You'd be hard pressed to see a new car here in Australia that doesn't have air conditioning.
For that matter, ABS is on almost all (if not all) new cars, and I don't think I've see a new car in the last 5 years without power steering as standard.
Either it's different there (and you guys get ripped off) or you're not too in touch.:)
That would be a trip. Remember, dupe is short for duplicate. The correct abbreviation for three stories would be "trip", which is short for "triplicate"
Yes, but if you use the same transformation...
duplicate -> dupe triplicate -> tripe
I'd argue that tripe is actually well fitting in that pure sense. That fact that it has pun value is an added bonus!:)
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
There are many things people do for free...
But you can't build a working society on that principle.
Gift economies and monetary economies can and do co-exist. I love the concept of the gift-economy, and I am a participant on several open-source projects.
But, if I didn't have my paid job, not only would I not have the means to contribute to open-source projects, I would not have the means to do much else.
My point was that arguing that thing are unfair because some miss out (namely, those without means) often because they do not contribute back to society (though with exceptions) is a completely short-sighted way to view things, and is somewhat a straw-man argument.:)
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
If she's so poor she can't afford a computer, than your argument FOR free sharing is almost moot, since the people that *really* need it, can't afford the infrastructure to use it.
Second, copyright was never intended to limit your freedom, but ensure the freedom of people to create something new and make sure they may get something back from it. I agree that copyrights are somewhat out of control now, that the length of copyrights should be reduced, and "stupid" copyrights and patents should be better avoided.
The concept of them is good, it encourages innovation. The problem is that as the rate of innovation has accelerated, the laws to enforce their fruits has not been adjusted accordingly.
Your attitude that it's not fair because "not everyone can afford it" is absolutely not feasible and stupid.
If everything was free, there would be no reason for ANYONE to give back to society, to work and produce, and then there would be nothing to give for free. It's a self defeating attitude.
I do not think it would be fair for my new product to be taken as soon as it's released and given to the whole world for free, I would get nothing out of that, and then *I* would be the person at the store without the money for decent food. I think my hard work deserves a bit of money, and if you remove that money, you cripple the producers.
Quit thinking about things with such a small world view, and no respect for how society would operate without such rewards, because yes, it IS selfish.
First of all, those craft did not have to support life, nor have ALL THE EQUIPMENT OR FOOD needed to do so. Do you know how much more that would increase the mass of the space craft? How about shielding for ambient radiation? Which, still will not fully protect from a solor flare burst unless it's quite thick. And then the craft is so large and heavy that the quantity of fuel required to reach those speeds is FAR greater, thus, the craft must go slower.
That's ONE reason why three years.
How about the fact that the g forces created when accelerating to approx 20,000 kph would KILL any humans on board? Robot don't have that problem, so they can get there much faster!
Let's say we accelerate at the speed of 5g's. Let's do the math...
Who do you know that will survive over 3 minutes of 5g's? Oh, wait a sec, I forgot to factor in the turbulance generated which would mash your organs in the process. That's assuming you have the fuel to do so, that you can protect the crew, that you can feed them, exercise them, support them etc... No, nuclear propulsion is NOWHERE NEAR sophisticated enough to do this, why do you think they use HYDROGEN!? What do you think happens in a rocket? Perfect sailing? You think a reactor will run perfectly fine while it's being shaken around by acceleration and turbulance?
SPINNING craft? How much larger do you want them? We cannot build craft of such size, because to take advantage of centrifugal force in that use you nede a good distance between the centre and the rim. Otherwise the crew feel ill (due to the misperception of the inner ear). Not to mention the force variance actually across the body!
With current technology it is NOT POSSIBLE to SAFELY send people to Mars. It'll be done soon enough (10-15 years perhaps) but right now, you are very wrong.
Don't be daft! Even if we HAD enough fuel it's not possible yet.
It'd take three YEARS for a MANNED probe to reach Mars, the longest a human has even been in space is 400 odd days!
There are severe issues in space, the 0g causes muscles to break down, and calcium to be reabsorbed, weaking strength and bones. When they arrived on Mars, they would not be able to stand up without help, and there is no one there to rehabilitate them.
Not to mention the raised radiation in space. If there is a solar flare on the way to Mars (three years, VERY likely) then the radiation strike will destroy the immune system of all crew and provide a lethal dose! Though contained T-cell supplements can help them recover from this, the strain it would cause would cause many of the crew to die anyway.
If we sent 20 people, 10 might make it, and when they got there, they would have no way back, and be unable to sustain themselves. It's stupid.
Before criticising others because they explore before risking lives, actually read about it. All of this information is FREELY available and easy to find.
Apparantly you are not familiar with iTunes?
And apparently you don't know what "in whatever format they want" means either. Why should I have to pay for, then download, then burn, then rip a track, all to get a low quality 128kbs file at the end of it?
I like TRUE CD quailty. What exactly is a 'hard' copy? I get the feeling most people are just fine with a digital file on their hard drive.
If most people were fine with it, don't you think sales would be a lot higher? Use some logic here.
Most people like to know that they can just pick up the CD and move it, they like to know it'll play on any computer without DRM restrictions, and many like the artwork/covers that come with a 'hard copy'. Yeah, and if it were 25 cents a CD, I would buy every album I liked... what's your point? Apple charges 99 cents a song, and 9.99 for most albums. This is, to me and most people, a fair price. In exchange, you get massive convenience, fair DRM, the ability to backup the files to CDROM and use them on any 3 computers you want, the ability to pick and choose songs off albums, etc.
My point is PORTABILITY, three computers is not enough. I want my music on my MD walkman, on my home/work/cafe PC's and when I visit a friend I like to show off this song I just got (which is GOOD for artist publicity btw). I don't want to fiddle with DRM's and burning CD's.
I want to go to the store, hand over 5-10 bucks and then be able to listen to it in the car on the way home, throw it straight into my stereo, rip it onto my computer for later playback and be able to do all of this in FULL CD quality. They've MADE a policy change! Was there a way to buy music like iTunes before iTunes? No. You rented the music, or you downloaded it off a P2P network (at your own risk). People said, give us a way to easily buy the music from you for a reasonable price, and we will. Apple listened and delivered. End of story.
Yes, Apple listened and gave people a 'better' system, but it's still not an 'acceptable' system for most people. I don't think it's reasonable for someone to justify downloading music off P2P networks for free by saying, "Well, if they sold me the albums for $X then I'd stop downloading them for free!"
Well I buy quite a few CD's, even at the ludicrous prices. So I think I am perfectly justified in saying "I can't afford to buy all the music I want because they won't provide it at an AFFORDABLE price". MOST consumers are not in HIGH PAYING JOBS like me either, and can afford it even LESS! I'm satisfied with iTunes, and I put pressure on my favorite artists and their labels to sell their albums on iTunes.
And I am happy that you have found a service that you like and are satisfied with. My point was that I am not satisfied with it, and the majority of otehrs are not.
It's all well and good for technically skilled people such as us to say "But it has a good DRM" and "Use it on 3 computers", but my parents don't even know what DRM stands for, let alone how to get it working on three computers, burn it to CD, or - gods forbid - put it onto their MD walkman!
These systems are NOT consumer friendly, they are NOT cost friendly, and they are NOT artist friendly. I only see discontent users, discontent artists, and the only happy party for the most part it the distributor. SHAM.
Actually, it's the CONSUMER that drives the market, not the artist.
If consumers are willing to pay for it as it is, then the record labels have ne reason to change. Thus they have a distribution monopoly in that the artist either has to accept the fact that they get little of the profit from their music, or try to distribuet it themselves, which always works out to be very difficult and NON-PROFITABLE.
As a fan of the bands I listen to, I think thy DESERVE more than they get. As a consumer, I feel it's my right to say that I expect the primary producer to get more.
You may find the argument weak, but many do not.
Petrol is always overpriced (thanks to oil companies all pricing the same) and any independants that enter the field are merely pushed out of the market. The recording industory is designed to be closed, to hog the profits, and milk the consumer.
And it's THAT design that I would like to see go.
As the person forking out the money, I want what I pay for. Not what they TELL me I am paying for.
Until they realise that people don't want to pay for music per listen - but buy the right to listen to a song as many times as they want, whenever they want, in whatever format they want - these online stores are never going to be very successful.
If I have to deal with one more WMA file I think I'll go nuts.
The simple fact is, most people like to have a 'hard' copy of their favourite music, and the only reason that many don't buy them is because of the price. If it were $5 a CD I would buy every album I liked (and I would buy a hell of a lot). What they really nede to do to increase sales is introduce some sort of 'decent' rewards program, where the more often you buy music, the cheaper it is for you. (not the crappy buy 4 CD's and you can have one of these UNHEARD of bands albums!)
P2P is winning not because people *want* to steal, but because the prices of CD's are too prohibitive for many people, and many find it offensive that the bands get so littl of the profit!
I think that the market is UNDER estimated for this than anything.
with 20-40k coverage, it is fantastic for rural coverage. And for a country where the majority of the population are active online, this means for rural areas that are spread out over large areas, it is feasible.
The expense to cable an area with 10,000 people over a 20km radius is very prohibitive. However, the market for internet of 10,000 people, where network expansion means grabbing a bit more spectrum and setting up another station, is relatively small.
I think this is fantastic for our rural areas here in Australia, because FAR too many cannot even support decent dialup. Who makes long distance calls for a 56k connection? Or worse, an unstable one?
Here in Australia we have had HDTV broadcasting over the air for about two years (I think) and the price of HDTV's is dropping relatively fast. Last year a plasma screen was a good $2500 Au, now I see them about for $1250 Au, in a couple years they'll be the same price as a standard TV was 7-8 years ago.
They're not that expensive... 2008 is plenty of time to at least get a converter box.
It's funny, but here in Australia it's been hailed as a good move by all the papers and media.
When asked what they would do about such abuse of their networks, Telstra remarked, "We'll be expanding out chat networks". Avoiding the question, and only serving to give the 'I don't give a f*** impression'.
I don't know the specifics about lindows but...
Considering that they are pushing this on a new drive, do they provide a *decent* bootloader to go with??
The majority of people like to install their own OS after, and the only way this would get much use would be if it bootloaded.
That way, after someone throws on another OS, after a few reboots they might just decide to give it a look.
Everyone I know uses ICQ.
Everyone they know uses ICQ.
Almost everyone I meet (online games) use ICQ.
I see a trend there!
And if there are so many using AIM, it is obviously centered in America!
I get REALLY sick of when companies release statistics that ONLY COUNT AMERICANS!
Maybe the reason they do that is because here (Australia) AOL is a lame joke, and we laughed so hard when they began advertising earlier this year (after the 5 CDs they sent me all got thrown in the bin!)
Or were these stats just made up by someone at the FCC who thought, "Maybe if AOL had a monopoly, we'd be able to do it!"
"The FCC is concerned about AOL's dominance in the Instant Messaging arena, in which it controls 90 percent of the market, and allows only registered users to communicate over its network."
Forcing someone to release thier protocol is just not fair!
I don't like AOL (Not at all!) but I really do have to side with them on this one!
- There is no work, there is no work...
- Damn, it worked for Neo!
-
One of the reasons America has so many shortages of professionals is the high cost of education!
Lets compare...
A year in American University: 30,000+ US Dollars
A year in Australian University: 4,000 Australian Dollars (2,500 - 3000 US dollars)
Not only that, but here the government has a loan scheme, where they pay for you to goto University, and you pay them back later, NO INTEREST!
Factor in how fast the IT industory is expanding and ofcourse there are shortages!
BIG SHORTAGES!
Another factor is that accreditation.
I am very capable with most aspects of IT, yet because I have not yet finished my degree, I can't get a good job, yet, with these shortages, I should have no prob! Employers are also too stubborn!
Next take in the 'resistance' factor, where many businesses refuse to grow with the rest of the IT world, how many businesses do you know running Linux?? That atleast have a Linux computer in a dark corner so they can atleast SEE the tech before they reject it?? Not many!
There are so many factors contributing, and no-one will take any responsibility and no-one is trying to fix the problem.
Only this year have they finally started integrating the courses here with the industory, to help knockout the transition period (from student to employee) because the change is big!
- There is no work, there is no work...
- Damn, it worked for Neo!
-
Linux is already becoming a big thing in Australia.
IBM supporting Linux will help to calm all the server admins (HINT to all Universities!) about converting!
It will bring in more to Australia, and help the already large computer industory here.
The reason for centering in the Asia Pacific would most likely be export controls.
As Australia has no export controls on software (at ALL!) it was also a planned move for many companies after the USA tried to stop high bit encryption! - There is no work, there is no work...
- Damn, it worked for Neo!
-
Slashdot Mirror
So that would be a DBSOT Attack? (Distributed Beat the Shit Out of Them)
:)
What about a Distributed Beat the Shit Out of DDoSers?
Then we could even blame Microsoft for those nasty Distributed BSOD's that are going around!
Using AMD's Opteron processor, it scales to a total of 30,580 CPUs.
They must be in a rush to market... Clearly the target was to have 32,768 CPU's.
I mean, what the hell am I going to do with only 30,580 CPU's?!
Maybe it's different there...
:)
You'd be hard pressed to see a new car here in Australia that doesn't have air conditioning.
For that matter, ABS is on almost all (if not all) new cars, and I don't think I've see a new car in the last 5 years without power steering as standard.
Either it's different there (and you guys get ripped off) or you're not too in touch.
Ahhh, if only we had a phonetic language...
;)
Then this decision would be so much simpler
That would be a trip. Remember, dupe is short for duplicate. The correct abbreviation for three stories would be "trip", which is short for "triplicate"
:)
Yes, but if you use the same transformation...
duplicate -> dupe
triplicate -> tripe
I'd argue that tripe is actually well fitting in that pure sense. That fact that it has pun value is an added bonus!
There are many things people do for free...
:)
But you can't build a working society on that principle.
Gift economies and monetary economies can and do co-exist. I love the concept of the gift-economy, and I am a participant on several open-source projects.
But, if I didn't have my paid job, not only would I not have the means to contribute to open-source projects, I would not have the means to do much else.
My point was that arguing that thing are unfair because some miss out (namely, those without means) often because they do not contribute back to society (though with exceptions) is a completely short-sighted way to view things, and is somewhat a straw-man argument.
If she's so poor she can't afford a computer, than your argument FOR free sharing is almost moot, since the people that *really* need it, can't afford the infrastructure to use it.
Second, copyright was never intended to limit your freedom, but ensure the freedom of people to create something new and make sure they may get something back from it.
I agree that copyrights are somewhat out of control now, that the length of copyrights should be reduced, and "stupid" copyrights and patents should be better avoided.
The concept of them is good, it encourages innovation.
The problem is that as the rate of innovation has accelerated, the laws to enforce their fruits has not been adjusted accordingly.
Your attitude that it's not fair because "not everyone can afford it" is absolutely not feasible and stupid.
If everything was free, there would be no reason for ANYONE to give back to society, to work and produce, and then there would be nothing to give for free. It's a self defeating attitude.
I do not think it would be fair for my new product to be taken as soon as it's released and given to the whole world for free, I would get nothing out of that, and then *I* would be the person at the store without the money for decent food. I think my hard work deserves a bit of money, and if you remove that money, you cripple the producers.
Quit thinking about things with such a small world view, and no respect for how society would operate without such rewards, because yes, it IS selfish.
make install, not war
;)
Nice sig, but did you consider this change?
make install --not-war
Wouldn't want the command to be rejected after all.
Don't feed the trolls.
Charging to provide food and drink is called, "Not being a charity".
Some people just don't understand that others actually have to be *careful* with their money, because they have to EARN it and pay BILLS.
$10 for pizza and drink, not too bad if you ask me.
Oxytocin also produces feelings of attachment and responsiblity for another.
Thus why it has been the subject of several studies into 'love'.
I myself prefer the Netscape AIM client.
:p
The Netscape AIM is actually *less* bloated than the standard AIM client, and much better for the geek inside...
Can you embed JavaScript and CSS into YOUR AIM?
Because I can mess with my mates I know are on the Netscape AIM by slipping in CSS and JS.
First of all, those craft did not have to support life, nor have ALL THE EQUIPMENT OR FOOD needed to do so. Do you know how much more that would increase the mass of the space craft? How about shielding for ambient radiation? Which, still will not fully protect from a solor flare burst unless it's quite thick. And then the craft is so large and heavy that the quantity of fuel required to reach those speeds is FAR greater, thus, the craft must go slower.
That's ONE reason why three years.
How about the fact that the g forces created when accelerating to approx 20,000 kph would KILL any humans on board? Robot don't have that problem, so they can get there much faster!
Let's say we accelerate at the speed of 5g's. Let's do the math...
Who do you know that will survive over 3 minutes of 5g's? Oh, wait a sec, I forgot to factor in the turbulance generated which would mash your organs in the process.
That's assuming you have the fuel to do so, that you can protect the crew, that you can feed them, exercise them, support them etc...
No, nuclear propulsion is NOWHERE NEAR sophisticated enough to do this, why do you think they use HYDROGEN!? What do you think happens in a rocket? Perfect sailing? You think a reactor will run perfectly fine while it's being shaken around by acceleration and turbulance?
SPINNING craft? How much larger do you want them?
We cannot build craft of such size, because to take advantage of centrifugal force in that use you nede a good distance between the centre and the rim. Otherwise the crew feel ill (due to the misperception of the inner ear). Not to mention the force variance actually across the body!
With current technology it is NOT POSSIBLE to SAFELY send people to Mars. It'll be done soon enough (10-15 years perhaps) but right now, you are very wrong.
Don't be daft! Even if we HAD enough fuel it's not possible yet.
It'd take three YEARS for a MANNED probe to reach Mars, the longest a human has even been in space is 400 odd days!
There are severe issues in space, the 0g causes muscles to break down, and calcium to be reabsorbed, weaking strength and bones. When they arrived on Mars, they would not be able to stand up without help, and there is no one there to rehabilitate them.
Not to mention the raised radiation in space. If there is a solar flare on the way to Mars (three years, VERY likely) then the radiation strike will destroy the immune system of all crew and provide a lethal dose! Though contained T-cell supplements can help them recover from this, the strain it would cause would cause many of the crew to die anyway.
If we sent 20 people, 10 might make it, and when they got there, they would have no way back, and be unable to sustain themselves. It's stupid.
Before criticising others because they explore before risking lives, actually read about it. All of this information is FREELY available and easy to find.
Apparantly you are not familiar with iTunes? ... what's your point? Apple charges 99 cents a song, and 9.99 for most albums. This is, to me and most people, a fair price. In exchange, you get massive convenience, fair DRM, the ability to backup the files to CDROM and use them on any 3 computers you want, the ability to pick and choose songs off albums, etc.
And apparently you don't know what "in whatever format they want" means either. Why should I have to pay for, then download, then burn, then rip a track, all to get a low quality 128kbs file at the end of it?
I like TRUE CD quailty.
What exactly is a 'hard' copy? I get the feeling most people are just fine with a digital file on their hard drive.
If most people were fine with it, don't you think sales would be a lot higher? Use some logic here.
Most people like to know that they can just pick up the CD and move it, they like to know it'll play on any computer without DRM restrictions, and many like the artwork/covers that come with a 'hard copy'.
Yeah, and if it were 25 cents a CD, I would buy every album I liked
My point is PORTABILITY, three computers is not enough. I want my music on my MD walkman, on my home/work/cafe PC's and when I visit a friend I like to show off this song I just got (which is GOOD for artist publicity btw). I don't want to fiddle with DRM's and burning CD's.
I want to go to the store, hand over 5-10 bucks and then be able to listen to it in the car on the way home, throw it straight into my stereo, rip it onto my computer for later playback and be able to do all of this in FULL CD quality.
They've MADE a policy change! Was there a way to buy music like iTunes before iTunes? No. You rented the music, or you downloaded it off a P2P network (at your own risk). People said, give us a way to easily buy the music from you for a reasonable price, and we will. Apple listened and delivered. End of story.
Yes, Apple listened and gave people a 'better' system, but it's still not an 'acceptable' system for most people.
I don't think it's reasonable for someone to justify downloading music off P2P networks for free by saying, "Well, if they sold me the albums for $X then I'd stop downloading them for free!" Well I buy quite a few CD's, even at the ludicrous prices. So I think I am perfectly justified in saying "I can't afford to buy all the music I want because they won't provide it at an AFFORDABLE price". MOST consumers are not in HIGH PAYING JOBS like me either, and can afford it even LESS!
I'm satisfied with iTunes, and I put pressure on my favorite artists and their labels to sell their albums on iTunes. And I am happy that you have found a service that you like and are satisfied with. My point was that I am not satisfied with it, and the majority of otehrs are not.
It's all well and good for technically skilled people such as us to say "But it has a good DRM" and "Use it on 3 computers", but my parents don't even know what DRM stands for, let alone how to get it working on three computers, burn it to CD, or - gods forbid - put it onto their MD walkman!
These systems are NOT consumer friendly, they are NOT cost friendly, and they are NOT artist friendly. I only see discontent users, discontent artists, and the only happy party for the most part it the distributor. SHAM.
Actually, it's the CONSUMER that drives the market, not the artist.
If consumers are willing to pay for it as it is, then the record labels have ne reason to change. Thus they have a distribution monopoly in that the artist either has to accept the fact that they get little of the profit from their music, or try to distribuet it themselves, which always works out to be very difficult and NON-PROFITABLE.
As a fan of the bands I listen to, I think thy DESERVE more than they get. As a consumer, I feel it's my right to say that I expect the primary producer to get more.
You may find the argument weak, but many do not.
Petrol is always overpriced (thanks to oil companies all pricing the same) and any independants that enter the field are merely pushed out of the market. The recording industory is designed to be closed, to hog the profits, and milk the consumer.
And it's THAT design that I would like to see go.
As the person forking out the money, I want what I pay for. Not what they TELL me I am paying for.
Until they realise that people don't want to pay for music per listen - but buy the right to listen to a song as many times as they want, whenever they want, in whatever format they want - these online stores are never going to be very successful.
If I have to deal with one more WMA file I think I'll go nuts.
The simple fact is, most people like to have a 'hard' copy of their favourite music, and the only reason that many don't buy them is because of the price.
If it were $5 a CD I would buy every album I liked (and I would buy a hell of a lot). What they really nede to do to increase sales is introduce some sort of 'decent' rewards program, where the more often you buy music, the cheaper it is for you. (not the crappy buy 4 CD's and you can have one of these UNHEARD of bands albums!)
P2P is winning not because people *want* to steal, but because the prices of CD's are too prohibitive for many people, and many find it offensive that the bands get so littl of the profit!
They need a policy change, NOT a retailer change.
I think that the market is UNDER estimated for this than anything. with 20-40k coverage, it is fantastic for rural coverage. And for a country where the majority of the population are active online, this means for rural areas that are spread out over large areas, it is feasible. The expense to cable an area with 10,000 people over a 20km radius is very prohibitive. However, the market for internet of 10,000 people, where network expansion means grabbing a bit more spectrum and setting up another station, is relatively small. I think this is fantastic for our rural areas here in Australia, because FAR too many cannot even support decent dialup. Who makes long distance calls for a 56k connection? Or worse, an unstable one?
Here in Australia we have had HDTV broadcasting over the air for about two years (I think) and the price of HDTV's is dropping relatively fast. Last year a plasma screen was a good $2500 Au, now I see them about for $1250 Au, in a couple years they'll be the same price as a standard TV was 7-8 years ago. They're not that expensive... 2008 is plenty of time to at least get a converter box.
It's funny, but here in Australia it's been hailed as a good move by all the papers and media.
When asked what they would do about such abuse of their networks, Telstra remarked, "We'll be expanding out chat networks". Avoiding the question, and only serving to give the 'I don't give a f*** impression'.
At least MS has been remotely honest this time.
I don't know the specifics about lindows but... Considering that they are pushing this on a new drive, do they provide a *decent* bootloader to go with?? The majority of people like to install their own OS after, and the only way this would get much use would be if it bootloaded. That way, after someone throws on another OS, after a few reboots they might just decide to give it a look.
Everyone I know uses ICQ.
Everyone they know uses ICQ.
Almost everyone I meet (online games) use ICQ.
I see a trend there!
And if there are so many using AIM, it is obviously centered in America!
I get REALLY sick of when companies release statistics that ONLY COUNT AMERICANS!
Maybe the reason they do that is because here (Australia) AOL is a lame joke, and we laughed so hard when they began advertising earlier this year (after the 5 CDs they sent me all got thrown in the bin!)
Or were these stats just made up by someone at the FCC who thought, "Maybe if AOL had a monopoly, we'd be able to do it!"
"The FCC is concerned about AOL's dominance in the Instant Messaging arena, in which it controls 90 percent of the market, and allows only registered users to communicate over its network."
Forcing someone to release thier protocol is just not fair!
I don't like AOL (Not at all!) but I really do have to side with them on this one!
- There is no work, there is no work...
- Damn, it worked for Neo!
-
One of the reasons America has so many shortages of professionals is the high cost of education!
Lets compare...
A year in American University: 30,000+ US Dollars
A year in Australian University: 4,000 Australian Dollars (2,500 - 3000 US dollars)
Not only that, but here the government has a loan scheme, where they pay for you to goto University, and you pay them back later, NO INTEREST!
Factor in how fast the IT industory is expanding and ofcourse there are shortages!
BIG SHORTAGES!
Another factor is that accreditation.
I am very capable with most aspects of IT, yet because I have not yet finished my degree, I can't get a good job, yet, with these shortages, I should have no prob! Employers are also too stubborn!
Next take in the 'resistance' factor, where many businesses refuse to grow with the rest of the IT world, how many businesses do you know running Linux?? That atleast have a Linux computer in a dark corner so they can atleast SEE the tech before they reject it?? Not many!
There are so many factors contributing, and no-one will take any responsibility and no-one is trying to fix the problem.
Only this year have they finally started integrating the courses here with the industory, to help knockout the transition period (from student to employee) because the change is big!
- There is no work, there is no work...
- Damn, it worked for Neo!
-
If they do find this...
Could this lead the way to Anti-Gravity, and Gravity in Space Ships??
By working out how matter *is there* maybe we could then then work out how to reverse gravity (as it's directly related to matter)
This could be a very major thing if it's useful!
And that's only what I can dream up, think of the other millions that will ponder on this!
I'd like a no-fuel plane thanks, but can you make it fast, I have a trip booked to Alpha-Centauri!
A bit to the future, but this is what Science is all about... Dreaming, and then making your dreams come true!!
- There is no work, there is no work...
- Damn, it worked for Neo!
-
Linux is already becoming a big thing in Australia. IBM supporting Linux will help to calm all the server admins (HINT to all Universities!) about converting! It will bring in more to Australia, and help the already large computer industory here. The reason for centering in the Asia Pacific would most likely be export controls. As Australia has no export controls on software (at ALL!) it was also a planned move for many companies after the USA tried to stop high bit encryption!
- There is no work, there is no work...
- Damn, it worked for Neo!
-
Pick up the Ring of Invisibility in Quake, your eyes are still visible! Atleast someone got it right!!