Alaska was bought in 1867. The fort (William H. Seward) was built in 1902, because the Alaska/BC border was disputed by the US and Canada. It prevented Canada from laying claim to some valuable territory.
I'm not sure that limiting the amount of "information"
Having "Swift Boat Veterans for....." ads playing 24/7 is not what I would call "information".
Televised election ads in the US and Canada are essentially devoid of any real content. I'm not sure it's really a bad thing. It just gives more focus to the areas where ideas are (theoretically) brought up and discussed, such as debates and print.
Nicer? That response was an complete insult. It offered a back-handed insult, mocked the intelligence of the sender, showed zero respect and blatant disregard for the C&D's terms, attacked their product, and then stuck its fingers in its hears and stuck out its tongue at the iDownload people.
It was civil yes, but a hell of a lot meaner than "Your mother wears army boots, and if don't leave me alone I'll sue you back"
That's the price of committing your business to propriatary software and interfaces that are someone elses profit centre.
?????
If they had tied themselves to Firefox and similar vulnerabilities (and they do exist) where found in that, then they'd still have the problem of adopting new technologies. I don't get your point.
"Can't" means that something is unable to be done. The key to that definition is then how do you define unable? Do you define unable as meaning impossible, or possible but so unlikely or unwieldy as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible?
Take for instance the sentence: "I can't built rocket-ship to fly to moon.". Using your implied definition of "can't", that sentence is utterly false. I could afterall acquire all the relevant knowledge and funding and do that. But as that is extremely impractical, the usage of "can't" is fine.
Likewise in your own post you say that "things can't keep going the way they are". Again, using you definition of "can't" that's a false statement. Things certainly could keep going they way they are. Is it unwieldy and wasteful? Sure, but that doesn't mean it "can't" be done.
No one's trying to make live easy for anyone, just help people who without help wouldn't have the opportunity to improve themselves. I'm not talking about handing out silver spoons, just giving people access to education and knowledge. And it is necessary in that it builds more stable societies and that's ultimately to your benefit.
Children are fashioned by their communities. If they come from a community where poverty is trampant, education is disdained, there's no role-models then the child has no hope or even *awareness* that things could be better. Without some form of assistance be it public schools, youth outreach programs, scholarships, mentorship that child will not have the chance to pull themselves out of that community. Now, if the tools are there but not used, then oh well.
Do you think India's caste system is good? Those poor children born into the lower castes with no hope of ever being more than servant; well life's just tough right?
Yes what they do with their lives is ultimately their choice. But being born into poverty does make things a lot harder and does eliminate a lot of options.
That's why it's necessary for those of us better off to support social programs that provide assistance and re-open options for those peoples.
If you never intend to buy from a certain dealership, then you've acted unethically
Well of course. But that is what I argued against and it isn't what you suggested in your post.
Going to Nissan Dealer A because they're convienent and have better service, but intending from the start to buy from Nissan Dealer B because it's cheaper is unethical. The reason the cars are more expensive at A is because of the service, and if the service is used it's only really ethical to pay for.
However, visiting a Nissan dealer, a Ford dealer, a GM dealer, a Toyota dealer in order to find the best car for me is fine. I intend to buy car, and will buy from the dealership that presents the best offer (both in terms of product, service, and value). That dealer isn't necessarily the first one I visit though.
In your original post you seemed to imply that if someone goes to the Nissan dealer then it's unethical to go try the Ford. That's stupid.
But it is as you say all just a question of intent. If I went to Nissan Dealer A intending to buy an Altima from them, but find them unreasonable in prices is it really unethical to go to Dealer B. What if I find out that Dealer A is charging $5000 more for the same car? At that point the dealer isn't dealing fairly with me, and I have no problems switching to Dealer B.
And I agreed the TV example showed bad ethics, so why bring it up.
When renting apartments there typically aren't any real estate agents. It's the landlords of the individual properties you're dealing with. If I see an ad for a apartment but when viewing the apartment don't like the design of the kitchen is it really unethical for me to go see the next rental property?
Wow... I don't in any way consider shopping around and talking to salespeople unethical.
Talking to salesperson at a specialty TV store to get information and recommendation and then buying the same TV at Walmart because it's cheaper since they don't employ qualified salespeople, THAT I'll agree is kind of cheap.
But you car dealership example? Wow! If I'm spending $20K-$30K on something I'm going to make sure I get the one I want. I'm not going buy one from the first dealership I go to! That's not being 'ethical', that's being stupid. How do I know which car fits my needs better? The only way I know is to inspect them and test drive them.
When I go to rent a new apartment I need to make sure that the apartment fits my needs. Am I wasting the rental agent's time because the apartment I view is inappropriate and I go on the the next one?
Has the market shown there is insufficient demand?
Yes, using traditional advertising revenue models the show is unsuccessful. But that model doens't necessarily accurately reflect the demand of the viewers, in that it doesn't reflect how much value the viewers place on the program. The traditional model reflects a market between the studio and advertisers with not a market between the studio and viewers.
Let's say advertisers are willing to pay $.50 per episode per viewer. To each viewer, however, each episode has a $5 value. With $2/viewer/episode required to produce the show. There is more than sufficient demand for the show, all it would take is for a shift in revenue sources.
The world is filled with products and services that failed in their initial offerings/markets/models but became big hits once different strategies were developed.
If Y < X, the market isn't there for the show, the show gets cancelled. S&D economic theory wins again.
If Y >= X then a market exists for the show. At the price the supplier is willing to produce an item there is sufficient demand. S&D economic theory wins again.
There's no charity here. Just a free market where the product only gets produced if there is sufficient demand.
If Y >= X then a market exists for the show. At the price the supplier is willing to produce an item there is sufficient demand. S&D economic theory wins again.
There's no charity here. Just a free market where the product only gets produced if there is sufficient demand.
That's essentially what clusters are (in rough form). They emulate the larger SMP computers. And with an OS like Mosix you can run a single OS across the cluster, giving the impression of using one large machine with many processors.
But, no, you're not going to be able to use extra old computers to make your workstation run faster.
You haven't factored in fast networking (IB, Myrinet, good GigE, switches), maintainence, space, electricity, A/C, security, storage, backup, manhours. Clusters generally use Xeon/Opteron/Itanium, wondered why?
Then those businesses/institutions didn't their research. No, this isn't effective (for cost or other reasons) for all cases, but there are some cases where it will be. You can't blame Sun if customers failed to go with the solution that best suited their needs.
You just supported (unintentionally I believe) the post you replied to. The original poster said that the one child policy was exaggerated in the states to the point that people believed it was a strictly and uniformly enforced law, leading to slaughter of girl babies so that families could have children.
Your quote mentions that a) it's a policy not a law, b) enforcement is selective, c) it didn't create the problem of female infanticide.
There's a whole of factors that affect database speeds.
CPU is important. Obviously.
Memory bandwidth/latency equally so. LARGE amounts of data are likely being used here. This is why Sun is still able to sell systems. Their systems have nice big fat pipes for memory.
Disk read/write speeds and latency. Changes need to be committed and data needs to be loaded. The CPU may be able to handle a million transactions a second, but if the disk can only handle 50K you're screwed.
Network bandwidth/latency. Obviously important for distributed databases. Also a factor for accessing storage devices on the network.
Large database systems need to be carefully designed. Just throwing in more CPU power is pointless.
Actually, polygamy isn't explicitly outruled anywhere in the Bible.
No it's not. But must (and I realize you were weren't doing this) people who bring up the Bible to do stuff like defend marriage claim it defines marriage as between a man and women. When it's really between a man and his wifes (concubines allowed), according to the bible.
And the concubines issue comes up again. It's technically adultorous, but it's still allowed. In Leviticus it's stated that being married doesn't prevent a man from taking concubines (read mistresses or extra marital affairs).
Polygamy isn't socially accepted nowadays though
Depends who you hang with. I know quite a few polyamorous people.
Abraham's illegitimate children were fathered by Hagar right? Whom Serai forced upon her husband, and then drove out into the desert when she got jealous? I thought Abraham had tacit approval from God to sleep with Hagar? And don't you think it's kind of cruel to punish millions of descendents because Abraham slept around? Abraham himself was never directly punished, or sent to purgatory or hell.
to reconcile those things, they have to kind of ignore several parts of scripture
Ummm....
Ever read the bible. Genesis, Leviticus, Corinthians, and so on. Polygamy and the taking concubines are actively endorsed by the bible, and several of the holiest of holy characters engage in it.
How do you reconcile this with your belief? By ignoring those parts (assuming you even knew they existed)?
Poor bastard. I saw at the National Arts Centre (in Ottawa), performed by NAC Orchestra with extra ringers brought in (the NACO is only ~65 musicians).
The NACO is a top-rated chamber orchestra.
The NAC's Southam Hall was recently renovated to give it excellent acoustics.
I was happy. But then I only paid $100CDN for two tickets.
Slashdot Mirror
Your point? It's not incorrect.
Alaska was bought in 1867. The fort (William H. Seward) was built in 1902, because the Alaska/BC border was disputed by the US and Canada. It prevented Canada from laying claim to some valuable territory.
I'm not sure that limiting the amount of "information"
Having "Swift Boat Veterans for....." ads playing 24/7 is not what I would call "information".
Televised election ads in the US and Canada are essentially devoid of any real content. I'm not sure it's really a bad thing. It just gives more focus to the areas where ideas are (theoretically) brought up and discussed, such as debates and print.
hell of a lot nicer
Nicer? That response was an complete insult. It offered a back-handed insult, mocked the intelligence of the sender, showed zero respect and blatant disregard for the C&D's terms, attacked their product, and then stuck its fingers in its hears and stuck out its tongue at the iDownload people.
It was civil yes, but a hell of a lot meaner than "Your mother wears army boots, and if don't leave me alone I'll sue you back"
That's the price of committing your business to propriatary software and interfaces that are someone elses profit centre.
?????
If they had tied themselves to Firefox and similar vulnerabilities (and they do exist) where found in that, then they'd still have the problem of adopting new technologies. I don't get your point.
"Can't" means that something is unable to be done. The key to that definition is then how do you define unable? Do you define unable as meaning impossible, or possible but so unlikely or unwieldy as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible?
Take for instance the sentence: "I can't built rocket-ship to fly to moon.". Using your implied definition of "can't", that sentence is utterly false. I could afterall acquire all the relevant knowledge and funding and do that. But as that is extremely impractical, the usage of "can't" is fine.
Likewise in your own post you say that "things can't keep going the way they are". Again, using you definition of "can't" that's a false statement. Things certainly could keep going they way they are. Is it unwieldy and wasteful? Sure, but that doesn't mean it "can't" be done.
No one's trying to make live easy for anyone, just help people who without help wouldn't have the opportunity to improve themselves. I'm not talking about handing out silver spoons, just giving people access to education and knowledge. And it is necessary in that it builds more stable societies and that's ultimately to your benefit.
Children are fashioned by their communities. If they come from a community where poverty is trampant, education is disdained, there's no role-models then the child has no hope or even *awareness* that things could be better. Without some form of assistance be it public schools, youth outreach programs, scholarships, mentorship that child will not have the chance to pull themselves out of that community. Now, if the tools are there but not used, then oh well.
Do you think India's caste system is good? Those poor children born into the lower castes with no hope of ever being more than servant; well life's just tough right?
Yes what they do with their lives is ultimately their choice. But being born into poverty does make things a lot harder and does eliminate a lot of options.
That's why it's necessary for those of us better off to support social programs that provide assistance and re-open options for those peoples.
poor ... state employees.
If the government's wages aren't enough to keep it's employees above the poverty line there's a serious problem.
Holy crap.
Children born into poverty didn't do it by choice. Way to go with your blame the children for the sins of the fathers argument.
Or, maybe the message is just vague because Wine isn't a completely accurate emulator and just plain old causes the updater to fail?
100% profit margin?????? Umm, no. A 4% margin is low, but anywhere between 10-20% is good and normal:
GM - Income $193B, Earnings $4B (~2%)
Ford - Income $170B, Earnings $4B (~%2)
IBM (2000) - Income $88B, Earnings $8B (~9%)
Do Ford, GM, and IBM need to change their business because they're running on low profit margins of less than 35%?
If you never intend to buy from a certain dealership, then you've acted unethically
Well of course. But that is what I argued against and it isn't what you suggested in your post.
Going to Nissan Dealer A because they're convienent and have better service, but intending from the start to buy from Nissan Dealer B because it's cheaper is unethical. The reason the cars are more expensive at A is because of the service, and if the service is used it's only really ethical to pay for.
However, visiting a Nissan dealer, a Ford dealer, a GM dealer, a Toyota dealer in order to find the best car for me is fine. I intend to buy car, and will buy from the dealership that presents the best offer (both in terms of product, service, and value). That dealer isn't necessarily the first one I visit though.
In your original post you seemed to imply that if someone goes to the Nissan dealer then it's unethical to go try the Ford. That's stupid.
But it is as you say all just a question of intent. If I went to Nissan Dealer A intending to buy an Altima from them, but find them unreasonable in prices is it really unethical to go to Dealer B. What if I find out that Dealer A is charging $5000 more for the same car? At that point the dealer isn't dealing fairly with me, and I have no problems switching to Dealer B.
And I agreed the TV example showed bad ethics, so why bring it up.
When renting apartments there typically aren't any real estate agents. It's the landlords of the individual properties you're dealing with. If I see an ad for a apartment but when viewing the apartment don't like the design of the kitchen is it really unethical for me to go see the next rental property?
Wow... I don't in any way consider shopping around and talking to salespeople unethical.
Talking to salesperson at a specialty TV store to get information and recommendation and then buying the same TV at Walmart because it's cheaper since they don't employ qualified salespeople, THAT I'll agree is kind of cheap.
But you car dealership example? Wow! If I'm spending $20K-$30K on something I'm going to make sure I get the one I want. I'm not going buy one from the first dealership I go to! That's not being 'ethical', that's being stupid. How do I know which car fits my needs better? The only way I know is to inspect them and test drive them.
When I go to rent a new apartment I need to make sure that the apartment fits my needs. Am I wasting the rental agent's time because the apartment I view is inappropriate and I go on the the next one?
Republicans essentially stand for lowering taxes, decreasing the size/amount of government and government regulation
Not since Reagan took office they haven't. The US debt climbed from about $1T in 1980 to around $8T now.
Has the market shown there is insufficient demand?
Yes, using traditional advertising revenue models the show is unsuccessful. But that model doens't necessarily accurately reflect the demand of the viewers, in that it doesn't reflect how much value the viewers place on the program. The traditional model reflects a market between the studio and advertisers with not a market between the studio and viewers.
Let's say advertisers are willing to pay $.50 per episode per viewer. To each viewer, however, each episode has a $5 value. With $2/viewer/episode required to produce the show. There is more than sufficient demand for the show, all it would take is for a shift in revenue sources.
The world is filled with products and services that failed in their initial offerings/markets/models but became big hits once different strategies were developed.
The show costs $X.
The fans raise $Y.
If Y < X, the market isn't there for the show, the show gets cancelled. S&D economic theory wins again.
If Y >= X then a market exists for the show. At the price the supplier is willing to produce an item there is sufficient demand. S&D economic theory wins again.
There's no charity here. Just a free market where the product only gets produced if there is sufficient demand.
The show costs $X.
The fans raise $Y.
If Y
If Y >= X then a market exists for the show. At the price the supplier is willing to produce an item there is sufficient demand. S&D economic theory wins again.
There's no charity here. Just a free market where the product only gets produced if there is sufficient demand.
That's essentially what clusters are (in rough form). They emulate the larger SMP computers. And with an OS like Mosix you can run a single OS across the cluster, giving the impression of using one large machine with many processors.
But, no, you're not going to be able to use extra old computers to make your workstation run faster.
Are you sure?
You haven't factored in fast networking (IB, Myrinet, good GigE, switches), maintainence, space, electricity, A/C, security, storage, backup, manhours. Clusters generally use Xeon/Opteron/Itanium, wondered why?
Then those businesses/institutions didn't their research. No, this isn't effective (for cost or other reasons) for all cases, but there are some cases where it will be. You can't blame Sun if customers failed to go with the solution that best suited their needs.
You just supported (unintentionally I believe) the post you replied to. The original poster said that the one child policy was exaggerated in the states to the point that people believed it was a strictly and uniformly enforced law, leading to slaughter of girl babies so that families could have children.
Your quote mentions that a) it's a policy not a law, b) enforcement is selective, c) it didn't create the problem of female infanticide.
So your point?
Joke right?
There's a whole of factors that affect database speeds.
CPU is important. Obviously.
Memory bandwidth/latency equally so. LARGE amounts of data are likely being used here. This is why Sun is still able to sell systems. Their systems have nice big fat pipes for memory.
Disk read/write speeds and latency. Changes need to be committed and data needs to be loaded. The CPU may be able to handle a million transactions a second, but if the disk can only handle 50K you're screwed.
Network bandwidth/latency. Obviously important for distributed databases. Also a factor for accessing storage devices on the network.
Large database systems need to be carefully designed. Just throwing in more CPU power is pointless.
Actually, polygamy isn't explicitly outruled anywhere in the Bible.
No it's not. But must (and I realize you were weren't doing this) people who bring up the Bible to do stuff like defend marriage claim it defines marriage as between a man and women. When it's really between a man and his wifes (concubines allowed), according to the bible.
And the concubines issue comes up again. It's technically adultorous, but it's still allowed. In Leviticus it's stated that being married doesn't prevent a man from taking concubines (read mistresses or extra marital affairs).
Polygamy isn't socially accepted nowadays though
Depends who you hang with. I know quite a few polyamorous people.
Abraham's illegitimate children were fathered by Hagar right? Whom Serai forced upon her husband, and then drove out into the desert when she got jealous? I thought Abraham had tacit approval from God to sleep with Hagar? And don't you think it's kind of cruel to punish millions of descendents because Abraham slept around? Abraham himself was never directly punished, or sent to purgatory or hell.
things I believe are wrong ... extra-marital sex.
to reconcile those things, they have to kind of ignore several parts of scripture
Ummm....
Ever read the bible. Genesis, Leviticus, Corinthians, and so on. Polygamy and the taking concubines are actively endorsed by the bible, and several of the holiest of holy characters engage in it.
How do you reconcile this with your belief? By ignoring those parts (assuming you even knew they existed)?
Poor bastard. I saw at the National Arts Centre (in Ottawa), performed by NAC Orchestra with extra ringers brought in (the NACO is only ~65 musicians).
The NACO is a top-rated chamber orchestra.
The NAC's Southam Hall was recently renovated to give it excellent acoustics.
I was happy. But then I only paid $100CDN for two tickets.