EMP depends a lot on how high up the blast is. Again not hard to prevent. Do not unsafe the weapon until it clears the magnetosphere. They will be launching the weapons when the target is still years away so there is no need to unsafe the weapon until it is a long way from the earth. The simplest way to safe the weapon is to fill the core with wire that absorbs neutrons. You just pull the wire out to arm the bomb. as long as the core is filled a high yield event is impossible. No high yield event no EMP. Plus the launch would be from the Cape. Most of the flight would not be over any large cities. It would be over the Atlantic and equatorial Africa. No it isn't 100% safe but nothing is. It would beat the heck out of getting whacked by a big honking rock.
Actually I have high hopes for nanotube based conductors replacing copper. Easy to make from coal, wood, or any type of carbon. Every time I see some end of the world prediction we find a way out of it. The air is cleaner now then when I was a kid, we don't us lead paint on homes "only Chinese toys", we don't use leaded gas in our cars and we are recycling more and more. I think these are some of the good old days. Now if we could just stop treating our children as markets. I would love see toys marketed to parents and not at children but I am hopeless optimist.
I have to wonder if you where just kidding or are don't know anything about nuclear weapons. From the 40s up through I think the 70s many nuclear weapons where detonated in the atmosphere. While it was a really bad plan life pretty much kept on living. A miss would probably not hit the earth and a launch accident wouldn't cause a nuclear detonation. A common method of safeing a nuclear weapon involves filling the pit with a neutron absorbing wire. Once the weapon leaves the atmosphere a motor will pull the wire out of the core and only then the weapon will be capable of nuclear detonation. Not only that most modern weapons are much cleaner then the bombs of the 50s. So I wouldn't to see them launching them daily I think risk to benefit ratio is pretty good.
Unless the you have a network configuration problem. Almost all serious server set ups will have a some kind of modem access so you can get in if the server has a network configuration issue. Usually a machine or two with modems that are hooked up to the other servers with serial cables. You can call into the modem and the access the other systems consoles.
- rising energy costs will define how we use transport or Nuclear Fission will start to replace natural gas and coal fired power plants followed shortly buy Fusion in about 20 years. Coal reformulation will replace oil as the primary source of liquid hydrocarbons.
- poorer nations will be strongest adopters of ecological technologies Poorer nations will continue to exploit the cheapest and dirtiest fuel sources such as coal.
- cities will reject the automobile and become a lot nicer places to live in
Would be nice if they would just build some side walks near my home!
"Drop down menus, radio boxes, etc are "common". Command line? Editing Text files? Apache better get out of the whole in a hurry." Just how do you use radio boxes and drop down menus over a dial up connection? You don't. When I am dealing with a web server it is usually remotely located. I know you can use remote desktop but that really depends on a fast connection. ssh and the editor of your choice makes doing remote server configuration a lot faster than a remote desktop. A server needs a GUI like a submarine needs a screen door. Welcome to the dumbing down of IT.
1. You don't have to run Windows. You may pick and choose from a number of different OSs including Windows. 2. Lower cost. You may choose the lowest cost platform for deployment. If for you that is Windows you can use Windows. 3. Better security options. You may run Apache on secure Linux which does have a higher government security rating then is available for Windows. Or you could run on OpenBSD which does have a very good security history. 4. No vendor lock in. IIS is single source as is the OS it runs on. Apache is available from multiple vendors, runs on multiple operating systems, and on multiple CPU architectures. You can run Apache on everything from an iPhone to an IBM Z series mainframe. 5. Better integration with PHP, Perl, Python, and MySQL. 6. Larger software selection. Most CMSs and other Web frameworks seem to be Apache centric. 7. Tomcat and JBoss. 8. No licensing worries. No need to do accounting on your Apache Licenses. Just one less thing to worry about if you get audited. 9. ASP is available for Apache if you really want it.
So it comes down to what gives you the best flexibility and value. If you are just going to throw up an intranet for your office and you only know Microsoft products then yes IIS may be fine for you. If you ever plan on scaling it to a large user base or may want to use a CMS like Drupal or Moodle. Or plan on using industry standard tools like PHP, Perl, Python, MySQL, or Ruby on Rails, then you should probably invest the time in learning both Apache and Linux. Before anyone questions how big if a standard in the industry PHP, Python, Perl and MySQL are all I can say is that they are used by sites like Yahoo, Google, and Slashdot. I think MySpace is an all Microsoft site.
"I can't see how it could be an oversight. " A better question would be why would they do it intently? Id has often released their old game engines under the GPL. 1. They had noting to gain by not including the license files. 2. They fixed it as soon as they found they had left out the files. 3. They did no harm to anyone.
So why must you try to see evil when all the evidence points to a simple human error?
This is why GPL zealots get on my nerves. They are all for copyleft, they hate closes source licenses, they hate software patents, and they hate DRM. But if someone fails to cross every t and dot every i when distributing GPL code then they are are plotting villains.
They made a minor error and they fixed the error all before it even showed up on Slashdot.
And I don't mind my wife asking me if she can get x out of my wallet. I also don't feel the need to lock my wallet away from her. I agree about having some stuff separate. What I don't agree about is the need to have a legal separation. My wife is on my account. I am on hers. I don't user her account and she doesn't use mine without asking. What I keep hearing is this "I must have my own stuff to keep my identity." Why does stuff define your identity? If you lost all your stuff wouldn't you be you? You keep not understanding me. I don't think that having your own account is a bad thing. I think that having your own account because you and your spouse have different concepts of how to manage money is a very potently very bad thing. I feel having such a lack of trust for your spouse that you will not have their name on your account because you don't trust them not access it is a very bad thing. I also don't believe that no relationship lasts forever. I have had friends and loved ones pass on and they are still with me. If in not other way than memories and the things that I have learned from them. It is a slightly spiritual way to look at things that not everybody shares but over the years I learned that relationships are not equations you can simply balance.
That depends on how much money is in that personal account. When a spouse is dead or say in the hospital things can get very desperate very quickly. I may be in the minority but I think having a spouse that you can't trust to not access your "made money" account is a huge potential problem. But I am talking about being married. People that live together are different. While I think it is a really bad idea myself I know others don't feel that way and it works for some people. I just think that a sorta married arrangement is a bad plan.
"If your wife comes to you and says "I don't love you anymore, I want a divorce" and your economy is all mixed up and it turns into a bad fight about who's been paying what and who should be left with what, I can easily understand the grandparent who says separate account would have been much better." Sorry but if my wife says that then I have much bigger problems than the money issues. Well if should never get to that point. I don't think that having separate accounts is a bad plan. I think going into a marriage while planning on making the divorce as easy as possible is a terrible plan. Marriage isn't easy but you do have to work at it. I see two many people rush into marriage because they confuse love with sex. When you marry someone you should ask would I still marry them if we could never have sex? They should also talk about things like children and life goals. Here is a story about love. Back in February I almost died of pneumonia. I went to the doctor with what I thought was the flu and they gave me some meds and told me if I didn't feel better in two weeks to come back. Well I didn't feel better after two weeks and went back. One of my lungs was completely filled with fluid and the other was only half filled. My o2 levels where toxic and they slammed me into the hospital for a week. I only just stayed out of the ICU because I was in good shape but I was about 6 hours from being put in to intensive care. My wife stayed with me every night in the hospital. She got up every morning before the sun and went to our house to feed our dogs, take a shower, and then work for abut 6 hours. She did that for a week.
To me that was the most "Romantic" thing that ever happened in my life. That is love. BTW having sex with someone that loves you that much and you love back that much is the best sex ever.
Yes some marriages really do need to end. If you are being abused then GET OUT NOW and GET THE KIDS OUT! But I think way to many people just don't try hard enough, rush in, or get married for really bad reasons.
"Each of us has our own checking account that the other one can't access, plus the joint account." That can be a really bad plan. If you or your wife die then that account will be locked away from you until the estate is settled. Why not each have access but don't use it? You put your wife's name on your account and your name on her account. You then lock away your bank card for her account and she locks away her bank card for your account. My wife and I have separate accounts because of bank cards. We have one savings account but our living money is in our personal accounts. That way I don't get over drawn getting gas because my wife just bought groceries and hadn't transfered more money into the account yet.
I really suggest that you and your wife to be work out your money problems before getting married. Just having different accounts will not prevent the problems you fear. What happens when you two decide that you want to same for something big? Like a house, car, college for the kids, vacation, and retirement,
The biggest problems in marriage happen you and your wife don't share the same goals in life. Marriage is supposed to be forever. You two need to start planning for forever.
Well my experience is totally different. "If couples do everything together, they will burnout on each other pretty fast." My wife and I work together, we drive to work in one car. We do the shopping together. It hasn't bee a problem for us. "Trust me, it happens. You maybe in love today, but tomorrow maybe a different story, so it's much easier and cleaner to leave when couple have separate accounts." That is such a bad attitude it boggles my mind. Why do you want to make it clean and easy to end a marriage? What about if you have kids? Should the wife deal exclusively with the girls and father exclusively with the sons? If you are not talking about being married than yes keep that separate but that definition of not being married. I think part of the problem is too many people are becoming sort of married. It is easy to rush in to living together or even getting married of you plan on making it easy to end. That is one of the things that is really messed up about world today. If you are going to get married get married if you are not then don't. Don't sort of get married and don't rush into it.
My wife and I have separate bank accounts but she is on mine and I am on hers. We have separate email address but I don't find that any stranger than have separate cell phones. As far as blogs and fighting over what gets deleted from the Tivo??? If that is a problem in your marriage or relationship you have MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger problems. The making room on the Tivo should be a five minute discussion. Blogs??? Good freaking grief.
Nope Coherent was not Xenix but a Unix like OS written by Mark Williams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_(operating_s ystem) Commodore was working on a business system that used the Zilog 8000 running Coherent but dropped it to work on the Amiga. I always wondered how the Amiga would have done with Coherent instead of AmigaDos. They could have still used Intuition and Workspace as the graphics system and GUI but would have had a real Unix like OS as the foundation.
I like AMD. But you are wrong from the consumer point of view. I can get an inexpensive Intel system with four cores in a socket. That is a selling point. I can get a two socket system with eight cores for not that much money as well.
What you will not see are people pushing four socket sixteen core systems that way. At that point yes the Intel two duels on a cracker falls apart. BUT and this is a big BUT for a lot of people the Intel hack works and works well.
I do hope that AMD does well with their four core cpu but to dismiss the current Intel part just isn't fair.
I am insulting the PS3? Gee do you think I hurt it's feelings? It is a game console. I think it is lacking in many respects like software and cost. Get over it it is just a thing and not your family. If you like it then fine. I am not anti-PS3 because I don't care enough about it to be anti. It doesn't really matter to me since I don't see enough value in it to play $500 or so dollars for it. I don't own a 360 because I don't see enough value in that. Does that make me anti 360?
The 360 being ahead of the PS3 in sales isn't an argument it is a simple fact. It being out longer is also a plus for the 360. The developers have been working with it longer. They know it better than the PS3. The developer tools for the 360 are better than the PS3. The 360 like the PC really is good enough for HD gaming. A game publisher doesn't care WHY there are more consoles on the market. They care about how many people might buy their game. The market for the 360 is bigger than the market for the PS3. Ever wonder why so many games are still coming out for the PS2? Because there are a LOT of PS2 buyers.The PS2 is a prime example of the best not always winning. Raw performance wise the PS2 was the wost of the last generation gaming systems. Even the GC and Dreamcast had better graphics hardware than the PS2. The emotion engine is a mess to deal with. A LOT of people bought the PS2 because of hype and the success of the PSONE. It including a DVD player was another big plus at the time. As I said the PS3 may in the end do well. But it will have to get some must have exclusive games and I feel the price will have to drop. I think if the DVR is done correctly and not a broken DRM laden mess it may be a big selling point. But get over it. You liked the PS3 enough to buy one. If you are happy with it that is all that matters. I don't like the PS3 enough to buy one. I simply took the time to point out what the DVR should do to be a big success.
You see I find this post amusing because I am not bashing the PS3. Yes the PS2 was hard to program. But no the Cell is just that odd when used in the PS3. No one is using the theoretical power of the Cell in the PS3. The memory structure is a mess and dealing with the asymmetrical nature of the CPU core+Cells is really hard. Not impossible but really hard. Notice that all the really big games are getting pushed back. Yes being hard to program is a negative. It is one reason that the XBox did as well as it did. It was easy to write for. They came from zero to very popular system in a single generation.
I didn't say that the DVR was useless or even a bad idea. Was predicting it from the start. I think Sony was stupid not to include it from the start. If they had included the DVR plus the ability to put shows on to the PSP and the Video IPod they would have sold a lot of systems. The price of the PS3 isn't bad as a Blue ray player plus HD DVR that can also play games.
As to me buying one? I really wanted one when they first came out. When I heard you could run Linux on them I thought great I can try out the Cell. But now I just don't want one. There isn't a game on the system I must have or even really want. I don't like FPS, GTA, or fighting games. I really HATE fighting games! I got a Wii after playing a friends and my wife and I love it. I may buy one but only when it is a lot cheaper and there are games I want for it. I have an HD DVR, a Dreamcast, a PS2, a GC, an N64, a Wii, and a DS. Not to mention the multiple PCs and notebooks in my home. There are not enough Blue Ray DVDs for me to choose from and I will wait to see how that shakes out.
Right now the key to the PS3s failure or success will be games and cost. Can they get developers to write games that make the PS3 worth owning and can they get the cost down so people will buy them for the games. I am glad you like yours but the reality of the gaming industry are numbers. Developers want to sell lots of games. They write their games for the console that will provide the best market. The more games a console has the more people will buy the console. The PS3 is far behind the Wii everywhere. It is far behind the 360 every where but Japan. Yes in Sony doesn't get some great games out then the PS3 will stay in third place. It will be the Amiga of the Consoles. Technically better but lacking software support. I am glad you like you PS3. I loved my Amiga and wrote some code for it.
Oh the fast majority of people are pretty good. I learn a lot from the posts. But unlike you I can not ban people from Slashdot. I do not want to make them my foes because frankly they are not worth making into a foe. You see I do not see places like Slashdot as a dictatorship. If I don't like what you are doing with Slashdot I don't have to come here or post. I think of sites like Slashdot as visiting a friends home. I don't make the rules. I can leave if I am uncomfortable, and I can disagree if I do so politely and respectfully. This is a community but it is one you can leave at anytime. As I said I like you guys filtering the junk. Not perfect mind you. Unlike the a lot of people the dupes don't bother me as much. Maybe there is some new information about the story or maybe I missed it the first time. What I wish is that some of the blurbs had a higher light to heat ratio. That and do we really need the Politics and the YRO section? Talk about a lot more heat than light.
Actually I do know. I am working on getting a hardware patent. Frankly for some reason the examiner for my application is really tough. He lists 7 patents three of which I don't have the faintest idea why he is referencing them claiming that if you look at all three of the patents a person that is reasonably skilled in the art would see this as obvious. I guess I don't have a good enough lawyer writing my patent.
I have to agree. I just don't like Digg. Yes some news shows up faster on Digg than Slashdot but I think the editors do a good job most of the time, except when they don't take my submission. When they turn down my submissions they are being idiots. I just don't think Digg does as good of a job filtering out the junk as Slashdot does. As far the wisdom of the crowd goes... All I can say is, "American Idol". Digg has done what I considered impossible. They have created a meaner, nastier, more opinionated community than Slashdot. Slashdot is like having tea with the Dali Lama compared to Digg.
Kind of a simplistic and paranoid way of looking at things. A lot of the laws are on the books because people want them. Back in the day of our founding fathers do you think they would have tolerated a law that that told you what you could do with your own property? But would you like a world where developers could do what every they wanted where every they wanted? Want a dump next to your house? Or could you imagine our for fathers allow a law that regulated how much you could burn in your fire place? Want to live next to a coal burning power plant with no pollution controls? Could you imagine a them passing a law saying that you couldn't fire somebody for being Homosexual? Or not paying a woman less than a man? We all want the few simple laws that WE think are necessary. The problem is we each like a subset of the laws. So yea we have a lot of complex laws that cover all sorts of things because we live in a complex country full of many different people. We know more and are more enlightened than the founding fathers. That is because we have learned from them and those that came after them.
Slashdot Mirror
EMP depends a lot on how high up the blast is. Again not hard to prevent.
Do not unsafe the weapon until it clears the magnetosphere. They will be launching the weapons when the target is still years away so there is no need to unsafe the weapon until it is a long way from the earth.
The simplest way to safe the weapon is to fill the core with wire that absorbs neutrons. You just pull the wire out to arm the bomb. as long as the core is filled a high yield event is impossible. No high yield event no EMP.
Plus the launch would be from the Cape. Most of the flight would not be over any large cities. It would be over the Atlantic and equatorial Africa.
No it isn't 100% safe but nothing is. It would beat the heck out of getting whacked by a big honking rock.
Chernobyl and an air burst nuclear bomb are two VERY different things. I suggest you start paying attention to science and not mindless fear.
I was thinking of some of the very dirty bombs of the 50s.
My bad.
Actually I have high hopes for nanotube based conductors replacing copper. Easy to make from coal, wood, or any type of carbon. Every time I see some end of the world prediction we find a way out of it. The air is cleaner now then when I was a kid, we don't us lead paint on homes "only Chinese toys", we don't use leaded gas in our cars and we are recycling more and more. I think these are some of the good old days. Now if we could just stop treating our children as markets. I would love see toys marketed to parents and not at children but I am hopeless optimist.
I have to wonder if you where just kidding or are don't know anything about nuclear weapons.
From the 40s up through I think the 70s many nuclear weapons where detonated in the atmosphere. While it was a really bad plan life pretty much kept on living. A miss would probably not hit the earth and a launch accident wouldn't cause a nuclear detonation. A common method of safeing a nuclear weapon involves filling the pit with a neutron absorbing wire. Once the weapon leaves the atmosphere a motor will pull the wire out of the core and only then the weapon will be capable of nuclear detonation. Not only that most modern weapons are much cleaner then the bombs of the 50s.
So I wouldn't to see them launching them daily I think risk to benefit ratio is pretty good.
Unless the you have a network configuration problem. Almost all serious server set ups will have a some kind of modem access so you can get in if the server has a network configuration issue. Usually a machine or two with modems that are hooked up to the other servers with serial cables.
You can call into the modem and the access the other systems consoles.
- rising energy costs will define how we use transport
or Nuclear Fission will start to replace natural gas and coal fired power plants followed shortly buy Fusion in about 20 years.
Coal reformulation will replace oil as the primary source of liquid hydrocarbons.
- poorer nations will be strongest adopters of ecological technologies
Poorer nations will continue to exploit the cheapest and dirtiest fuel sources such as coal.
- cities will reject the automobile and become a lot nicer places to live in
Would be nice if they would just build some side walks near my home!
"Drop down menus, radio boxes, etc are "common". Command line? Editing Text files? Apache better get out of the whole in a hurry."
Just how do you use radio boxes and drop down menus over a dial up connection?
You don't.
When I am dealing with a web server it is usually remotely located. I know you can use remote desktop but that really depends on a fast connection.
ssh and the editor of your choice makes doing remote server configuration a lot faster than a remote desktop.
A server needs a GUI like a submarine needs a screen door. Welcome to the dumbing down of IT.
1. You don't have to run Windows. You may pick and choose from a number of different OSs including Windows.
2. Lower cost. You may choose the lowest cost platform for deployment. If for you that is Windows you can use Windows.
3. Better security options. You may run Apache on secure Linux which does have a higher government security rating then is available for Windows. Or you could run on OpenBSD which does have a very good security history.
4. No vendor lock in. IIS is single source as is the OS it runs on. Apache is available from multiple vendors, runs on multiple operating systems, and on multiple CPU architectures. You can run Apache on everything from an iPhone to an IBM Z series mainframe.
5. Better integration with PHP, Perl, Python, and MySQL.
6. Larger software selection. Most CMSs and other Web frameworks seem to be Apache centric.
7. Tomcat and JBoss.
8. No licensing worries. No need to do accounting on your Apache Licenses. Just one less thing to worry about if you get audited.
9. ASP is available for Apache if you really want it.
So it comes down to what gives you the best flexibility and value. If you are just going to throw up an intranet for your office and you only know Microsoft products then yes IIS may be fine for you. If you ever plan on scaling it to a large user base or may want to use a CMS like Drupal or Moodle. Or plan on using industry standard tools like PHP, Perl, Python, MySQL, or Ruby on Rails, then you should probably invest the time in learning both Apache and Linux. Before anyone questions how big if a standard in the industry PHP, Python, Perl and MySQL are all I can say is that they are used by sites like Yahoo, Google, and Slashdot. I think MySpace is an all Microsoft site.
"I can't see how it could be an oversight. "
A better question would be why would they do it intently?
Id has often released their old game engines under the GPL.
1. They had noting to gain by not including the license files.
2. They fixed it as soon as they found they had left out the files.
3. They did no harm to anyone.
So why must you try to see evil when all the evidence points to a simple human error?
This is why GPL zealots get on my nerves. They are all for copyleft, they hate closes source licenses, they hate software patents, and they hate DRM. But if someone fails to cross every t and dot every i when distributing GPL code then they are are plotting villains.
They made a minor error and they fixed the error all before it even showed up on Slashdot.
And I don't mind my wife asking me if she can get x out of my wallet. I also don't feel the need to lock my wallet away from her.
I agree about having some stuff separate. What I don't agree about is the need to have a legal separation. My wife is on my account. I am on hers. I don't user her account and she doesn't use mine without asking.
What I keep hearing is this "I must have my own stuff to keep my identity." Why does stuff define your identity? If you lost all your stuff wouldn't you be you?
You keep not understanding me. I don't think that having your own account is a bad thing. I think that having your own account because you and your spouse have different concepts of how to manage money is a very potently very bad thing. I feel having such a lack of trust for your spouse that you will not have their name on your account because you don't trust them not access it is a very bad thing.
I also don't believe that no relationship lasts forever. I have had friends and loved ones pass on and they are still with me. If in not other way than memories and the things that I have learned from them. It is a slightly spiritual way to look at things that not everybody shares but over the years I learned that relationships are not equations you can simply balance.
That depends on how much money is in that personal account. When a spouse is dead or say in the hospital things can get very desperate very quickly.
I may be in the minority but I think having a spouse that you can't trust to not access your "made money" account is a huge potential problem. But I am talking about being married. People that live together are different. While I think it is a really bad idea myself I know others don't feel that way and it works for some people. I just think that a sorta married arrangement is a bad plan.
The system isn't bad. The expectations that it will prevent money issues is the problem.
Technology can not solve every problem.
"If your wife comes to you and says "I don't love you anymore, I want a divorce" and your economy is all mixed up and it turns into a bad fight about who's been paying what and who should be left with what, I can easily understand the grandparent who says separate account would have been much better."
Sorry but if my wife says that then I have much bigger problems than the money issues.
Well if should never get to that point. I don't think that having separate accounts is a bad plan. I think going into a marriage while planning on making the divorce as easy as possible is a terrible plan. Marriage isn't easy but you do have to work at it. I see two many people rush into marriage because they confuse love with sex. When you marry someone you should ask would I still marry them if we could never have sex? They should also talk about things like children and life goals.
Here is a story about love.
Back in February I almost died of pneumonia. I went to the doctor with what I thought was the flu and they gave me some meds and told me if I didn't feel better in two weeks to come back. Well I didn't feel better after two weeks and went back. One of my lungs was completely filled with fluid and the other was only half filled. My o2 levels where toxic and they slammed me into the hospital for a week. I only just stayed out of the ICU because I was in good shape but I was about 6 hours from being put in to intensive care.
My wife stayed with me every night in the hospital. She got up every morning before the sun and went to our house to feed our dogs, take a shower, and then work for abut 6 hours. She did that for a week.
To me that was the most "Romantic" thing that ever happened in my life.
That is love. BTW having sex with someone that loves you that much and you love back that much is the best sex ever.
Yes some marriages really do need to end. If you are being abused then GET OUT NOW and GET THE KIDS OUT!
But I think way to many people just don't try hard enough, rush in, or get married for really bad reasons.
"Each of us has our own checking account that the other one can't access, plus the joint account."
That can be a really bad plan. If you or your wife die then that account will be locked away from you until the estate is settled. Why not each have access but don't use it? You put your wife's name on your account and your name on her account. You then lock away your bank card for her account and she locks away her bank card for your account. My wife and I have separate accounts because of bank cards. We have one savings account but our living money is in our personal accounts. That way I don't get over drawn getting gas because my wife just bought groceries and hadn't transfered more money into the account yet.
I really suggest that you and your wife to be work out your money problems before getting married. Just having different accounts will not prevent the problems you fear. What happens when you two decide that you want to same for something big? Like a house, car, college for the kids, vacation, and retirement,
The biggest problems in marriage happen you and your wife don't share the same goals in life. Marriage is supposed to be forever. You two need to start planning for forever.
Well my experience is totally different.
"If couples do everything together, they will burnout on each other pretty fast."
My wife and I work together, we drive to work in one car. We do the shopping together. It hasn't bee a problem for us.
"Trust me, it happens. You maybe in love today, but tomorrow maybe a different story, so it's much easier and cleaner to leave when couple have separate accounts."
That is such a bad attitude it boggles my mind. Why do you want to make it clean and easy to end a marriage? What about if you have kids? Should the wife deal exclusively with the girls and father exclusively with the sons?
If you are not talking about being married than yes keep that separate but that definition of not being married. I think part of the problem is too many people are becoming sort of married. It is easy to rush in to living together or even getting married of you plan on making it easy to end. That is one of the things that is really messed up about world today. If you are going to get married get married if you are not then don't. Don't sort of get married and don't rush into it.
My wife and I have separate bank accounts but she is on mine and I am on hers. We have separate email address but I don't find that any stranger than have separate cell phones. As far as blogs and fighting over what gets deleted from the Tivo??? If that is a problem in your marriage or relationship you have MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger problems. The making room on the Tivo should be a five minute discussion. Blogs??? Good freaking grief.
Nope Coherent was not Xenix but a Unix like OS written by Mark Williams.s ystem)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_(operating_
Commodore was working on a business system that used the Zilog 8000 running Coherent but dropped it to work on the Amiga.
I always wondered how the Amiga would have done with Coherent instead of AmigaDos.
They could have still used Intuition and Workspace as the graphics system and GUI but would have had a real Unix like OS as the foundation.
I like AMD.
But you are wrong from the consumer point of view.
I can get an inexpensive Intel system with four cores in a socket. That is a selling point.
I can get a two socket system with eight cores for not that much money as well.
What you will not see are people pushing four socket sixteen core systems that way. At that point yes the Intel two duels on a cracker falls apart.
BUT and this is a big BUT for a lot of people the Intel hack works and works well.
I do hope that AMD does well with their four core cpu but to dismiss the current Intel part just isn't fair.
I am insulting the PS3? Gee do you think I hurt it's feelings?
It is a game console. I think it is lacking in many respects like software and cost. Get over it it is just a thing and not your family.
If you like it then fine. I am not anti-PS3 because I don't care enough about it to be anti. It doesn't really matter to me since I don't see enough value in it to play $500 or so dollars for it. I don't own a 360 because I don't see enough value in that. Does that make me anti 360?
The 360 being ahead of the PS3 in sales isn't an argument it is a simple fact. It being out longer is also a plus for the 360. The developers have been working with it longer. They know it better than the PS3. The developer tools for the 360 are better than the PS3. The 360 like the PC really is good enough for HD gaming. A game publisher doesn't care WHY there are more consoles on the market. They care about how many people might buy their game. The market for the 360 is bigger than the market for the PS3. Ever wonder why so many games are still coming out for the PS2? Because there are a LOT of PS2 buyers.The PS2 is a prime example of the best not always winning. Raw performance wise the PS2 was the wost of the last generation gaming systems. Even the GC and Dreamcast had better graphics hardware than the PS2. The emotion engine is a mess to deal with. A LOT of people bought the PS2 because of hype and the success of the PSONE. It including a DVD player was another big plus at the time.
As I said the PS3 may in the end do well. But it will have to get some must have exclusive games and I feel the price will have to drop. I think if the DVR is done correctly and not a broken DRM laden mess it may be a big selling point.
But get over it. You liked the PS3 enough to buy one. If you are happy with it that is all that matters. I don't like the PS3 enough to buy one. I simply took the time to point out what the DVR should do to be a big success.
You see I find this post amusing because I am not bashing the PS3.
Yes the PS2 was hard to program. But no the Cell is just that odd when used in the PS3. No one is using the theoretical power of the Cell in the PS3. The memory structure is a mess and dealing with the asymmetrical nature of the CPU core+Cells is really hard. Not impossible but really hard. Notice that all the really big games are getting pushed back. Yes being hard to program is a negative. It is one reason that the XBox did as well as it did. It was easy to write for. They came from zero to very popular system in a single generation.
I didn't say that the DVR was useless or even a bad idea. Was predicting it from the start. I think Sony was stupid not to include it from the start. If they had included the DVR plus the ability to put shows on to the PSP and the Video IPod they would have sold a lot of systems. The price of the PS3 isn't bad as a Blue ray player plus HD DVR that can also play games.
As to me buying one? I really wanted one when they first came out. When I heard you could run Linux on them I thought great I can try out the Cell. But now I just don't want one. There isn't a game on the system I must have or even really want. I don't like FPS, GTA, or fighting games. I really HATE fighting games! I got a Wii after playing a friends and my wife and I love it.
I may buy one but only when it is a lot cheaper and there are games I want for it. I have an HD DVR, a Dreamcast, a PS2, a GC, an N64, a Wii, and a DS. Not to mention the multiple PCs and notebooks in my home. There are not enough Blue Ray DVDs for me to choose from and I will wait to see how that shakes out.
Right now the key to the PS3s failure or success will be games and cost. Can they get developers to write games that make the PS3 worth owning and can they get the cost down so people will buy them for the games. I am glad you like yours but the reality of the gaming industry are numbers.
Developers want to sell lots of games. They write their games for the console that will provide the best market. The more games a console has the more people will buy the console.
The PS3 is far behind the Wii everywhere. It is far behind the 360 every where but Japan.
Yes in Sony doesn't get some great games out then the PS3 will stay in third place. It will be the Amiga of the Consoles. Technically better but lacking software support.
I am glad you like you PS3. I loved my Amiga and wrote some code for it.
Oh the fast majority of people are pretty good. I learn a lot from the posts. But unlike you I can not ban people from Slashdot. I do not want to make them my foes because frankly they are not worth making into a foe. You see I do not see places like Slashdot as a dictatorship. If I don't like what you are doing with Slashdot I don't have to come here or post. I think of sites like Slashdot as visiting a friends home. I don't make the rules. I can leave if I am uncomfortable, and I can disagree if I do so politely and respectfully.
This is a community but it is one you can leave at anytime.
As I said I like you guys filtering the junk. Not perfect mind you.
Unlike the a lot of people the dupes don't bother me as much. Maybe there is some new information about the story or maybe I missed it the first time.
What I wish is that some of the blurbs had a higher light to heat ratio.
That and do we really need the Politics and the YRO section? Talk about a lot more heat than light.
Anyway take care.
Actually I do know. I am working on getting a hardware patent. Frankly for some reason the examiner for my application is really tough. He lists 7 patents three of which I don't have the faintest idea why he is referencing them claiming that if you look at all three of the patents a person that is reasonably skilled in the art would see this as obvious.
I guess I don't have a good enough lawyer writing my patent.
I have to agree. I just don't like Digg. Yes some news shows up faster on Digg than Slashdot but I think the editors do a good job most of the time, except when they don't take my submission. When they turn down my submissions they are being idiots.
I just don't think Digg does as good of a job filtering out the junk as Slashdot does.
As far the wisdom of the crowd goes... All I can say is, "American Idol".
Digg has done what I considered impossible. They have created a meaner, nastier, more opinionated community than Slashdot.
Slashdot is like having tea with the Dali Lama compared to Digg.
Kind of a simplistic and paranoid way of looking at things.
A lot of the laws are on the books because people want them.
Back in the day of our founding fathers do you think they would have tolerated a law that that told you what you could do with your own property?
But would you like a world where developers could do what every they wanted where every they wanted? Want a dump next to your house?
Or could you imagine our for fathers allow a law that regulated how much you could burn in your fire place? Want to live next to a coal burning power plant with no pollution controls?
Could you imagine a them passing a law saying that you couldn't fire somebody for being Homosexual? Or not paying a woman less than a man?
We all want the few simple laws that WE think are necessary. The problem is we each like a subset of the laws.
So yea we have a lot of complex laws that cover all sorts of things because we live in a complex country full of many different people.
We know more and are more enlightened than the founding fathers. That is because we have learned from them and those that came after them.
What patent of Apple's is Google infringing on?