that is good enough reason), but for the price tag anything Intel has on it.
I'm close to being in the market for a new computer (couple more months of paying off bills and I should have the cash to start), and I was comparing prices. Even if the Pentium 3 wasn't such a dog, I wouldn't get it. There are much cheaper alternatives. That and I was absolutely amazed at how cheap hard drives are now. (Sue me, I haven't comparison shopped computers in three years.)
I'm probably going to go with an AMD Athlon. And not because of this article. With the money I save on that, I can get a bigger hard drive, a scanner and some other neat toys.
Just my 2 shekels.
Kierthos
It's a promotion, but is it a good one? He's already said he doesn't want it. And maybe there's a pay raise, maybe there isn't.
He's happy at the job he's at. He doesn't want to deal with some of the shit that comes with the job. So, a smart person would have him stay where he is, taking temporary duties until they found a permanent replacement.
Corporations are rarely smart when it comes to personnel decisions like this. As another example, they will often fire personnel to bring up short-term profits (not paying as many people) no matter how much it hurts long-term profits in lost worktime or training new personnel.
Stupid really.
Kierthos
The point is to have fun. Anyone can write drool-proof code (that's code that is so easy to understand that even a baby can do it. usually involves commenting every line). It's difficult to write code that looks as if an epileptic cat jumped on the keyboard that does something. (It's easy to write garbage code that does nothing.)
Ever seen the Obfuscated "Twelve Days of Christmas" code? It not only looks like it doesn't do anything, it looks like it would be impossible to do anything. Much less print out a single character. But it does.
It's a challenge. Why do people climb mountains? Because they're there. Why do coders write obfuscated code? Because they can.
Kierthos