80% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (at least I'm assuming that you meant that rather than what you actually said... 80% were either purchased, or they were obtained through illegal means)
But... and this is just a guess based on... oh, I don't know, worldwide gun crime statistics...
If guns were less readily available then they couldn't be a) stolen or b) purchased illegally as easily. If you get rid of the supply then fewer of the remaining guns would be available to be used in violent crimes.
Statistics by themselves are meaningless... Two of the previously mentioned statistics make a lot of sense together with a bit of interpretation... (I'm paraphrasing from memory here, so bear with me if these aren't exactly as they were mentioned above...)
"You are more likely to be shot with your own gun" "Suicides account for 55% of gun related injuries"
If Suicides account for more than half of the gun related injuries, then gun owners are more likely to commit suicide with their own guns, and therefore... See, two statistics INTERPRETED make sense.
If you removed 95% of guns from society then that remaining 5% would have to be responsible for all of the gun related crimes... Any dent that you can make in that 5% would also be a dent in gun related crimes...
The odd statistics worldwide are from places like Switzerland, where gun crime is low, but ownership is high. This is an anomaly, Japan is a more easily understood example (no guns, no gun crime)... In Switzerland, the fact that almost everyone has a gun, but they are also all trained (they have the gun because they are the militia, and they are trained for the same reason) may be a good reason why they are an anomaly. In the US you don't need to be trained, you just go and buy a gun when you want one.
And you are an idiot because I am neither the guy above, nor the do I think that shredding the constituion and spying on citizens, or any other innocent people) is a good idea. It would be nice to be able to require firearm safety training for all gun owners , complete with periodic retraining, and wouldn't "shred the constitution".
that allows you to stick your "printf" in where you want it when you want it rather than having to add another printf and recompile and re-run...
But your break points in where you think the problem is, run it up to the break point... examine variables and make sure that they make sense, then step through from there...
Much simpler.
Yes, printf has it's place... it's quick and dirty, but a proper debugger is much more powerful.
In my Undergraduate Physics course (My first degree) my calculator broke just before class one day. Half way through the class the guy sitting next to me realised that I was only six questions into the problems we were doing when he was on question twelve. This is because I was doing all of the long divisions (six plus digit numbers) by hand while he was using a calculator. He was surpirsed that anyone could even do that...
"I love ESX, and one thing that I hope will make ESX better is Microsoft putting pressure on VMWare to not get too comfy and to constantly innovate because the company's future depends on it. I just hope it doesn't have the same outcome as IE vs NS."
What, you mean VMware being bought by someone else, open sourcing their product and a MUCH better and more innovative version coming along for free a year or two later?
What's so bad about that?
I can't wait for vmzilla...:-)
Z.
"It seems more likely it would be plated. Castings of gold would be pointless and heavy."
It depends on what the point is...
In this case the point is to make an expensive useless gadget that they can make an obscene profit on.
Imagine that the case weighs 2 ounces because they've made a big "hefty" case out of gold. Assuming a Gold price of $500 per ounce that is a $1,000 cost to cast the case. Now they've put a small amount of work into making the case so they have to add that cost, let's say $500. So the case actually costs $1,500 to make. They put a $100 MP3 player into it (I'm guessing here)... and then they stick 1 carat of diamonds on it (let's be generous and say it's $50 including labour.)...
Total cost $1,650 to make the mp3 player. They want to make a profit, so they take that total and cal it a straight $5,000. Sure it's $3,350 profit, but think of the free publicity for selling "the world's most expensive MP3 player".
The sort of people who might buy it aren't going to care if it's all that good. They want flashy. The cast gold case might be a dumb idea, but they can use that to justify the price. Would you spend $5,000 (for example) on a "gold plated case studded with 64 diamonds totalling 1 carat"? No, you'd say "for that price I'd want a solid gold case"...
Well, I wasn't going by "classical liberalism" or "21st Century Liberalism" but by the definition of the word Liberal.
I tried searching for "Classical Liberalism" and the only distinction I could find is that "Classic Liberals" believe in the Laissez-Faire Economy while "Modern Liberals" or "American Liberals" don't.
Liberal as an adjective is defined as
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Libertarian is defined as
One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
One who believes in free will.
A Libertine is "one who acts without moral restraint".
I'm sure that if you asked a "modern liberal" and a "classical liberal" whether they believed in individuals rights they would say "yes".
I can't find anything that tells me that it is a LOT different, instead I find stuff that tells me that modern liberalism and classical liberalism are very similar with ONE difference.
I am not a liberal, a socialist, an anarchist, a conservative, a fascist or a communist. Politically speaking I am left of centre, with a strong belief in both individual freedoms and communal responsibility. I don't see what is so wrong about having to pay taxes provided they are being used for the greater good. I don't believe in the "free market" without regulation because I don't want to live in the industrial wasteland that would appear without regulation.
Smog in London got so bad because of unregulated pollution that as many as 12,000 people died.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2545747.stm Government regulation of smoke emissions was required to stop that... Do you really believe in the Laissez-Faire economy which would have allowed the deaths to continue, or do you believe in Government Regulation? You have to choose one or the other, they are mutually exclusive. I would rather live with a regulated market that protects us from the worst excesses of corporations than having a corporation say "It's cheaper for us to pollute, so we can produce our products cheaper and make better profits, but don't worry... We're not the ones dying as a result."
Z.
Re:Time you accepted reality
on
Netroots Politics
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You claim to be a "liberal" and then you claim to be a "Libertarian"...
Which is it to be? There is a distinction between the two (and "libertine" if you want to go that far)...
I have to ask someone like you just "WTF" is wrong with "socialised healthcare"...
I've lived in the UK under socalised healthcare and about 30% of my gross salary went in taxes and National Insurance payments. These pay for health care and social security and the like...
I've also lived in the US under privatised healthcare (actually I work for a healthcare provider) and about 30% of my gross salary goes in taxes and Private Health Insurance payments... These pay for the same sorts of things but only cover me and my family. As I work for a non-profit healthcare organisation I also know how many millions that we put aside every year to pay for the charity cases that don't have insurance... And you know where that money comes from? From people who CAN pay. So, while we don't have a socialised healthcare system here what we do have is a system that encourages people not to go to the doctor until it's an emergency at which point it costs more to solve the problem and the people who are paying for insurance are subsidising those that can't afford it.
Now please take your "I'm a Liberal Libertarian and I hate socialised healthcare" crap and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. (Yes, that would be that valley in the Rimtops...)
No... Read the definition of a person that you yourself gave later...
LAWFUL RESIDENTS are PEOPLE but they are not CITIZENS...
IF I call my family in the UK and tell them that I've just heard about the Underground bombing in London and are they all O.K? and later in the same call I comment that even if the IRA claim responsibility then the President will undoubtedly say it was Al Qaeda then should I be monitored because of that call?
I suspect that I may have been.
Despite the fact that MY rights under both the Fourth Amendment and FISA would require a warrant before anyone could listen to that call.
"Domestic Spying" does not imply that US Citizens are being spied upon. All it means is that someone in the coutnry was spied upon.
Spying on US soil or not doesn't matter, but rather whether spying is being performed on "US Persons". Foreigners in the US may be spied on as much as your heart desires, but US Persons anywhere in the world have to have the proper warrant or requirements before collecting on them.
What a load of CRAP. The Fourth amendment explicitly says "Persons" at other points the constitution uses the word "Citizens". According to the Supreme court the Fourth amendment applies equally to US Citizens, and Legal Residents. I am not a US Citizen. I am a Legal Resident. The Fourth amendment applies equally to me.
Imagine the scenario where a Legal Resident is sharing a domicile with a US Citizen... The FBI for whatever reason decides to search the building. Do they need a warrant or not? According to you, if the Legal Resident is the target then they don't. But what happens if they find evidence that points to the US Citizen? They would have needed a warrant to find that, but they didn't have it.
So, please don't produce such stupid blanket statements without knowing what you are talking about.
If you read the Constitution the distinction between Citizen and Person is fairly clear.
Those quotes may be "barbaric" by modern standards but the full quotes are not always as bad as you make them out to be.
The Bible has enough inherent contradiction that I have trouble in believing that the divine inspiration was not edited, modified in translation and garbled beyond recognition.
I also notice that EVERY SINGLE QUOTE that you use came from the Epistles. These are letters written by early Christians to other early Christians. Given the number of translations, the age of the documents and the fact that they date from later periods would you be surprised if I said that I don't consider them all to be equally divinely inspired?
As I said there are those who believe that everything in the Bible is the literal word of God and those that feel justified (because of both the New Covenant through Jesus, and the fact that humans are not perfect) in taking the overall tone of the New Testament and using that, with divine guidance, as the source of their lifestyle.
There are places in the New Testament that I don't agree with, and that, frankly, will be between me and God when I die.
"I came not to bring peace, but a sword" From Matthew 10:34 is one of those contradictory passages. It can (and has been) interpreted in multiple ways. How you wish to interpret that passage is up to you. I take it simply to mean that just because you are a Christian does not mean that you will not be attacked because of it. A prediction of violence rather than an advocacy of violence.
But others will interpret it differently. and I may be wrong.
Some Christians believe that the entire Bible is the word of God and must be followed literally. These are the people who tend to pick and choose which bits they want to follow of Leviticus and so condemn homosexuality, but not Red Lobster.
Other Christians believe that Christ came specifically to renew/reform the relationship of man with God and they believe that the New Testament overrules the Old Testament. These people tend to be more forgiving.
So, while I'm a Christian I ignore Leviticus (unless I want a good laugh) and believe in a loving merciful God.
Which means that I would potentially need to scan my phone once for every person in my party... And if I went through the turnstile first then I would have to pass my phone back somehow.
Sorry, I still think that this sucks... As secretary of the Rock Music Society at University I used to be responsible for purchasing between ten and thirty tickets for concerts... Boy am I glad that these were paper tickets.
But, with discrete tickets I have been in a line where other people pushed in between members of the group I was with. So, I scan my phone and five people can come in. Two of us come in and then some rude git shoves his way in and scans... What happens? Does the turnstile reset to 1? Add 1?
Z.
So, what happens when you want to buy two tickets to an event? Do I have to have two transactions and give them the cellphone numbers of everyone?
It kind of ruins the element of surprise as well. "Hey, guess what, I got tickets for that concert you really wanted to go to!" "I know, I got the message already."
If I start my own restaurant, I will not take or receive change. Its heavy, and it would cost more of my employees time to count, sort, and organize the change than if they just threw it in the trash. Or maybe I could just throw it in the tip pool, and give it to them in cash later.
Or perhaps you could only charge things in whole dollar amounts (after tax for those states that have it)... You'll still get change, I could pay for my $1 cup of coffee with pocket change... Or are you going to charge so much for everything that people won't eat there?
On a related note I find sales tax really confusing. In some other countries the equivalent VAT is a much higher percentage (17.5%) but is less of an issue as the price you see is the price that you pay. The first time I had to pay sales tax I was very confused. The price requested was completely different from that on the Menu... and this was in an International airport. I was travelling between Britain and Oregon via Seattle. Britain shows you the price you will pay and Oregon has no sales tax. Is this deliberately done to confuse?
Given the number of items that I regularly see or purchase for under $1 I don't see any valid reason for getting rid of Coins. You might not like them, but feel free to just send all of your unwanted change to a local charity.
But it ALREADY is in a semblance of English... I mean it looks like English, I can understand every word...
I just can't parse it.
"Novell's Releases Linux Usability Testing Videos"
Let's take it a word at a time.
Novell's Ah, it's got an apostrophe s on the end, so it's either possesive or contractive. As Novell is an entity I'm assuming that we're talking possessive here. Something belonging to Novell. Good start...
Releases. Well, this can't be a verb as we're expecting the noun that is possessed by Novell, so while it might be nice to think that "Novell Releases" is the start of the sentence, instead we're looking at somethings (it's plural) that Novell owns. So Novell's Releases. Some items owned by Novell that have been released. Excellent, now what about these mythic Releases...
Linux... This isn't so good. Linux is a noun, and not a verb... Three nouns in a row? It's probably not unheard of, but in this case I'm expecting a verb. I want to know what Novell's Releases do... Well, let's soldier on and see if the verb appears later... Perhaps Yoda wrote this.
Usability... Nope...
Testing... Hmmm, perhaps test is being used as a verb and the entire portion in front is being used as a compound noun as favoured by Germans...
Videos. Yes, that's it....
The "Releases-Linux-Usability" (whatever that is) owned by Novell is testing Videos!!! Are they testing VCRs? Video Codecs? Movies? Perhaps if I read the article it would tell me.
Or perhaps they REALLY meant "Novell Releases Linux Usability Testing Videos" NAAAAH!
Using McKesson as an example of good ANYTHING is not a great idea in my opinion.
Some of their software is just incredibly badly written. For example, a data warehouse where they recommend that we shutdown the database every night (we're a 24/7 operation) and reboot the server every two weeks. The software is only available on Alpha processors (not a sensible choice as they are already end-of-life) or PA-Risc (almost end-of-life). The only reason PA-Risc is a choice is because they can run their Alpha code under an emulator.
So, I personally wouldn't use McKesson as an example of anything good.
Slashdot Mirror
80% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally (at least I'm assuming that you meant that rather than what you actually said... 80% were either purchased, or they were obtained through illegal means)
But... and this is just a guess based on... oh, I don't know, worldwide gun crime statistics...
If guns were less readily available then they couldn't be a) stolen or b) purchased illegally as easily. If you get rid of the supply then fewer of the remaining guns would be available to be used in violent crimes.
Statistics by themselves are meaningless... Two of the previously mentioned statistics make a lot of sense together with a bit of interpretation... (I'm paraphrasing from memory here, so bear with me if these aren't exactly as they were mentioned above...)
"You are more likely to be shot with your own gun"
"Suicides account for 55% of gun related injuries"
If Suicides account for more than half of the gun related injuries, then gun owners are more likely to commit suicide with their own guns, and therefore... See, two statistics INTERPRETED make sense.
If you removed 95% of guns from society then that remaining 5% would have to be responsible for all of the gun related crimes... Any dent that you can make in that 5% would also be a dent in gun related crimes...
The odd statistics worldwide are from places like Switzerland, where gun crime is low, but ownership is high. This is an anomaly, Japan is a more easily understood example (no guns, no gun crime)... In Switzerland, the fact that almost everyone has a gun, but they are also all trained (they have the gun because they are the militia, and they are trained for the same reason) may be a good reason why they are an anomaly. In the US you don't need to be trained, you just go and buy a gun when you want one.
And you are an idiot because I am neither the guy above, nor the do I think that shredding the constituion and spying on citizens, or any other innocent people) is a good idea. It would be nice to be able to require firearm safety training for all gun owners , complete with periodic retraining, and wouldn't "shred the constitution".
Z.
Yes, and there are bugs that disappear when you recompile your code with debugging turned on.
I meant a debugger that allows you to examine your code in real time rather than having to insert a printf, recompile, run, and repeat...
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you.
Z.
Or use a real, real-time debugger....
that allows you to stick your "printf" in where you want it when you want it rather than having to add another printf and recompile and re-run...
But your break points in where you think the problem is, run it up to the break point... examine variables and make sure that they make sense, then step through from there...
Much simpler.
Yes, printf has it's place... it's quick and dirty, but a proper debugger is much more powerful.
Z.
And you think that you are joking...
In my Undergraduate Physics course (My first degree) my calculator broke just before class one day. Half way through the class the guy sitting next to me realised that I was only six questions into the problems we were doing when he was on question twelve. This is because I was doing all of the long divisions (six plus digit numbers) by hand while he was using a calculator. He was surpirsed that anyone could even do that...
Z,
"I love ESX, and one thing that I hope will make ESX better is Microsoft putting pressure on VMWare to not get too comfy and to constantly innovate because the company's future depends on it. I just hope it doesn't have the same outcome as IE vs NS." What, you mean VMware being bought by someone else, open sourcing their product and a MUCH better and more innovative version coming along for free a year or two later? What's so bad about that? I can't wait for vmzilla... :-)
Z.
"It seems more likely it would be plated. Castings of gold would be pointless and heavy."
It depends on what the point is...
In this case the point is to make an expensive useless gadget that they can make an obscene profit on.
Imagine that the case weighs 2 ounces because they've made a big "hefty" case out of gold. Assuming a Gold price of $500 per ounce that is a $1,000 cost to cast the case. Now they've put a small amount of work into making the case so they have to add that cost, let's say $500. So the case actually costs $1,500 to make. They put a $100 MP3 player into it (I'm guessing here)... and then they stick 1 carat of diamonds on it (let's be generous and say it's $50 including labour.)...
Total cost $1,650 to make the mp3 player. They want to make a profit, so they take that total and cal it a straight $5,000. Sure it's $3,350 profit, but think of the free publicity for selling "the world's most expensive MP3 player".
The sort of people who might buy it aren't going to care if it's all that good. They want flashy. The cast gold case might be a dumb idea, but they can use that to justify the price. Would you spend $5,000 (for example) on a "gold plated case studded with 64 diamonds totalling 1 carat"? No, you'd say "for that price I'd want a solid gold case"...
Z.
Why would they lie about casting it in gold?
It's supposed to be expensive... Cast it in gold and still charge significantly more than the parts are worth.
Of course there are so many expensive things that can play MP3s that it is a meaningless comment.
My USB key + MP3 player/Transmitter + Jeep + FM Radio combination is probably the most expensive that I own... And it's mobile.
The Widescreen TV that we just bought can play MP3s... I'm not sure why they felt the need, but it does.
Z.
My favourite Bill Gates quote is...
"I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time."
From the foreword to the OS/2 Programmer's guide.
Z.
Well, I wasn't going by "classical liberalism" or "21st Century Liberalism" but by the definition of the word Liberal.
I tried searching for "Classical Liberalism" and the only distinction I could find is that "Classic Liberals" believe in the Laissez-Faire Economy while "Modern Liberals" or "American Liberals" don't.
Liberal as an adjective is defined as
Libertarian is defined as
A Libertine is "one who acts without moral restraint".
I'm sure that if you asked a "modern liberal" and a "classical liberal" whether they believed in individuals rights they would say "yes".
I can't find anything that tells me that it is a LOT different, instead I find stuff that tells me that modern liberalism and classical liberalism are very similar with ONE difference.
I am not a liberal, a socialist, an anarchist, a conservative, a fascist or a communist. Politically speaking I am left of centre, with a strong belief in both individual freedoms and communal responsibility. I don't see what is so wrong about having to pay taxes provided they are being used for the greater good. I don't believe in the "free market" without regulation because I don't want to live in the industrial wasteland that would appear without regulation.
Smog in London got so bad because of unregulated pollution that as many as 12,000 people died.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2545747.stm Government regulation of smoke emissions was required to stop that... Do you really believe in the Laissez-Faire economy which would have allowed the deaths to continue, or do you believe in Government Regulation? You have to choose one or the other, they are mutually exclusive. I would rather live with a regulated market that protects us from the worst excesses of corporations than having a corporation say "It's cheaper for us to pollute, so we can produce our products cheaper and make better profits, but don't worry... We're not the ones dying as a result."
Z.
You claim to be a "liberal" and then you claim to be a "Libertarian"...
Which is it to be? There is a distinction between the two (and "libertine" if you want to go that far)...
I have to ask someone like you just "WTF" is wrong with "socialised healthcare"...
I've lived in the UK under socalised healthcare and about 30% of my gross salary went in taxes and National Insurance payments. These pay for health care and social security and the like...
I've also lived in the US under privatised healthcare (actually I work for a healthcare provider) and about 30% of my gross salary goes in taxes and Private Health Insurance payments... These pay for the same sorts of things but only cover me and my family. As I work for a non-profit healthcare organisation I also know how many millions that we put aside every year to pay for the charity cases that don't have insurance... And you know where that money comes from? From people who CAN pay. So, while we don't have a socialised healthcare system here what we do have is a system that encourages people not to go to the doctor until it's an emergency at which point it costs more to solve the problem and the people who are paying for insurance are subsidising those that can't afford it.
Now please take your "I'm a Liberal Libertarian and I hate socialised healthcare" crap and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. (Yes, that would be that valley in the Rimtops...)
Z.
No... Read the definition of a person that you yourself gave later...
LAWFUL RESIDENTS are PEOPLE but they are not CITIZENS...
IF I call my family in the UK and tell them that I've just heard about the Underground bombing in London and are they all O.K? and later in the same call I comment that even if the IRA claim responsibility then the President will undoubtedly say it was Al Qaeda then should I be monitored because of that call?
I suspect that I may have been.
Despite the fact that MY rights under both the Fourth Amendment and FISA would require a warrant before anyone could listen to that call.
"Domestic Spying" does not imply that US Citizens are being spied upon. All it means is that someone in the coutnry was spied upon.
Z.
What a load of CRAP. The Fourth amendment explicitly says "Persons" at other points the constitution uses the word "Citizens". According to the Supreme court the Fourth amendment applies equally to US Citizens, and Legal Residents. I am not a US Citizen. I am a Legal Resident. The Fourth amendment applies equally to me.
Imagine the scenario where a Legal Resident is sharing a domicile with a US Citizen... The FBI for whatever reason decides to search the building. Do they need a warrant or not? According to you, if the Legal Resident is the target then they don't. But what happens if they find evidence that points to the US Citizen? They would have needed a warrant to find that, but they didn't have it.
So, please don't produce such stupid blanket statements without knowing what you are talking about.
If you read the Constitution the distinction between Citizen and Person is fairly clear.
Z.
Thanks,
Yes, I usually do include mention of the New Covenant, but I didn't this time.
I agree that parts of Leviticus make perfect sense in context, but some of the same parts are frankly irrelevant for our context.
Z.
Those quotes may be "barbaric" by modern standards but the full quotes are not always as bad as you make them out to be.
The Bible has enough inherent contradiction that I have trouble in believing that the divine inspiration was not edited, modified in translation and garbled beyond recognition.
I also notice that EVERY SINGLE QUOTE that you use came from the Epistles. These are letters written by early Christians to other early Christians. Given the number of translations, the age of the documents and the fact that they date from later periods would you be surprised if I said that I don't consider them all to be equally divinely inspired?
As I said there are those who believe that everything in the Bible is the literal word of God and those that feel justified (because of both the New Covenant through Jesus, and the fact that humans are not perfect) in taking the overall tone of the New Testament and using that, with divine guidance, as the source of their lifestyle.
There are places in the New Testament that I don't agree with, and that, frankly, will be between me and God when I die.
"I came not to bring peace, but a sword" From Matthew 10:34 is one of those contradictory passages. It can (and has been) interpreted in multiple ways. How you wish to interpret that passage is up to you. I take it simply to mean that just because you are a Christian does not mean that you will not be attacked because of it. A prediction of violence rather than an advocacy of violence.
But others will interpret it differently. and I may be wrong.
Z.
Some Christians believe that the entire Bible is the word of God and must be followed literally. These are the people who tend to pick and choose which bits they want to follow of Leviticus and so condemn homosexuality, but not Red Lobster.
Other Christians believe that Christ came specifically to renew/reform the relationship of man with God and they believe that the New Testament overrules the Old Testament. These people tend to be more forgiving.
So, while I'm a Christian I ignore Leviticus (unless I want a good laugh) and believe in a loving merciful God.
Z.
Which means that I would potentially need to scan my phone once for every person in my party... And if I went through the turnstile first then I would have to pass my phone back somehow.
Sorry, I still think that this sucks... As secretary of the Rock Music Society at University I used to be responsible for purchasing between ten and thirty tickets for concerts... Boy am I glad that these were paper tickets.
Z.
But, with discrete tickets I have been in a line where other people pushed in between members of the group I was with. So, I scan my phone and five people can come in. Two of us come in and then some rude git shoves his way in and scans... What happens? Does the turnstile reset to 1? Add 1? Z.
So, what happens when you want to buy two tickets to an event? Do I have to have two transactions and give them the cellphone numbers of everyone?
It kind of ruins the element of surprise as well. "Hey, guess what, I got tickets for that concert you really wanted to go to!" "I know, I got the message already."
Z.
Or perhaps you could only charge things in whole dollar amounts (after tax for those states that have it)... You'll still get change, I could pay for my $1 cup of coffee with pocket change... Or are you going to charge so much for everything that people won't eat there?
On a related note I find sales tax really confusing. In some other countries the equivalent VAT is a much higher percentage (17.5%) but is less of an issue as the price you see is the price that you pay. The first time I had to pay sales tax I was very confused. The price requested was completely different from that on the Menu... and this was in an International airport. I was travelling between Britain and Oregon via Seattle. Britain shows you the price you will pay and Oregon has no sales tax. Is this deliberately done to confuse?
Given the number of items that I regularly see or purchase for under $1 I don't see any valid reason for getting rid of Coins. You might not like them, but feel free to just send all of your unwanted change to a local charity.
Z.
Marshmallows!!! I want Marshmallows in my Cocoa!
Z.
Look but don't touch could be enough to really screw them though.
If you are allowed to look, and fully document in plain text then someone else could come along and implement your description... Under the GPL...
That could be enough to really annoy Microsoft.
Z.
But it ALREADY is in a semblance of English... I mean it looks like English, I can understand every word...
I just can't parse it.
"Novell's Releases Linux Usability Testing Videos"
Let's take it a word at a time.
Novell's Ah, it's got an apostrophe s on the end, so it's either possesive or contractive. As Novell is an entity I'm assuming that we're talking possessive here. Something belonging to Novell. Good start...
Releases. Well, this can't be a verb as we're expecting the noun that is possessed by Novell, so while it might be nice to think that "Novell Releases" is the start of the sentence, instead we're looking at somethings (it's plural) that Novell owns. So Novell's Releases. Some items owned by Novell that have been released. Excellent, now what about these mythic Releases...
Linux... This isn't so good. Linux is a noun, and not a verb... Three nouns in a row? It's probably not unheard of, but in this case I'm expecting a verb. I want to know what Novell's Releases do... Well, let's soldier on and see if the verb appears later... Perhaps Yoda wrote this.
Usability... Nope...
Testing... Hmmm, perhaps test is being used as a verb and the entire portion in front is being used as a compound noun as favoured by Germans...
Videos. Yes, that's it....
The "Releases-Linux-Usability" (whatever that is) owned by Novell is testing Videos!!! Are they testing VCRs? Video Codecs? Movies? Perhaps if I read the article it would tell me.
Or perhaps they REALLY meant "Novell Releases Linux Usability Testing Videos" NAAAAH!
Z.
Using McKesson as an example of good ANYTHING is not a great idea in my opinion.
Some of their software is just incredibly badly written. For example, a data warehouse where they recommend that we shutdown the database every night (we're a 24/7 operation) and reboot the server every two weeks. The software is only available on Alpha processors (not a sensible choice as they are already end-of-life) or PA-Risc (almost end-of-life). The only reason PA-Risc is a choice is because they can run their Alpha code under an emulator.
So, I personally wouldn't use McKesson as an example of anything good.
Z.
Quite possibly, I don't normally deal much with Intel products so I will bow to your superior knowledge in this area.
My general comment still stands, and in particular the fact that Raid 1 does give you increased READ performance but not write performance.
Z.
Actually, 1 will give you improved Read performance. You can read from two disks simultaneously, so you can get improved performance.
Most RAID controllers offer you the option of 0, 1, 0+1 and 5.
Z.