The act is called the USA Patriot Act because it stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"
http://www.sdbillofrights.org/docs/One_Page_Over vi ew_BORDCpdf.pdf
A few years ago I had a couple of the infamous IBM Desktstar GXP drives that failed. I purchased the drives OEM; they came sent to me in static bags and packing peanuts.
When I requested an RMA for the drives I was informed that these *broken* drives *had* to be shipped back to IBM in the orginal IBM boxes or I could purchase *new* boxes from IBM!
Fortunately, rather than having to shell out $20 for "IBM approved" boxes, I was able to borrow two boxes from a guy at work and then when I got my RMA drives back I gave him those boxes.
I don't know if they really would have refused service had I sent them back in any old box but the website made it clear that they could.
Well, there are lots of Delphi / VB comparisons and observations here so I thought I would throw in my two cents as Delphi is the environment I program in the most.
While there are similarities between VB and Delphi there were (and I say were because VB.net is a whole new animal) some important differences. For instance:
1. Delphi can link statically - I can hand a person a floppy disc with a program I wrote in Delphi and I know that they will be able to run it without distributing VB Runtime Libraries
2. Object Pascal in Delphi is a strongly typed language and a true object oriented language.
3. While Delphi applications may not be quite as fast as C++ apps the performance is certainly better than VB.
4. One can write Assembly blocks in a Delphi unit.
There are more but I am at work so I'll stop.
It's fashionable to slag VB, but, really, it's done a lot. A lot of people that would never have gotten into programming were able to make apps to suit some small purpose because of VB.
It's just too bad that most of those people did not know about Delphi and latch on to that because it really is the best RAD environment for Windows. Delphi really should have been the VB killer.
Jeepers, if you are formatting that often why not install your apps, make sure everything is running fine and then make a Ghost image at that point? Then when things go wonky with your system, Ghost it.
Voila! 5 minutes later you won't have to re-install anything except whatever you installed after you made the Ghost.
I have Windows installed on one partition, and most of my apps on another partition. This keeps the Ghost size down.
Because my programs are on another partition, even if I do have to format the Windows drive a lot of my apps don't even have to be reinstalled, I just make a new shortcut to them.
Both of the replies above this make really good points.
I would also add that here in Oregon, just last year, there was a statewide proposition to require GM foods to display a label that states they are such. Not a ban, not a restriction, - just a plain old label so people can decide.
A well crafted campaign fueled by companies with interests in GM foods, caused the measure to fail. They did not want to chance turning it into a more national issue so they nipped it in the bud.
You reduce the effectiveness of some of your valid points by resorting to the "idiot card." If your post is erudite enough to prove the folly of my post you would prove me to be an idiot without even having to say so. That's what a *really* intelligent person does.
First off, I was born and raised in rural Pennsylvania. I have actually worked on farms. My family was involved in farming. My uncle still is. My sister still is. My sister has farmed in PA, NC and WY. My whole family is very conservative, unlike me. My sister majored in Agriculture at Penn State, she knows 100 times what I know about farming. She tells me that you are wrong, it's not just Greenpeace as you state, but many university studies have also concluded that mineral loss in foods due to soil depletion, and the biggie, acid rain, is very real.
The point is that myself, "the Greenpeace idiot" *and* these very conservative people, who, unlike you, are quite knowledgeable about farming *and* live the life, are concerned with genetically modified crops.
Even a quick Google search will turn up lots of studies that take my position, and, in fairness, a lot of studies that completely take your position. This is another reason why these things are better handled as discussions rather than calling someone an idiot.
Just like RTFA, you should RTFC. I am not against, for instance, taking one strain of corn and creating a hybrid with another strain of corn, I am against adding chemicals and drugs unnecessarily.
Some people have pointed out, if you don't like it, don't eat it. That's just the point. Last year here in Oregon, there was a measure proposed mandate the labeling of GM foods. Not a ban, or a restriction in anyway, mind you; people just wanted the food labeled so they would have a choice. This measure was crushed by a large advertising campaign from big corporations.
Please tell me, why can't I have a label to decide? There is a label that says organic. If you don't want to eat it, you don't have to. I just want a label that says GM so that I don't have to eat it.
You are right organic farming is expensive. I cannot afford all of my groceries to be organic. I have to pick and choose, I am not a zealot.
Thes large farming conglomerates and the chemical companies that prop them up want to modify the food and then obfuscate the fact so that you don't know, that's the biggest problem. They want to *hide* it. So that's where the slippery slope comes into play. Some stuff that is added may be benign, but what else won't we know about?
Unfortunately, there are no companies or organizations (with any authority) who, in are ethically suitable to overseeing such things.
Nobody could adequately test the consequences for genetically modified crops in a time frame that would suit the corporate farming interests like Monsanto that push this stuff.
The consequences of growing these types of crops and the impact on their surroundings may not be measureable or manifest themselves for years.
This is why genetically modified crops are such a gamble. Scientists just *don't* know what will really happen, they are hoping for the best based on a shallow dataset of information.
The thing is, there really is no reason to modify foods genetically in this manner. It's one thing to cross one tomato with another tomato strain to get a redder, juicier tomato, it's quite another to put drugs in them, or make them glow in the dark, or somesuch nonsense.
If one needs drugs, they should take a pill. Leave the drugs out of the food supply for those of us who don't want it them in our food.
I hate to bring up the "slippery slope" but given the current state of environmental policy in this country (and worldwide) I choose to *always* default to caution. Destroying, modifying, genetic diversity should be undertaken with *extreme* caution.
The problem is that it is large corporations with no regard for the environment, or even the best interests of other people, who are railroading this stuff through in the court of public opinion and in government hearings. Anyone who dissents is "against science" or a "luddite" according to them.
These corporations will tell you that they are doing it to feed poor people in starving nations. This is crap. There is *no* food shortage. There are food distribution problems caused by political or economical concerns.
If these companies were really concerned about creating nutritious and helpful foods they would learn soil conservation techniques. By and large the vegetables that you eat today are not nearly as good for you as the ones that your grandparents ate because soil depletion and crappy farming techniques have robbed them of their minerals and nutrients.
I am not a luddite, I am an environmentalist. There is lots of room for scientists to come up with clever plans to increase crop yields and preserve soil *without* putting manmade chemicals and drugs in them.
Using technology to simply coverup and put a bandaid over mismanaged farming policies is a bad use of said technology and a cheap grab for a buck by people that have no concern what happens to your children.
I am not a music download data researcher, but I'll play one on/.
Really, why should it take a research team from an esteemed college or institution to figure out the obvious?
Games sales, console and computer, have increased dramatically in the period of time that CD sales have decreased.
One need not be a genius to figure out that games cost money. The demographic that makes up the largest percentage of CD sales is the same demographic that makes up the largest percentage of CD sales.
If I spend more money on games, I have less money to spend on CDs.
Entertainment priorities are changing, more people are spending more of their discretionary incomes on gaming rather than music.
Unfortunately, what developers are missing is the market. Top notch games are very costly to produce. There is just no way that developers can make money, or even break even with the small desktop marketshare that Linux commands.
There might be some truth to "If you build it, they will come" but in reality, unless there are an awful lot of people clamoring for the ballpark, it's not gonna happen.
This new CPU naming convention won't really matter. Any new computer sold these days will have way more than enough power for Mr. or Ms. Average.
Does it really make a difference if your grandma gets a 4800 or a 5000? Either will check her e-mail just as fast.
Anyone who cares enough or has a really good reason to be on the bleeding edge will check Anandtech or Tom's Hardware or somesuch to find out how the chips are really panning out for any given task. A hardcore gamer may go with one chip while a person who renders 3-D objects for a living may go with another, and someone who crunches numbers, still another.
Processors are so fast now it is really very few people who can benefit from a faster one.
Don't some of you folks in this thread feel a bit silly for identifying yourself with a particular group whether it's nerd, dork, geek, jock or whatever?
Group names are what *other* people might use to categorize you. They need to do this to make sense of their world, keeping everything / everyone in it's place, so they don't become confused.
I find it rather demeaning, limiting, and usually phony, when a person classifies him/herself. Very "fraternity-ish." Don't you feel a bit limited in scope when you pigeonhole yourself into a artificial/imaginary group?
Perhaps it is more wise to just be yourself, do what you want, and let others worry about name-calling if they need to. Be proud of being such a well rounded and complex individual that you defy categorization.
Slashdot Mirror
The act is called the USA Patriot Act because it stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"
r vi ew_BORDCpdf.pdf
http://www.sdbillofrights.org/docs/One_Page_Ove
A few years ago I had a couple of the infamous IBM Desktstar GXP drives that failed. I purchased the drives OEM; they came sent to me in static bags and packing peanuts.
When I requested an RMA for the drives I was informed that these *broken* drives *had* to be shipped back to IBM in the orginal IBM boxes or I could purchase *new* boxes from IBM!
Fortunately, rather than having to shell out $20 for "IBM approved" boxes, I was able to borrow two boxes from a guy at work and then when I got my RMA drives back I gave him those boxes.
I don't know if they really would have refused service had I sent them back in any old box but the website made it clear that they could.
Well, there are lots of Delphi / VB comparisons and observations here so I thought I would throw in my two cents as Delphi is the environment I program in the most.
While there are similarities between VB and Delphi there were (and I say were because VB.net is a whole new animal) some important differences. For instance:
1. Delphi can link statically - I can hand a person a floppy disc with a program I wrote in Delphi and I know that they will be able to run it without distributing VB Runtime Libraries
2. Object Pascal in Delphi is a strongly typed language and a true object oriented language.
3. While Delphi applications may not be quite as fast as C++ apps the performance is certainly better than VB.
4. One can write Assembly blocks in a Delphi unit.
There are more but I am at work so I'll stop.
It's fashionable to slag VB, but, really, it's done a lot. A lot of people that would never have gotten into programming were able to make apps to suit some small purpose because of VB.
It's just too bad that most of those people did not know about Delphi and latch on to that because it really is the best RAD environment for Windows. Delphi really should have been the VB killer.
Jeepers, if you are formatting that often why not install your apps, make sure everything is running fine and then make a Ghost image at that point? Then when things go wonky with your system, Ghost it.
Voila! 5 minutes later you won't have to re-install anything except whatever you installed after you made the Ghost.
I have Windows installed on one partition, and most of my apps on another partition. This keeps the Ghost size down.
Because my programs are on another partition, even if I do have to format the Windows drive a lot of my apps don't even have to be reinstalled, I just make a new shortcut to them.
This is a really good point. Wish I had mod points for you today. Cheers!
Both of the replies above this make really good points.
I would also add that here in Oregon, just last year, there was a statewide proposition to require GM foods to display a label that states they are such. Not a ban, not a restriction, - just a plain old label so people can decide.
A well crafted campaign fueled by companies with interests in GM foods, caused the measure to fail. They did not want to chance turning it into a more national issue so they nipped it in the bud.
A point well pointed sir or m'aam!
True, some of my post did not specifically refer to the example presented in the article and was a more general response.
/. at work...
It's a much larger, and important issue than I can adequately discuss on
You reduce the effectiveness of some of your valid points by resorting to the "idiot card." If your post is erudite enough to prove the folly of my post you would prove me to be an idiot without even having to say so. That's what a *really* intelligent person does.
First off, I was born and raised in rural Pennsylvania. I have actually worked on farms. My family was involved in farming. My uncle still is. My sister still is. My sister has farmed in PA, NC and WY. My whole family is very conservative, unlike me.
My sister majored in Agriculture at Penn State, she knows 100 times what I know about farming. She tells me that you are wrong, it's not just Greenpeace as you state, but many university studies have also concluded that mineral loss in foods due to soil depletion, and the biggie, acid rain, is very real.
The point is that myself, "the Greenpeace idiot" *and* these very conservative people, who, unlike you, are quite knowledgeable about farming *and* live the life, are concerned with genetically modified crops.
Even a quick Google search will turn up lots of studies that take my position, and, in fairness, a lot of studies that completely take your position. This is another reason why these things are better handled as discussions rather than calling someone an idiot.
Just like RTFA, you should RTFC. I am not against, for instance, taking one strain of corn and creating a hybrid with another strain of corn, I am against adding chemicals and drugs unnecessarily.
Some people have pointed out, if you don't like it, don't eat it. That's just the point. Last year here in Oregon, there was a measure proposed mandate the labeling of GM foods. Not a ban, or a restriction in anyway, mind you; people just wanted the food labeled so they would have a choice. This measure was crushed by a large advertising campaign from big corporations.
Please tell me, why can't I have a label to decide? There is a label that says organic. If you don't want to eat it, you don't have to. I just want a label that says GM so that I don't have to eat it.
You are right organic farming is expensive. I cannot afford all of my groceries to be organic. I have to pick and choose, I am not a zealot.
Thes large farming conglomerates and the chemical companies that prop them up want to modify the food and then obfuscate the fact so that you don't know, that's the biggest problem. They want to *hide* it. So that's where the slippery slope comes into play. Some stuff that is added may be benign, but what else won't we know about?
Unfortunately, there are no companies or organizations (with any authority) who, in are ethically suitable to overseeing such things.
Nobody could adequately test the consequences for genetically modified crops in a time frame that would suit the corporate farming interests like Monsanto that push this stuff.
The consequences of growing these types of crops and the impact on their surroundings may not be measureable or manifest themselves for years.
This is why genetically modified crops are such a gamble. Scientists just *don't* know what will really happen, they are hoping for the best based on a shallow dataset of information.
The thing is, there really is no reason to modify foods genetically in this manner. It's one thing to cross one tomato with another tomato strain to get a redder, juicier tomato, it's quite another to put drugs in them, or make them glow in the dark, or somesuch nonsense.
If one needs drugs, they should take a pill. Leave the drugs out of the food supply for those of us who don't want it them in our food.
I hate to bring up the "slippery slope" but given the current state of environmental policy in this country (and worldwide) I choose to *always* default to caution. Destroying, modifying, genetic diversity should be undertaken with *extreme* caution.
The problem is that it is large corporations with no regard for the environment, or even the best interests of other people, who are railroading this stuff through in the court of public opinion and in government hearings. Anyone who dissents is "against science" or a "luddite" according to them.
These corporations will tell you that they are doing it to feed poor people in starving nations. This is crap. There is *no* food shortage. There are food distribution problems caused by political or economical concerns.
If these companies were really concerned about creating nutritious and helpful foods they would learn soil conservation techniques. By and large the vegetables that you eat today are not nearly as good for you as the ones that your grandparents ate because soil depletion and crappy farming techniques have robbed them of their minerals and nutrients.
I am not a luddite, I am an environmentalist. There is lots of room for scientists to come up with clever plans to increase crop yields and preserve soil *without* putting manmade chemicals and drugs in them.
Using technology to simply coverup and put a bandaid over mismanaged farming policies is a bad use of said technology and a cheap grab for a buck by people that have no concern what happens to your children.
I am not a music download data researcher, but I'll play one on /.
Really, why should it take a research team from an esteemed college or institution to figure out the obvious?
Games sales, console and computer, have increased dramatically in the period of time that CD sales have decreased.
One need not be a genius to figure out that games cost money. The demographic that makes up the largest percentage of CD sales is the same demographic that makes up the largest percentage of CD sales.
If I spend more money on games, I have less money to spend on CDs.
Entertainment priorities are changing, more people are spending more of their discretionary incomes on gaming rather than music.
Yes, it's that simple.
This post is definitely not a troll.
One might disagree with it but it is not a troll. Were that I had mod points today I would give it +1, Interesting.
I humbly suggest that someone else ought do this moderation.
Unfortunately, what developers are missing is the market. Top notch games are very costly to produce. There is just no way that developers can make money, or even break even with the small desktop marketshare that Linux commands.
There might be some truth to "If you build it, they will come" but in reality, unless there are an awful lot of people clamoring for the ballpark, it's not gonna happen.
This new CPU naming convention won't really matter. Any new computer sold these days will have way more than enough power for Mr. or Ms. Average.
Does it really make a difference if your grandma gets a 4800 or a 5000? Either will check her e-mail just as fast.
Anyone who cares enough or has a really good reason to be on the bleeding edge will check Anandtech or Tom's Hardware or somesuch to find out how the chips are really panning out for any given task. A hardcore gamer may go with one chip while a person who renders 3-D objects for a living may go with another, and someone who crunches numbers, still another.
Processors are so fast now it is really very few people who can benefit from a faster one.
Don't some of you folks in this thread feel a bit silly for identifying yourself with a particular group whether it's nerd, dork, geek, jock or whatever?
Group names are what *other* people might use to categorize you. They need to do this to make sense of their world, keeping everything / everyone in it's place, so they don't become confused.
I find it rather demeaning, limiting, and usually phony, when a person classifies him/herself. Very "fraternity-ish." Don't you feel a bit limited in scope when you pigeonhole yourself into a artificial/imaginary group?
Perhaps it is more wise to just be yourself, do what you want, and let others worry about name-calling if they need to. Be proud of being such a well rounded and complex individual that you defy categorization.
What are you talking about, $75k buys 7 programmers in India for a year.