I'm not the GP, but I'll take a stab: Gore had a history of environmentalism, which even continued while he was VP; I seriously doubt he'd have renounced Kyoto in the same way as Bush did immediately on taking office.
I always thought that was the most ironic part. Nader was standing as the Green Party candidate against Gore, saying there was no difference between Gore and Bush, when one of the most fundamental, most obvious, differences between the two were their policies on green issues.
If you're serious and desperate for parallel and serial ports on an iBook, you can get third party units that'll happily plug into the USB port. There are also PS/2 to USB adapters, though the ones I've used weren't terribly reliable. Generally I'd recommend getting natively USB equipment (generic USB keyboards and pointing devices for the PC work fine on the Mac, I'm a big fan of IBM keyboards and trackpoints.)
Modern operating systems, especially OS X, really do need a bit more than 800x600. But you certainly do not lose anything by running it at a higher resolution.
If I were to complain about the 12" iBook, it'd come down to two points:
1. No trackpoint. (Apple is wedded to the trackpad, personally I think that device is a PITA and not well designed, but others disagree with me.)
2. 256Mb of RAM, with a max, IIRC, of 768Mb. An improvement on the old 640Mb limit, but not much of an improvement.
If Apple would fix those, I'd buy a 12" and consider it good value for money.
Re:If You Want a Serious Answer... Don't Get Cute
on
Rob Pike Responds
·
· Score: 1
The analogy was fine. Countries were building up stockpiles of nukes as a deterent: you nuke us, we'll nuke you. Companies are building up stockpiles of patents as a deterent: you sue us, we'll sue you.
The analogy is arguably offensive, but it's nonetheless completely valid. I'm hoping that Pike didn't answer because he was offended: I'll lose all respect for him if he didn't understand the questioners analogy, it was pretty obvious.
You're dismissing the entire global warming issue, something backed up by study after study, by independent scientists, on the basis of two arguments:
1. Independent scientists (scientists who are not working for a particular agenda) tend to work in government funded institutions (eg universities) and are therefore, by being funded by government, part of some "agenda driven, socialized, government driven" conspiracy.
2. ONE study has turned out to have a mathematical flaw in its model.
This argument makes sense to you why?
I'd also say that comments like
Even many liberals are leaving the ranks of the extremist environmentalist groups.
show that by and large it is people like you, so keen to discredit global warming, who have the extremist agenda driven views. So what if some liberals do not like Greenpeace? What on Earth does this have to do with anything? If Al Gore makes a speech at the Sierra Club, do CO2 emissions decrease signficantly? If Ralph Nader rips up his Green Party Membership card, does this act as a catalyst, increasing the degree to which CO2 traps heat on Earth?
The case for global warming is solid and backed up by the figures. The case for the mechanics of greenhouse effects is also solid. The case that CO2 levels are higher in the atmosphere today than they were 50 years ago is also solid. The case that human activity is resulting in a greater amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere than would otherwise happen would appear to be self-evident - we're taking carbon stocks that would otherwise lie under the ground and we're literally burning them up, and we're replacing natural carbon sinks with deserts of tarmac and concrete.
What we're still trying to work out is the degree of the link between the first (global warming), and the last (our excessive CO2 production.) We're trying to work out what the affects of the first (global warming) will be on the weather (we're getting closer and closer all the time.) All of these are subjects that require research. But we can safely say that anyone who says, right now, on the basis of the evidence available, that there is simply no link whatsoever from the latter to the former is a kook. We may or may not be the primary cause of global warming, but to argue that we're having no affect would be to argue that either the concept of a greenhouse effect is flawed or that we're simply not increasing the overall amount of CO2 in the air despite all the logical evidence that we are.
And those who dismiss the concept rarely if ever address either issue, instead they point to problems with computer models predicting future temperature increases, or they complain that other factors may also be affecting the temperature, as if to say that because other factors are affecting it, we can't possibly be.
I doubt that more than 1% or so of the population live in circumstances where their only source of CDs is Wal*Mart.
While WM has a (justified) reputation for destroying existing independent stores that operate in the same area, there are many big chains, from Specs/FYE/etc to Best Buy and Circuit City to K*Mart and Target, who sell music too and aren't as vulnerable to this kind of competition as Joe's Music Mart.
And with the Internet, it's gotten ridiculously easy to order CDs in a way never before possible. I know many people who are "out in the sticks" do not have many broadband options, or may include a high percentage of the technologically illiterate, but it's certainly an increasingly effective option as time goes by. (A good 90% of my music collection is from Amazon.com)
20% of all music buyers being unable to buy from anyone but Wal*Mart is absurdly high, especially when you consider that Wal*Mart sells music to other music buyers too. The chances that its entire sales figure, or that 25-50% of its sales, come from such choice-challenged people, just seems to be ridiculous.
Linux was developed in 1991, well before the BSD version of the Unix kernel entered the public domain.
In any case, it's irrelevent and you're trying to change the subject. So far all I've seen from you is libellous accusations against Cutler which ultimately make no sense. You haven't backed them up. You haven't addressed basic problems with your thesis such as the fact that VMS and NT have completely different architectures, are not even written in the same language, and do not remotely resemble one another, and the point raised by others that the only version of VMS that code could have concievably have been "copied from" (Alpha VMS, because Alpha VMS contains some C code - and even then, only what was absolutely necessary) Cutler didn't even work on.
At least with the SCO accusations - already debunked multiple times - someone could conceivably believe the accusation on the grounds that Unix and Linux are work-a-likes. But VMS and NT? Are you kidding? A monolithic kernel vs a microkernel, the VMS API vs the pre-existing-before-Cutler Win32 and OS/2 personalities and APIs, VMS ties to the underlying hardware, the different feature sets (NT couldn't, to an end user, be more different from VMS), not to mention the fact that, as the original designer of Starlet, Cutler is clearly a genius who clearly didn't have to copy from anything (or did Cutler steal VMS from somewhere?), the accusaions you're making are simply impossible to believe.
No, it says specifically that the tactics to be denounced are those that have occured in the past, eg:
"As a civil rights leader, I object to the way tens of thousands of people were turned away from the polls here at the last election because they shared the same names as convicted felons. Because minorities made up a disproportionate number of those ex-felons, and because similar names tend to be used within similar families, this disproportionately disenfranchised particular groups at the expense of others. This year I'll be looking out for this, and I urge you to look out for it too."
That's the type of thing the DNC wants people to do. That's all, indeed, the paragraph under scrutiny recommends. It *nowhere* recommends inventing examples of discrimination, it merely advises civil rights leaders and other to be pro-active in areas where abuses have occured in the past.
And if you think that's wrong, and previous abuses shouldn't be highlighted, then you're advocating the failure to learn from history, and the continuation of election abuses.
While the UCS may have meant the APIs were language agnostic, that doesn't change the fact they were, really, honestly, a PITA to deal with. Any productive programmer ended up creating libraries of libraries to interface between the VMS APIs and their code, because it really didn't suit how you programmed in C. Yes, you could get any data type, but it was fricking hard. You couldn't just open a mailbox with a single function call.
As I said, "the native VMS APIs were, to put it mildly, somewhat ugly in terms of how they passed data to and from C". They were. They were OK if you programmed in FORTRAN, but in C... *shudder*
No, it's still a Republic. It's just the country is more democratic in areas than it used to be.
A Republic is a governmental structure. Democracy is a measure of accountability. "A Democracy" simply means a government that has passed a certain threshhold of accountability (notably, that in subjective terms, the effective legislature is answerable to the governed.) In practice, the US has been a democracy since the election of the first congress.
There are far too many too-clever-for-their-own-good people who'll jump on anyone describing the US as a democracy because they think, somehow (presumably from playing Civilization - damn you Sid Meier!) that democracy is a type of government and therefore incompatable with the concept of a republic. (Well, ok, there are also those who think that a democracy is "rule by plebicite", which it isn't, and then there are those who semi-legitimately argue that the Bill of Right's limitations on the legislature make the US "not a democracy", but the constitution is actually, at the moment, with current state constitutions and laws, changable for a sufficiently energized populice, so it's still a democracy. Oh, and there's the "It isn't in the constitution" argument too, but simply because the constitution doesn't require it doesn't mean it's not a democracy. Current laws and processes make it a democracy.)
Lady Deidre is, as you should know, a firm environmentalist and she's very much opposed to the solar shades idea for that very reason. I've never seen anything about Brother Lai or Colonel Santiago that would suggest they're opposed to indirect or direct modification of the environment; indeed Santiago's vocal support for nano-technologies would surely show she's in favour of both.
Windows NT was easily portable to the Alpha for the same reason as Linux and the *BSDs were: It's written in C.
Oh, and VMS most certainly isn't written in C. There's some bizarre, DEC only, programming languages in there.
Hell, programming in C under VMS was always a PITA, the native VMS APIs were, to put it mildly, somewhat ugly in terms of how they passed data to and from C.
Other than some shared design concepts in a handful of specific areas, there's no copied code from VMS in NT. There couldn't be. They're not even written in the same language. They have radically different architectures overall. There's just no comparison.
The NT kernel was stolen from DEC by David Cutler, who did kernel work for DEC and was involved in writing VMS for Alphas, and simply brought over his code base illegally.
It's a shame this is totally false. It would be nice if the world's most popular operating system was simply a dressed up version of OpenVMS - while VMS isn't perfect, it was a strong system, extremely well built and with a lot of concepts that ought - but aren't - to be in mainstream OSes.
While Cutler undoubtedly brought a lot of concepts with him from DEC, there's little doubt NT is an entirely different OS. It doesn't even have the same fundamental design as VMS - NT is (or was at the time of its design) a pure microkernel with a set of personalities, the first of which was OS/2, the other of which was a 32 bit version of the, then, 16 bit Windows API, christened "Win32" and the basis of all versions of Microsoft operating systems from 1995 onwards, whether NT based or not.
Culter was a genius. That's why Microsoft hired him. He didn't need to copy code, and it's inevitable that someone who has worked on two different projects would use some of the same ideas and concepts in both systems.
I don't like Microsoft either, but I think your depiction of Culter is inflammatory, libellous, and very unfair.
If the RIAA does it, yeah. But I don't see an issue with the labels themselves deciding they don't want to sell at the rates proposed by Wal*Mart and refusing to do so.
About the only thing the labels must do to cover their beeps (sorry, this is the Wal*Mart version of this message) at this point is justify the amounts they're charging wholesale. Given the fact that, contrary to popular belief, the labels are not rolling around in profits (part of that is creative accounting, but part of it genuinely is that there just isn't a lot of money in music, at least, not on the business end. I'm reminded that the reason Richard Branson is talked about in British business courses is his combination of an airline with a music business as a way to make a lot of money - music businesses are high in cashflow but low in profits, airlines (at least, at the time) were always stretching their credit lines to the limits but making enormous profits. Combine the two and, voila! Massive profits), I doubt they'll have difficultly justifying the prices they charge.
Ok, let's make a note of that: Don't store the liquid CO2 on the tops of mountains.
Actually, probably the best place to store it is deep under the ocean, as the pressure will keep it heavier than water anyway. The only way it can come back up to bite us is if we see significant drops in sea level, and I think we'll have bigger things to worry about than global warming if that ever happens...
Though funnily enough there's a proposal to do that (drop the sea level, using solar shades) in front of the UN at the moment. Colonel Santiago and Brother Lai are sponsoring it, but with Sister Miriam, CEO Morgan, and Deidre opposed to the idea, I doubt it'll pass.
If Wal*Mart stops selling CDs, do the labels seriously think their sales would drop 20%? Do people only buy music from Wal*Mart because they happen to be at the store at the time?
Isn't it more likely that those sales will occur elsewhere?
Wal*Mart stands to lose more than the publishers (the RIAA doesn't stand to lose anything, it's an industry group, not a publisher. In fact, I believe the RIAA stands to gain, as this'll make the recording industry far more paranoid and far more inclined to funnel money towards groups that can help them.); if you can't get the music you want at Wal Mart - which is what the situation will be if Wal Mart doesn't stock "expensive" music - then people will not go there for music.
I really, really, really hope Wal*Mart gets what it wants.
I don't. If they get what they want, the publishers will have to recover the money by putting up the prices for other outlets. This means that the other outlets will be less successful at selling the uncensored versions, more of them will go bust as a result, and we'll be left in a situation where most of us can only get the Wal*Mart's child-safe versions.
That's not what I want. The recording industry needs to work on making its products cheaper and passing on those savings across the board, not favouring one abusive outlet over everyone else.
You obviously didn't read my comment, let alone bother to understand it, since I said that I didn't understand why they're taken seriously, which implies that I believe they are taken seriously at the moment.
To be honest, I'm surprised it is taken seriously at all anyway, given the fact the music it sells tends to be the bleeped versions anyway.
And, BTW, the abbreviation for "You are" is "You're", not "Your". If you're going to call someone an idiot, at least spell your insult correctly.
The solution is for the publishers not to sell to WalMart. It's that easy.
If WalMart doesn't stock an extremely wide range of music, it will not be taken seriously as a place to get music. To be honest, I'm surprised it is taken seriously at all anyway, given the fact the music it sells tends to be the bleeped versions anyway.
FWIW, I think the first two are reversed. "Regular users" - at least, if we talk in terms of regular users of computers - are those who want a clean, efficient, desktop that runs smoothly. They want to play games, watch DVDs, and listen to music, as well as rip music from CDs and other sources. These people are not using tasks that are so-much CPU intensive as timing-critical (well, many of the more modern games are CPU intensive, but that's the exception, and they're still timing critical.)
"Power users" - again, in terms of common computer users - are those who want to squeeze every ounce of CPU out of their systems. They run massive web applications and are constantly upgrading memory and CPU to deal with increasing number of users. They'll want a kernel that's as CPU critical as possible and will not necessarily care about timings as long as everything's reasonable.
I think there are very good arguments for putting real time functionality in the kernel. The major issue we have at the moment is that most people who hear about the technology also hear the word "embedded" and assume it's a niche application that benefits a few people who eat and drink solder. It isn't. Those are the people who are most desperate for it. The rest of us would benefit immensely from it but we're not getting it because...
...well, I think part of the reason is that Windows doesn't do it, and there are an awful lot of people in computing right now who'll not do anything until Microsoft steps forward first. Another good example of this, I guess, would be flexible metadata in the file system. Linux ought to support it, it would have made the whole process of building decent GUI/Desktop environments so much easier, people have talked about how valuable it would be for years, but because Microsoft doesn't do it (yet) we don't see it, and we probably will not until WinFS is released.
Perhaps it's time the parties started organizing their own elections, rather than requiring the states (and presumably taxpayers) to do so on their behalf.
As a side effect, this would mean they could do so by their own rules rather than having the states impose their own (Democrats allowed to vote in Republican primaries and vice-versa, etc)
Then buy an Apple keyboard and plug it in a spare USB slot and hide it around the back. You've introduced the missing Apple hardware into the equation.
I'd have agreed with you a year or two ago, but Nokia's recent offerings are awful - half of them don't even have proper keypads.
I have a T720 now, and while it has many faults, I'm happy with it. I wish Nokia would do something like revive the old 21xx series, put a minimum of the new current features on it (eg USB/Bluetooth, GPRS, a STANDARD headset jack, quad-band GSM, etc); I'd buy one in an instant.
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought that was the most ironic part. Nader was standing as the Green Party candidate against Gore, saying there was no difference between Gore and Bush, when one of the most fundamental, most obvious, differences between the two were their policies on green issues.
Modern operating systems, especially OS X, really do need a bit more than 800x600. But you certainly do not lose anything by running it at a higher resolution.
If I were to complain about the 12" iBook, it'd come down to two points:
1. No trackpoint. (Apple is wedded to the trackpad, personally I think that device is a PITA and not well designed, but others disagree with me.)
2. 256Mb of RAM, with a max, IIRC, of 768Mb. An improvement on the old 640Mb limit, but not much of an improvement.
If Apple would fix those, I'd buy a 12" and consider it good value for money.
The analogy is arguably offensive, but it's nonetheless completely valid. I'm hoping that Pike didn't answer because he was offended: I'll lose all respect for him if he didn't understand the questioners analogy, it was pretty obvious.
You're dismissing the entire global warming issue, something backed up by study after study, by independent scientists, on the basis of two arguments:
1. Independent scientists (scientists who are not working for a particular agenda) tend to work in government funded institutions (eg universities) and are therefore, by being funded by government, part of some "agenda driven, socialized, government driven" conspiracy.
2. ONE study has turned out to have a mathematical flaw in its model.
This argument makes sense to you why?
I'd also say that comments like
show that by and large it is people like you, so keen to discredit global warming, who have the extremist agenda driven views. So what if some liberals do not like Greenpeace? What on Earth does this have to do with anything? If Al Gore makes a speech at the Sierra Club, do CO2 emissions decrease signficantly? If Ralph Nader rips up his Green Party Membership card, does this act as a catalyst, increasing the degree to which CO2 traps heat on Earth?The case for global warming is solid and backed up by the figures. The case for the mechanics of greenhouse effects is also solid. The case that CO2 levels are higher in the atmosphere today than they were 50 years ago is also solid. The case that human activity is resulting in a greater amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere than would otherwise happen would appear to be self-evident - we're taking carbon stocks that would otherwise lie under the ground and we're literally burning them up, and we're replacing natural carbon sinks with deserts of tarmac and concrete.
What we're still trying to work out is the degree of the link between the first (global warming), and the last (our excessive CO2 production.) We're trying to work out what the affects of the first (global warming) will be on the weather (we're getting closer and closer all the time.) All of these are subjects that require research. But we can safely say that anyone who says, right now, on the basis of the evidence available, that there is simply no link whatsoever from the latter to the former is a kook. We may or may not be the primary cause of global warming, but to argue that we're having no affect would be to argue that either the concept of a greenhouse effect is flawed or that we're simply not increasing the overall amount of CO2 in the air despite all the logical evidence that we are.
And those who dismiss the concept rarely if ever address either issue, instead they point to problems with computer models predicting future temperature increases, or they complain that other factors may also be affecting the temperature, as if to say that because other factors are affecting it, we can't possibly be.
While WM has a (justified) reputation for destroying existing independent stores that operate in the same area, there are many big chains, from Specs/FYE/etc to Best Buy and Circuit City to K*Mart and Target, who sell music too and aren't as vulnerable to this kind of competition as Joe's Music Mart.
And with the Internet, it's gotten ridiculously easy to order CDs in a way never before possible. I know many people who are "out in the sticks" do not have many broadband options, or may include a high percentage of the technologically illiterate, but it's certainly an increasingly effective option as time goes by. (A good 90% of my music collection is from Amazon.com)
20% of all music buyers being unable to buy from anyone but Wal*Mart is absurdly high, especially when you consider that Wal*Mart sells music to other music buyers too. The chances that its entire sales figure, or that 25-50% of its sales, come from such choice-challenged people, just seems to be ridiculous.
In any case, it's irrelevent and you're trying to change the subject. So far all I've seen from you is libellous accusations against Cutler which ultimately make no sense. You haven't backed them up. You haven't addressed basic problems with your thesis such as the fact that VMS and NT have completely different architectures, are not even written in the same language, and do not remotely resemble one another, and the point raised by others that the only version of VMS that code could have concievably have been "copied from" (Alpha VMS, because Alpha VMS contains some C code - and even then, only what was absolutely necessary) Cutler didn't even work on.
At least with the SCO accusations - already debunked multiple times - someone could conceivably believe the accusation on the grounds that Unix and Linux are work-a-likes. But VMS and NT? Are you kidding? A monolithic kernel vs a microkernel, the VMS API vs the pre-existing-before-Cutler Win32 and OS/2 personalities and APIs, VMS ties to the underlying hardware, the different feature sets (NT couldn't, to an end user, be more different from VMS), not to mention the fact that, as the original designer of Starlet, Cutler is clearly a genius who clearly didn't have to copy from anything (or did Cutler steal VMS from somewhere?), the accusaions you're making are simply impossible to believe.
You owe Cutler an apology.
Stupid two minute limit.
"As a civil rights leader, I object to the way tens of thousands of people were turned away from the polls here at the last election because they shared the same names as convicted felons. Because minorities made up a disproportionate number of those ex-felons, and because similar names tend to be used within similar families, this disproportionately disenfranchised particular groups at the expense of others. This year I'll be looking out for this, and I urge you to look out for it too."
That's the type of thing the DNC wants people to do. That's all, indeed, the paragraph under scrutiny recommends. It *nowhere* recommends inventing examples of discrimination, it merely advises civil rights leaders and other to be pro-active in areas where abuses have occured in the past.
And if you think that's wrong, and previous abuses shouldn't be highlighted, then you're advocating the failure to learn from history, and the continuation of election abuses.
As I said, "the native VMS APIs were, to put it mildly, somewhat ugly in terms of how they passed data to and from C". They were. They were OK if you programmed in FORTRAN, but in C... *shudder*
A Republic is a governmental structure. Democracy is a measure of accountability. "A Democracy" simply means a government that has passed a certain threshhold of accountability (notably, that in subjective terms, the effective legislature is answerable to the governed.) In practice, the US has been a democracy since the election of the first congress.
There are far too many too-clever-for-their-own-good people who'll jump on anyone describing the US as a democracy because they think, somehow (presumably from playing Civilization - damn you Sid Meier!) that democracy is a type of government and therefore incompatable with the concept of a republic. (Well, ok, there are also those who think that a democracy is "rule by plebicite", which it isn't, and then there are those who semi-legitimately argue that the Bill of Right's limitations on the legislature make the US "not a democracy", but the constitution is actually, at the moment, with current state constitutions and laws, changable for a sufficiently energized populice, so it's still a democracy. Oh, and there's the "It isn't in the constitution" argument too, but simply because the constitution doesn't require it doesn't mean it's not a democracy. Current laws and processes make it a democracy.)
Lady Deidre is, as you should know, a firm environmentalist and she's very much opposed to the solar shades idea for that very reason. I've never seen anything about Brother Lai or Colonel Santiago that would suggest they're opposed to indirect or direct modification of the environment; indeed Santiago's vocal support for nano-technologies would surely show she's in favour of both.
Oh, and VMS most certainly isn't written in C. There's some bizarre, DEC only, programming languages in there.
Hell, programming in C under VMS was always a PITA, the native VMS APIs were, to put it mildly, somewhat ugly in terms of how they passed data to and from C.
Other than some shared design concepts in a handful of specific areas, there's no copied code from VMS in NT. There couldn't be. They're not even written in the same language. They have radically different architectures overall. There's just no comparison.
The Unix kernels and Linux have more in common.
While Cutler undoubtedly brought a lot of concepts with him from DEC, there's little doubt NT is an entirely different OS. It doesn't even have the same fundamental design as VMS - NT is (or was at the time of its design) a pure microkernel with a set of personalities, the first of which was OS/2, the other of which was a 32 bit version of the, then, 16 bit Windows API, christened "Win32" and the basis of all versions of Microsoft operating systems from 1995 onwards, whether NT based or not.
Culter was a genius. That's why Microsoft hired him. He didn't need to copy code, and it's inevitable that someone who has worked on two different projects would use some of the same ideas and concepts in both systems.
I don't like Microsoft either, but I think your depiction of Culter is inflammatory, libellous, and very unfair.
About the only thing the labels must do to cover their beeps (sorry, this is the Wal*Mart version of this message) at this point is justify the amounts they're charging wholesale. Given the fact that, contrary to popular belief, the labels are not rolling around in profits (part of that is creative accounting, but part of it genuinely is that there just isn't a lot of money in music, at least, not on the business end. I'm reminded that the reason Richard Branson is talked about in British business courses is his combination of an airline with a music business as a way to make a lot of money - music businesses are high in cashflow but low in profits, airlines (at least, at the time) were always stretching their credit lines to the limits but making enormous profits. Combine the two and, voila! Massive profits), I doubt they'll have difficultly justifying the prices they charge.
Actually, probably the best place to store it is deep under the ocean, as the pressure will keep it heavier than water anyway. The only way it can come back up to bite us is if we see significant drops in sea level, and I think we'll have bigger things to worry about than global warming if that ever happens...
Though funnily enough there's a proposal to do that (drop the sea level, using solar shades) in front of the UN at the moment. Colonel Santiago and Brother Lai are sponsoring it, but with Sister Miriam, CEO Morgan, and Deidre opposed to the idea, I doubt it'll pass.
Isn't it more likely that those sales will occur elsewhere?
That's not what I want. The recording industry needs to work on making its products cheaper and passing on those savings across the board, not favouring one abusive outlet over everyone else.
If WalMart doesn't stock an extremely wide range of music, it will not be taken seriously as a place to get music. To be honest, I'm surprised it is taken seriously at all anyway, given the fact the music it sells tends to be the bleeped versions anyway.
"Power users" - again, in terms of common computer users - are those who want to squeeze every ounce of CPU out of their systems. They run massive web applications and are constantly upgrading memory and CPU to deal with increasing number of users. They'll want a kernel that's as CPU critical as possible and will not necessarily care about timings as long as everything's reasonable.
I think there are very good arguments for putting real time functionality in the kernel. The major issue we have at the moment is that most people who hear about the technology also hear the word "embedded" and assume it's a niche application that benefits a few people who eat and drink solder. It isn't. Those are the people who are most desperate for it. The rest of us would benefit immensely from it but we're not getting it because...
As a side effect, this would mean they could do so by their own rules rather than having the states impose their own (Democrats allowed to vote in Republican primaries and vice-versa, etc)
If you're refering to Nader, Nader isn't the Green candidate this time around. The Green's candidate is David Cobb.
GNU, not GNOME. GIMP predates GNOME by several years. Indeed, GNOME was originally based on a toolkit developed for GIMP called GTK.
Then buy an Apple keyboard and plug it in a spare USB slot and hide it around the back. You've introduced the missing Apple hardware into the equation.
I have a T720 now, and while it has many faults, I'm happy with it. I wish Nokia would do something like revive the old 21xx series, put a minimum of the new current features on it (eg USB/Bluetooth, GPRS, a STANDARD headset jack, quad-band GSM, etc); I'd buy one in an instant.