So do you need more than 4 gig of ram? No? then why do you want to go the 64 bit route on PPC?
Well because eventually Apple is going to only sell G5/G6/G7's and eventually only sell 64 bit apps which won't run on 32 bit systems. Sure this won't happen tommorow but be sure that it will happen in a few years. The same goes for the x86 market. A 64 bit machine can run 32 bit and 64 bit apps with no problem but a 32 bit comp CAN'T RUN a 64 bit application. I could not care less about ram but I do care about FORWARD compatibility. Of course the way things are going with software, more than 4 gigs of RAM should be common in the next couple of years to run games and high-end programs.
To sum up:
a 64 bit system is a more flexible system that will transfer smoothly into the future when many "off the shelf" programs are 64 bit and I rather not have to check box labels to see if they are "compatible with older systems" (like what happened when the 286 was becoming/became obsolete).
No programs written today are compatable with a 286 machines and 286 16 bit machines are esentially "junk" but an old 386 or pentium machine can still be usefull as a linux box or a Windows web browsing box.
I have not replaced my 32 bit machines but any new computers I buy are going to be 64 bit. Whether I buy Apple or x86.
I would grab one but it is not a G5. I refuse to buy anymore 32 bit machines now that one can buy commodity x86/apple 64 bit chips. The future is 64 bit. I have not replaced my 32 bit machines but I don't intend to buy anymore 32 bit computers.
I'm sorry, but if you don't have $200 to invest, you shouldn't be buying ANY stock. Put it in a nice CD and collect interest.
I am an investor and I invest in many companies and you are dead wrong. It is not 200 dollars but 20,000 thousand dollars. When one seriously invests in stocks, you buy and sell in lots of 100 so a very small investment in goog would be 20,000 dollars. You can buy what is called an "odd lot" which is less than a 100 shares but that is odd and not really done by "real investores" pluss it costs more since it is unussual and inconvenient.
What I want is to be able to remove Media Player, Internet Explorer, and Outlook Express.
These three are just security holes.
They are just three SYMPTOMS of one security hole and that security hole is called ActiveX. If Microsoft was REAL serious about security in Longhorn, ActiveX would be rewritten with security in mind. Anything that is "ActiveX aware" can reformat your hard drive and more. These things include MS Office, IE, Outlook Express, Outlook, WMP, and the list goes on. COM/OLE objects are great but having a web site be able to run/install a com object onto a machine from IE is INSANE!!!! Somebody at Microsoft should have asked "what is to stop someone from abusing this technology?" and then decided not to implement it because they did not have a good answer to that question. If it was not for the lack of security in ActiveX technologies, MS security would not be so abismally shoddy.
I think MS is playing this smart. It is better for them to cooperate now and hope to kill the monetary penalty than to say "We will fight to keep Windows the way we want it!". I know they want to use WMP to take over another market but to INSIST that it must stay would just piss too many important people off. Better to fold on this and just keep WMP an easy free download and continue to pursue the strategy of convincing content providers that using WMP formats is the way to go.
I am in no way condoning or approving MS business tactics. I am only judging the merits of the effectiveness of such strategies.
My own perspective is that a music/video utility should be bundled with all OS's but that WMP is evil because it is being used to promote Microsoft's proprietary sound and video formats. MS is again relying on thier tried and true tactics of "embrace and extend".
But since the EU "picked up" on this theme it is bettor for MS to be a little more "low key" with this strategy than be arogant about it. It seems MS is grown a little wiser since the AntiTrust trial in the USA (despite winning it).
Actually, this is an opportunity for everyone who isn't Microsoft, not just Linux.
What other vendor keeps supporting an OS 8 years after release and 5 years as a legacy OS?
Certainly not any linux distribution. I run Linux on my machine and it is still on fedora core 1. I refuse to update the machine to another core (due to RedHats cavalier approach to Fedora) and need to upgrade soon to another distro because I really like getting regular security updates from a reliable source.
When NT 4 was first out I was running RedHat 5 which I then had to upgrade to Redhat 7/8 and then I jumped to fedora core 1. Does RedHat even support 7 anymore?
My wife is using a win 2000 machine and it has been getting regular updates since the year 2001 and I expect her to get regular updates probably till the year 2008. I only WISH a Unix/Linux vendor had the support MS does for thier legacy products!
Microsoft is using their OS dominance to crush another market for their bottom line. When this tool gains 95% market share because it's packaged with the OS, who will be able to sell a virus scanner?
Actually I don't think there SHOULD be a market for AntiVirus software. Normally I would agree with you. I think IE and WMP are examples that could be talked about in regard to embrace/extend and stifling competition.
However, no other OS in history has had to have an Antivirus industry EXCEPT Microsoft!
The idea of an entire industry built on the fact that Microsoft can't clean up after thier shit and so third party companies make a fortune doing just that is pretty sad. I actually like the idea that MS is starting to think "maybe we should wipe our own asses" is a good thing.
It's just possible that I'm wrong! & so I'd like to examine other people's reasoning more closely.
I believe I gave a good understanding of how a typical proprietary software programmer thinks.
As for why others are willing to buy a closed source solution is another issue altogether.
In most cases it comes down to "as long as the program works and is reasonably priced (and the definition of reasonably priced is in the eye of the buyer) I don't care about source code". Most people don't know how to program or ever want to look at a program so source code means nothing to them and paying for software or paying somebody else to write/modify software means little to them. They tend to go with what works and free(dom) software means nothing since they could/would never change code in a program anyway. Open Source/Free Software only means something to people if they have some sense of what programming is. Most people use a computer to either get work done, play games, or surf the internet (which is either work or play depending on the situation). The idea of people fiddling around with thier computer is looked upon by most people like car machanics who beef up thier cars- interesting but nothing more.
of course they should be taken down. And they are being taken down at faster and faster rates. But DDOSing them is the wrong way. First of all, you take down an ISP in addition to the spammer, but in addition the ISP may now have to help the spammer to defend itself in order to keep other innocent customers online.
ISP's who have spammers as customers are just spammers one step removed. It should be costly to ISP's to knowingly have spammers for customers. ISP's generally charge for bandwidth usage and I see nothing wrong with an ISP giving a spammer a huge bandwidth bill and I have little sympathy for ISP's having trouble due to spam customers.
Do I think DDosing spammers is a good idea?
NO but only because: 1. there are better ways.
2. It really doesn't solve the problem.
3. The potential of hitting innocent victims.
But I would say your arguement holds little water and for the most part I would say this kind of thing is a way to have a little (mostly harmless) fun.
"How do Microsoft (et al) developers, who are obviously intelligent, hard-working and - at the technical level, at least - well-intentioned people, reconcile this with their consciences? Do they...
* reject the notion that software freedom is a real freedom?
* reject the idea that that freedom is important?
* Just not think about this issue?
* Buy one of the classic get-outs for those co-operating with evil, such as "If I don't do it, someone else will", or "I need to feed my family / pay for my SUV / eat", or... what else?
""
I think they say "I write the code so I get to say how I f***ing want to distribute it". The programmer has every right to distribute thier code however they feel since they are the one who well WROTE IT. Now anyone can decide to accept the terms of a programmers program or not use it. As Linus Torvalds once said "he who writes the code gets to choose the licence". It is all fine and dandy for you to want the freedom to change the code on your computer and to make software decissions based on that desire but a totally different issue when thinking that there is somehow a moral delinma about people writing code for a "closed source" software company.
This trend to move away from old technology such as the Pentium II that still serves a valid purpose is silly, part of a push to always be bigger and better.
I am intel and I have XYZ space in a factory making pentium II's that are selling for 2-3 dollars a pop.
Think about that. Now think about using that factory space to produce something with real profit margins!
Intel does not care if you or anybody else thinks pentium II's work good enough. What they care about is making chips that MAKE MONEY.
BTW: Upgrading pII -> pIV was probably a good move just to get win XP which is a far superior OS over win 95/98 when it comes to features and stability (with firewall\AV\and patches installed). If for anyone, your IT staff will be happier.
and go to jail for nine years. Drive a car drunk, sell crack, or commit rape and serve far less (or even any) time. I love this country.
The defense lawyer did a REALLY shabby job. He said "they acted like shitheads only because they were trying to get rich fast"
So yes they got a harsh sentence but if I was a jurror you can bet that would have pushed my "for maximum punishment" trigger finger too.
If a rapist had the defense of "I raped her because I knew it would feel so fucking good" you can be assured they would get the death penalty (in a death penalty state).
While a harsh sentence, I feel no pitty for the defendants. Spam is/should be illegal and those that try to make it a bussiness model should pay dearly for thier actions (which includes paying for a good lawyer).
Then, the school board told her that she had to quit teaching A Brave New World -- and she did.
What a wimp. I lost all respect for her for not fighting it.
I would have to disagree. One must temper ideals with practicality. Who gives a shit about one book. There are millions of great books to choose from. Taking a stand on a book would be a real pain in the ass and make it more difficult for her to teach what she wants because if she makes a stink, everything she teaches will then be under scrutiny. Best thing for her to do is say to her class "I have been told not to teach xyz book and instead I will be covering xyz other book and drop it. If that does not get them to read the banned book then they were never going to read it anyway. Telling people that they are not supposed to read a book is the most enticing way to perk ones interest in reading it (just out of curiosity to know why it was banned). Sometimes people have to take a stand but before one decides to make a stand, make SURE it is IMPORTANT enough. I think she lost a battle but is winning the war. The board is happy because they got thier way and the teacher probably doesn't care too much because she gets to teach what she wants without much interferance.
I find it very interesting how the early Internet is always referred to as "dot com", as if business and the media are straining to make it a pejorative. All that creativity and CAPITALISM generated great wealth for dozens of economies. Ebay, Amazon, etc. are all publically traded, profitable companies that wouldn't exist without the Internet.
Actually the dot com's were directly related to the 2001-2002 recession and 2003 slow growth. Although 9/11 had some small impact, the fact that billions of billions of billions "disappeared" due to dot coms being overhyped and over valued and going bust destroyed huge ammounts of investment capital. That capital that was infused into the "dot coms" was capital that was not invested into more "worthy" bussiness ventures. Sure many dot coms did/are successfull but not nearly in comparison to the over all failure.
The original olympics wasn't about all of this silly ethical garbage. It was about muscular naked men manhandling one another in front of a large audience.
Ethics are what society is about and should not be taken lightly. The thing is that most drugs taken by athletes have very negative side effects. People who don't want to destroy thier body but make it the best "machine they can" are being penalized for being good to themselves to the detriment of those that only care about winning.
The original olympics had no objections to the things you are refering to because fundamentally they thought that the best athlete would win. Modern science has made it possible for that to no longer be true. By my interpretation, NOT letting steriods into the games keeps in the spirit of the games.
When steroids can be safely administered to children alongside Vitamin A, B and C, I think the arguement for allowing steroids is a detriment to all because it would encourage society to start administrating steroids to children as another vitamin to take (among children of competitive parents). And if you think this arguement is silly just remeber that many olympians ARE children!
I am sorry but I think "silly ethical garbage" is important and I am glad that the IOC agrees.
Like other people said, 2.4 had so many changes go in during it's "stable" life, maybe their just trying to be realistic and make 2.6 actually be more stable than 2.4 this way?
Only when Linus was the maintainer. As soon as the kernel was handed over to Marcelo Tosatti, 2.4 got SIGNIFICANTLY more stable and development slowed to a crawl. Many peoples point is that 2.6 will never be anything but early 2.4 because Linus refuses to leave it behind and start something new. I blame a lot on Andrew Morton. Morton stated that he does not want to slow down development of 2.6 after Linus leaves 2.6 which means:
1. Andrew Morton should NOT be a maintainer of a stable branch because he does not have stability as a philisophical goal.
2. There is less reason for Linus to leave due to Mortons lack of intentions in the stability area.
I hope Linus can find a way to choose another 2.6 maintainer with a different predisposition.
I don't think anything bad about Morton- he is just meant to be a developer and not a maintainer. It is also a weekness of Linus. Torvalds has too much fun as a developer to be a good maintainer. Fortunately in the past, Linus has left maintenance in the hands of people who were GOOD mainteners and Linus kept doing what he is best at,which is development. I and many others are saddened that the 2.6 kernel will not trully be given into the hands of a good maintainer like Linux has historically progressed.
It would "cost quite a bit"? Do you understand how much money Microsoft has? Do you understand how expensive their lawyers are? They could register 10,000 domain names with a fraction of the interest they make on their money in an hour. I really don't think the expense is why they didn't do it.
Yes but if MS spent money on stupid shit like this as a common practice, they would not be making the money they are. And I am sure MS made a hefty profit on the spammer lawsuit and I am sure they are looking forward to the next lawsuit to hit someone with stupid enough to do this. These lawsuits make MS look good and it makes money for them. MS is making profit off of not registering those domain names but you would suggest they waist money to stop spammers from making MS money (by registering every concievable windows/MS name). I think MS has the right idea on this issue.
We all know that Intel puts all their equipment through a strong Quality Assurance check. They run tests on computer equipment that others in manufacturing envy.
I don't know that at all. I mean they had the floating point error in the pentium III, the 1.13 ghz coppermine fiasco, and now this bad chipset as the most current example. While AMD may have delays, I don't ever remember them shipping a bad chip. If we look at Intels track record, thier QA is mediocre.
It is a parents job to raise thier kids but I would be really pissed off if the school system I was sending my kids to were playing puff daddy lyrics during lunch time. I also scorn the use of words like bitch/fuck/whore/cunt/racial slurs and various vulgar language used in some modern rap music. I see no conflict between a school system sueing a corporation for "trying to" corrupt children and parents being responsible for how thier children are rasised- that is why a school system would be sued by parents (if a school actually played the music the RIAA sent). It is within parents rights to allow thier kids to say "I am going to pop a cap in your head" but I expect our learning institutions to hold to a higher standard for the many parents that DON'T allow such nonsense.
Capital crime? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would mean he'd not just be in prison, but on death row. I wouldn't mind prison and a caning, but in all sincerity the death penalty seems a tad extreme for spamming.
I don't know about a capital crime but it should be treated as seriously as virus writing cases. Spam is really taxing on the internet and even though it is so pervasive, does not legitimize the action. Spammers getting ten years+ might reduce spam to a trickle for the average person.
By passing 10 things, their job is easy. That's all they see. They don't know about registers (other than they exist and are sorta like variables on the CPU). So they don't know that to pass 10 things you might put some in registers but the rest will have to be passed in memory (which is slow) as opposed to puting everything in registers (if at all possible) which is faster (especially for simple functions).
SO WHAT! Programs should only be optimized if:
1) the program is doing stuff so intensive that it runs slow
or
2) It is being run all the time in the background by the system and can slow down the system as a whole.
98% of the time it just does not matter.
Easilly readable code is FAR MORE IMPORTANT.
I have written code in more than half a dozen different languages but my favorite language these days is Python. It runs ten times slower than C, but in most cases, it just doesn't matter. Most of the time, the code feels instantanious.
Won't these costs just be forced down onto the customers? Sure, it funds Spamhaus, but why is this a good thing for a user who doesn't have to deal with spam? I get maybe one spam e-mail a day.
Yeah I am really worried the 15 grand is going to be passed onto me from my multi-billion dollar ISP.
I expect I will need to refinance my house to keep my internet connection.
Spamhaus is providing a service that cuts costs for ISP's (due to savings in resources not needed for the handling of spam) so it only makes sense to throw some cash thier way in return.
Penny pinching of the magnitude you are posting is ammusing. Next you will be saying the free coffee provided to the programmers at most ISP should be cut due to the large toll it provides on the cost to end user services (which is much more than 15 grand) or workers should provide for thier own toilet paper and soap. Cut the company softball team too! The 35 dollar's I pay for broadband is too high!
It's not often you have a sure thing in a horse race. And I just missed mine. Double damn.
I thought about it but then I thought not enough stock in the company to avoid the risk of what is called a "short squeeze" (people hold on to the stock knowing that eventually shorts sellers will have to sell to avoid further financial risk).
WARNING: DO NOT TAKE ANYTHING I SAY AS INVESTMENT ADVICE. The reasons for my investments are my own idea of company worth and in no way may be right.
Which is why my money is invested in AMD at the moment instead. I figure AMD at a market capital of ~5 billion is bound to grow in comparison to INTC (intel) ~180 billion capitalization considering the lead AMD has in the 64 bit x86 market.
There are lots of great oportunities on the stock market but you really need to know the risks. Who was to say Microsoft would not just buy out SCO or that Darl and gang would not get another VC to invest in them and the stock go through the roof? With a market cap. of 220 mill. (back when it was over 15$), who is to say they would not have been bought out or the stock artificialy manipulated? hindsight is 20/20 (and this is coming from someone who has made much more than he has lost on the stock market).
Linux is a nuisance to Sun. It's really a shame, because Sun has done (or acquired and re-released) some great things: NFS, Java, OpenOffice... but they're so stuck on Solaris that they just can't handle the fact that it's all about Linux now.
Linux is a hard pill to swallow for Sun. The margine of profit off of anything Linux is small in comparison to anything they sell with Solaris. Sun knows that Linux is the future but Sun also knows that means thier profit margins are gone as well. They are doing more with Linux because they have to but they are doing it "kicking and screaming".
Sun knows it has no choice but to join the community but it will take any opportunity to stab it in the back if Sun thinks it can find a way "back to the good old days" (like when they paid SCO and blabbered it to the press). It is not just McNealy. How do you explain to investors that your future is to be a cross between DELL and RedHat but without the large volume of sales that Dell gets?
Slashdot Mirror
Well because eventually Apple is going to only sell G5/G6/G7's and eventually only sell 64 bit apps which won't run on 32 bit systems. Sure this won't happen tommorow but be sure that it will happen in a few years. The same goes for the x86 market. A 64 bit machine can run 32 bit and 64 bit apps with no problem but a 32 bit comp CAN'T RUN a 64 bit application. I could not care less about ram but I do care about FORWARD compatibility. Of course the way things are going with software, more than 4 gigs of RAM should be common in the next couple of years to run games and high-end programs.
To sum up:
a 64 bit system is a more flexible system that will transfer smoothly into the future when many "off the shelf" programs are 64 bit and I rather not have to check box labels to see if they are "compatible with older systems" (like what happened when the 286 was becoming/became obsolete).
No programs written today are compatable with a 286 machines and 286 16 bit machines are esentially "junk" but an old 386 or pentium machine can still be usefull as a linux box or a Windows web browsing box.
I have not replaced my 32 bit machines but any new computers I buy are going to be 64 bit. Whether I buy Apple or x86.
I would grab one but it is not a G5. I refuse to buy anymore 32 bit machines now that one can buy commodity x86/apple 64 bit chips. The future is 64 bit. I have not replaced my 32 bit machines but I don't intend to buy anymore 32 bit computers.
I am an investor and I invest in many companies and you are dead wrong. It is not 200 dollars but 20,000 thousand dollars. When one seriously invests in stocks, you buy and sell in lots of 100 so a very small investment in goog would be 20,000 dollars. You can buy what is called an "odd lot" which is less than a 100 shares but that is odd and not really done by "real investores" pluss it costs more since it is unussual and inconvenient.
These three are just security holes.
They are just three SYMPTOMS of one security hole and that security hole is called ActiveX. If Microsoft was REAL serious about security in Longhorn, ActiveX would be rewritten with security in mind. Anything that is "ActiveX aware" can reformat your hard drive and more. These things include MS Office, IE, Outlook Express, Outlook, WMP, and the list goes on. COM/OLE objects are great but having a web site be able to run/install a com object onto a machine from IE is INSANE!!!! Somebody at Microsoft should have asked "what is to stop someone from abusing this technology?" and then decided not to implement it because they did not have a good answer to that question. If it was not for the lack of security in ActiveX technologies, MS security would not be so abismally shoddy.
I am in no way condoning or approving MS business tactics. I am only judging the merits of the effectiveness of such strategies.
My own perspective is that a music/video utility should be bundled with all OS's but that WMP is evil because it is being used to promote Microsoft's proprietary sound and video formats. MS is again relying on thier tried and true tactics of "embrace and extend".
But since the EU "picked up" on this theme it is bettor for MS to be a little more "low key" with this strategy than be arogant about it. It seems MS is grown a little wiser since the AntiTrust trial in the USA (despite winning it).
What other vendor keeps supporting an OS 8 years after release and 5 years as a legacy OS?
Certainly not any linux distribution. I run Linux on my machine and it is still on fedora core 1. I refuse to update the machine to another core (due to RedHats cavalier approach to Fedora) and need to upgrade soon to another distro because I really like getting regular security updates from a reliable source.
When NT 4 was first out I was running RedHat 5 which I then had to upgrade to Redhat 7/8 and then I jumped to fedora core 1. Does RedHat even support 7 anymore?
My wife is using a win 2000 machine and it has been getting regular updates since the year 2001 and I expect her to get regular updates probably till the year 2008. I only WISH a Unix/Linux vendor had the support MS does for thier legacy products!
I would not consider this bad press for MS.
Actually I don't think there SHOULD be a market for AntiVirus software. Normally I would agree with you. I think IE and WMP are examples that could be talked about in regard to embrace/extend and stifling competition.
However, no other OS in history has had to have an Antivirus industry EXCEPT Microsoft!
The idea of an entire industry built on the fact that Microsoft can't clean up after thier shit and so third party companies make a fortune doing just that is pretty sad. I actually like the idea that MS is starting to think "maybe we should wipe our own asses" is a good thing.
1. you can download sp2 with mozilla
2. Windows update can download without openning IE.
3. I would suggest you get a clue before you go into sarcastic mode/flame mode...
I believe I gave a good understanding of how a typical proprietary software programmer thinks.
As for why others are willing to buy a closed source solution is another issue altogether.
In most cases it comes down to "as long as the program works and is reasonably priced (and the definition of reasonably priced is in the eye of the buyer) I don't care about source code". Most people don't know how to program or ever want to look at a program so source code means nothing to them and paying for software or paying somebody else to write/modify software means little to them. They tend to go with what works and free(dom) software means nothing since they could/would never change code in a program anyway. Open Source/Free Software only means something to people if they have some sense of what programming is. Most people use a computer to either get work done, play games, or surf the internet (which is either work or play depending on the situation). The idea of people fiddling around with thier computer is looked upon by most people like car machanics who beef up thier cars- interesting but nothing more.
ISP's who have spammers as customers are just spammers one step removed. It should be costly to ISP's to knowingly have spammers for customers. ISP's generally charge for bandwidth usage and I see nothing wrong with an ISP giving a spammer a huge bandwidth bill and I have little sympathy for ISP's having trouble due to spam customers.
Do I think DDosing spammers is a good idea?
NO but only because:
1. there are better ways.
2. It really doesn't solve the problem.
3. The potential of hitting innocent victims.
But I would say your arguement holds little water and for the most part I would say this kind of thing is a way to have a little (mostly harmless) fun.
* reject the notion that software freedom is a real freedom?
* reject the idea that that freedom is important?
* Just not think about this issue?
* Buy one of the classic get-outs for those co-operating with evil, such as "If I don't do it, someone else will", or "I need to feed my family / pay for my SUV / eat", or... what else? ""
I think they say "I write the code so I get to say how I f***ing want to distribute it". The programmer has every right to distribute thier code however they feel since they are the one who well WROTE IT. Now anyone can decide to accept the terms of a programmers program or not use it. As Linus Torvalds once said "he who writes the code gets to choose the licence". It is all fine and dandy for you to want the freedom to change the code on your computer and to make software decissions based on that desire but a totally different issue when thinking that there is somehow a moral delinma about people writing code for a "closed source" software company.
I am intel and I have XYZ space in a factory making pentium II's that are selling for 2-3 dollars a pop.
Think about that. Now think about using that factory space to produce something with real profit margins!
Intel does not care if you or anybody else thinks pentium II's work good enough. What they care about is making chips that MAKE MONEY.
BTW: Upgrading pII -> pIV was probably a good move just to get win XP which is a far superior OS over win 95/98 when it comes to features and stability (with firewall\AV\and patches installed). If for anyone, your IT staff will be happier.
The defense lawyer did a REALLY shabby job. He said "they acted like shitheads only because they were trying to get rich fast"
So yes they got a harsh sentence but if I was a jurror you can bet that would have pushed my "for maximum punishment" trigger finger too.
If a rapist had the defense of "I raped her because I knew it would feel so fucking good" you can be assured they would get the death penalty (in a death penalty state).
While a harsh sentence, I feel no pitty for the defendants. Spam is/should be illegal and those that try to make it a bussiness model should pay dearly for thier actions (which includes paying for a good lawyer).
I would have to disagree. One must temper ideals with practicality. Who gives a shit about one book. There are millions of great books to choose from. Taking a stand on a book would be a real pain in the ass and make it more difficult for her to teach what she wants because if she makes a stink, everything she teaches will then be under scrutiny. Best thing for her to do is say to her class "I have been told not to teach xyz book and instead I will be covering xyz other book and drop it. If that does not get them to read the banned book then they were never going to read it anyway. Telling people that they are not supposed to read a book is the most enticing way to perk ones interest in reading it (just out of curiosity to know why it was banned). Sometimes people have to take a stand but before one decides to make a stand, make SURE it is IMPORTANT enough. I think she lost a battle but is winning the war. The board is happy because they got thier way and the teacher probably doesn't care too much because she gets to teach what she wants without much interferance.
Actually the dot com's were directly related to the 2001-2002 recession and 2003 slow growth. Although 9/11 had some small impact, the fact that billions of billions of billions "disappeared" due to dot coms being overhyped and over valued and going bust destroyed huge ammounts of investment capital. That capital that was infused into the "dot coms" was capital that was not invested into more "worthy" bussiness ventures. Sure many dot coms did/are successfull but not nearly in comparison to the over all failure.
Ethics are what society is about and should not be taken lightly. The thing is that most drugs taken by athletes have very negative side effects. People who don't want to destroy thier body but make it the best "machine they can" are being penalized for being good to themselves to the detriment of those that only care about winning.
The original olympics had no objections to the things you are refering to because fundamentally they thought that the best athlete would win. Modern science has made it possible for that to no longer be true. By my interpretation, NOT letting steriods into the games keeps in the spirit of the games.
When steroids can be safely administered to children alongside Vitamin A, B and C, I think the arguement for allowing steroids is a detriment to all because it would encourage society to start administrating steroids to children as another vitamin to take (among children of competitive parents). And if you think this arguement is silly just remeber that many olympians ARE children!
I am sorry but I think "silly ethical garbage" is important and I am glad that the IOC agrees.
Only when Linus was the maintainer. As soon as the kernel was handed over to Marcelo Tosatti, 2.4 got SIGNIFICANTLY more stable and development slowed to a crawl. Many peoples point is that 2.6 will never be anything but early 2.4 because Linus refuses to leave it behind and start something new. I blame a lot on Andrew Morton. Morton stated that he does not want to slow down development of 2.6 after Linus leaves 2.6 which means: 1. Andrew Morton should NOT be a maintainer of a stable branch because he does not have stability as a philisophical goal. 2. There is less reason for Linus to leave due to Mortons lack of intentions in the stability area.
I hope Linus can find a way to choose another 2.6 maintainer with a different predisposition.
I don't think anything bad about Morton- he is just meant to be a developer and not a maintainer. It is also a weekness of Linus. Torvalds has too much fun as a developer to be a good maintainer. Fortunately in the past, Linus has left maintenance in the hands of people who were GOOD mainteners and Linus kept doing what he is best at ,which is development. I and many others are saddened that the 2.6 kernel will not trully be given into the hands of a good maintainer like Linux has historically progressed.
Yes but if MS spent money on stupid shit like this as a common practice, they would not be making the money they are. And I am sure MS made a hefty profit on the spammer lawsuit and I am sure they are looking forward to the next lawsuit to hit someone with stupid enough to do this. These lawsuits make MS look good and it makes money for them. MS is making profit off of not registering those domain names but you would suggest they waist money to stop spammers from making MS money (by registering every concievable windows/MS name). I think MS has the right idea on this issue.
I don't know that at all.
I mean they had the floating point error in the pentium III, the 1.13 ghz coppermine fiasco, and now this bad chipset as the most current example. While AMD may have delays, I don't ever remember them shipping a bad chip. If we look at Intels track record, thier QA is mediocre.
It is a parents job to raise thier kids but I would be really pissed off if the school system I was sending my kids to were playing puff daddy lyrics during lunch time. I also scorn the use of words like bitch/fuck/whore/cunt/racial slurs and various vulgar language used in some modern rap music. I see no conflict between a school system sueing a corporation for "trying to" corrupt children and parents being responsible for how thier children are rasised- that is why a school system would be sued by parents (if a school actually played the music the RIAA sent). It is within parents rights to allow thier kids to say "I am going to pop a cap in your head" but I expect our learning institutions to hold to a higher standard for the many parents that DON'T allow such nonsense.
I don't know about a capital crime but it should be treated as seriously as virus writing cases. Spam is really taxing on the internet and even though it is so pervasive, does not legitimize the action. Spammers getting ten years+ might reduce spam to a trickle for the average person.
SO WHAT! Programs should only be optimized if:
1) the program is doing stuff so intensive that it runs slow
or
2) It is being run all the time in the background by the system and can slow down the system as a whole.
98% of the time it just does not matter.
Easilly readable code is FAR MORE IMPORTANT.
I have written code in more than half a dozen different languages but my favorite language these days is Python. It runs ten times slower than C, but in most cases, it just doesn't matter. Most of the time, the code feels instantanious.
Yeah I am really worried the 15 grand is going to be passed onto me from my multi-billion dollar ISP.
I expect I will need to refinance my house to keep my internet connection.
Spamhaus is providing a service that cuts costs for ISP's (due to savings in resources not needed for the handling of spam) so it only makes sense to throw some cash thier way in return.
Penny pinching of the magnitude you are posting is ammusing. Next you will be saying the free coffee provided to the programmers at most ISP should be cut due to the large toll it provides on the cost to end user services (which is much more than 15 grand) or workers should provide for thier own toilet paper and soap. Cut the company softball team too! The 35 dollar's I pay for broadband is too high!
I thought about it but then I thought not enough stock in the company to avoid the risk of what is called a "short squeeze" (people hold on to the stock knowing that eventually shorts sellers will have to sell to avoid further financial risk).
Which is why my money is invested in AMD at the moment instead. I figure AMD at a market capital of ~5 billion is bound to grow in comparison to INTC (intel) ~180 billion capitalization considering the lead AMD has in the 64 bit x86 market.There are lots of great oportunities on the stock market but you really need to know the risks. Who was to say Microsoft would not just buy out SCO or that Darl and gang would not get another VC to invest in them and the stock go through the roof? With a market cap. of 220 mill. (back when it was over 15$), who is to say they would not have been bought out or the stock artificialy manipulated? hindsight is 20/20 (and this is coming from someone who has made much more than he has lost on the stock market).
Linux is a hard pill to swallow for Sun. The margine of profit off of anything Linux is small in comparison to anything they sell with Solaris. Sun knows that Linux is the future but Sun also knows that means thier profit margins are gone as well. They are doing more with Linux because they have to but they are doing it "kicking and screaming".
Sun knows it has no choice but to join the community but it will take any opportunity to stab it in the back if Sun thinks it can find a way "back to the good old days" (like when they paid SCO and blabbered it to the press). It is not just McNealy. How do you explain to investors that your future is to be a cross between DELL and RedHat but without the large volume of sales that Dell gets?