IBM already has the fastest web server in the world in their mainframe. Why would anyone want to switch to Linux and give up on the VIPA Takeover and Sysplex technologies? This whole demonstration is just extra hype to get Linux people interested in what the mainframe hardware can do. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing)
The path of advancement in computer hardware has been so simple that it can be stated in one sentence -- Add more of the same.
Even the most advanced silicon coming out of Intel, et al., are nothing but very advanced adders. Once you have the basic adder, the rest is a problem in manufacturing and packaging (how can we make it smaller, and then how do we keep it cool, supply power, etc)
I predict (with all the authority I can muster) that quantum computers will follow the same path, only faster (since we've already solved many of the problems before). Once the scientist are able to manipulate a few bits, it will be a very fast progression to manipulating a lot of bits. It's just a matter of doing the same. Of course, they have to move out of the realm of "moving pins with bulldozers" first 8*)
I will not buy an American made car. Or better to say, I will not buy a car designed by an American corporation. Why? The same reason I don't use M$ products. Neither entity has a goal of delivering me a quality product. Instead, they both concentrate solely on maximising their own gain. American made cars appear to be designed to die at about 5 years (this has been my experience, YMMV). What a suprise that this is about the same time as most people's finance period. It is my belief that American metallurgy and quality control is good enough that a corporate boss can say "I want this part to last between 30 and 36 months" and he'll get his way. The point here isn't that American make poor quality cars. Just the opposite, they make high quality cars that are designed to break down under coporate fiat.
The same is true of M$. The quality of the end product is not controlled by the quality of the engineers. It is dictated by corporate fiat. In this case, Bill says "You have 3 months to produce a product", and then the company markets a first pass attempt. M$ definately has good programmers, but that doesn't mean that they are allowed to make good products.
Real-time doesn't just mean guaranteed processor bandwith. The response time is bounded. This is important.
Consider an automated assembly line application such as a sorter. A reader reads a bar code and sends a package down 1 of 10 lines. If a timer is used to control when an actuator will push the box off the line, the timer better not pop too early or the box won't be there yet.
I know this example is contrived, but it is the best I could think of in a short time. The basic point is that in a real-time OS the computer not only has to respond within a specified time, but that time is bounded so that the computer can't respond before the specified time either.
Funny how I remember Carl using this phrase repeatedly in the PBS series "Cosmos", but I never remembering hearing it from Johnny Carson (of course, I never really watched Johnny Carson).
The increased speed doesn't really come for shorter junctions. The difference in the amount of time an electron takes to cross.25 microns as opposed to.08 micron is close to negligable.
The smaller components enable faster speed by decreasing the RC constant. RC stands for resistance times capacitance. Think of filling a bucket with a hose. A bigger hose lets you fill the bucket faster. It's also faster to fill a glass than a tanker truck with the same hose. You can think of circuits in the same way. It takes a certain amount of time to charge and discharge a circuit. Decrease the amount of resistance or increase the voltage so that more current flows and the circuit charges faster. Reduce the size of the circuit and you don't have as much to fill.
Overclockers often need to increase the voltage when trying to increase speed. What's happening is that above a certain clock rate, capacitors that control gates don't have a chance to completely charge/discharge before the clock switches. If you force more electrons to flow down the same pipe by 'increasing the pressure', the caps will be able to completely charge/discharge and the circuit will work. Of course, if you try to push the force of a fire hydrant through a drinking straw...
In North Carolina it is illegal to sell illegal drugs without a tax stamp!!
This is a result of our (American) combative justice system and rules against double jeopardy. The reasoning here is that the politicians create tools for the prosecuting attorneys to use. When a criminal slips out of a charge due to some ridiculous technicality, the prosecutor can whip out the next charge. Remember the police who beat Rodney King. The jury let them off of felony assault, so they couldn't be retried for that. Instead they were charged with violating his civil rights, or some such concoction.
Another reason is that politician or prosecutor don't feel that a law carries enough punishment, so peripheral charges are created. This gives the system more flexibility in how they treat different people. That is to say, they can be more arbitrary in how they apply the law.
Read the article. They also invented text-to-speech. I guess those programs I got with my first 8-bit SoundBlaster card were stolen from Microsoft by a future CreativeLabs employee with a time machine. He stole the programs from Windows 2005 and travelled back to 1993 where he relabled the program and gave it away with overpriced sound cards.
So, libraries who allow minors to access pron get their budgets whacked.
Bill repellation algorithm: 1) Quietly allow the law to be implemented. 2) Take your 8yr old nephew to the library (without his mother knowing about it of course) 3) Show him all the neat tricks that the lovely women of the internet can do with their genitalia. 4) Inform the librarians and the news media about the filth that the libraries let your nephew see, and with righteous indignation demand that the libraries funding be cut IMMEDIATELY as the law requires!! 5) Snicker inside as the politicians scramble to retroactively repeal the silly law when it's discovered that every library in the state is going to be shut down.
If you can't smother them with kindness, hit them with a brick!!
I still don't understand why large cities can't combine their problems. Why is it not possible to create a large clay bowl a 100 yds across and several miles long and cover it with a transparent material. Feed waste water, pulverized trash and all sorts of bio-agents like this into one end. Along the way, air pumps keep the water supplied with oxygen and force exhaust gas full of fuel out of the system. On the other end you extract a ground enriching slurry to sell to farmers, and all along the middle you collect flamable gas to pipe to a power generator located next to the enclosure.
So it doesn't produce a lot of electricity? You at least got some, you reduce the landfill load, you take care of your waste water treatment and you return some nutrients to the land.
"If the railroad had not been invented to move my son away, there would have been no need for the telephone for him to talk to me."
100 years ago you befriended and socialized with those who lived close to you. You had no choice. Walking 100 miles was not an option. If the people around you were jerks or uninteresting...oh well. You were stuck.
The car has opened our options. We congregate with people we actually like and share interest with. Unfortunately, home builders don't generally bother with front porches anymore, because no one uses them. No one sits on their porches to talk to the neighbors walking by, because all the neighbors have driven to be with the people that they actually find interesting. This lack of direct socialization have made neighborhoods lonelier and less friendly.
Enter the internet with the ability to connect people even more precisely and over a larger area. The local landscape becomes even lonelier and less friendly.
Should the government take away our cars and ISPs and make us all shake hands with our neighbors? Or should we all just accept that people are choosing who they wish to relate to, and the boring people next door are loosing out?
OS/2? Microsoft was all behind it, until they weren't.
If you lay down with a snake, you'll get bit.
Microsoft has always shown themselves to be a snake pit. They play nice and then screw any partner when it's to their advantage. Why would they be different now?
Here's my take. Microsoft releases a product to stave off the DeCSS and Samba type hackers (ie. someone who will hack the protocol and open source an implementation just because they have no other alternative.) Their fear is that once this is done they have to enter whack-the-mole mode, which several large groups have found to be ridiculously ineffective.
Since the client plays everywhere, Media Player becomes the defacto standard while the hackers are quietly content using MS' closed source solution (Why would I work on writing my own code when I have a decent client already?). Microsoft can now cut off any further development/bug fixes for the Linux client. It is left to stagnate. It takes a year for the hackers to wake up, and another 6 months to develope a client. By this time MS has had time to extend (read, break) the protocol. Everyone now knows that if you want to watch online movies you have to use a MS excuse for an OS.
Don't be played for a fool, people. Don't accept a closed source client or protocol. If they don't release the source and specs, then start asking people why they are letting MS put a noose around their business' neck.
why not save the cache to permanent storage. The processor optimizes the code and then saves the optimized code to disk as a "shadow" executable. The next time the program is loaded the OS would indicate that it has already been optimized and pass the shadow to the processor which could bypass the translator. The translator could attach a signature to the shadow, and if it didn't agree it would reload the program and translate from scratch. In this way, you would get permantly optimized code for all your programs while retaining the flexibility of the current design.
Of course, one problem with this would be getting support for shadow programs built into the OS. I wonder if Transmeta has anyone that could handle this?
As for the others claiming the economy is cyclical, do they honestly believe Clinton had nothing to do with the longest sustained period of growth the US economy has ever seen?
It had much more to do with:
-The ending of the cold war allowing a vast reduction in military spending.
-The vast amounts of investment wealth available from working baby boomers who will soon begin retiring.
-A fiscal policy of low interest rates by Alan Greenspan that decreased static savings accounts and increased stock market investments.
-Low energy cost spurred by high production in OPEC nations.
I honestly believe that Clinton had very little to do with the longest sustained period of growth the US economy has ever seen. Since you obviously consider his impact substantial, could you please list which of his policies had any direct or indirect effect on the economy?
When mothers use state agencies to extort child support from men, we should make 99.99995% sure that it's the right guy who's paying.
I would go a step further. If the accused father contest it, we should use the same standard that we use for a criminal trial, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers. Of course, DNA testing by a couple independant labs will remove all reasonable doubt from most people.
A woman in this situation would recieve aid until the outcome of the trial. If the man is acquitted, her and her child are SOL. Yes, I am advocating letting a child starve. But just try it and see how many women let their child starve before telling one simple fact. As with being confident about being able to prove paternal lineage, I am confident that human nature will forestall an epidemic of starving bastards(term used with original meaning).
As a consequence, your opinion must be interpreted as it is your will, intent, and wish that a significant number of single mothers should be cut off from welfare benefits.
I don't wish the government to tax me in order to give away cars to people who could otherwise afford their own. Would my opinion then be interpreted as wishing that poor old ladies be cut off from a way to go to church on Sundays? Fathers who owe child support go missing every day. There was recently an effort to round them up and make them support thier children and it saved millions of American dollars from the welfare roles in North Carolina. (also created a very substantial discussion about father's rights in divorce cases)
In the situation you mention, the woman names the man, when/if he shows up he owes the government the money it paid to raise his child. If he is never found, we lost that one, but at least we caught some of them.
I'd say this is the Net and a forum for the exchange of ideas and opinions - not America or Europe or Africa or whatever. Or do you think only Americans (i.e. US citizens) should have access to/. ? And, by the way, why the use of offensive language? Flamebate?
Agreed. I was responding to several post that referred to Americans as idiots and American law as pathetic, because (and the reason is important) we do it better. The offensive language adequately conveyed my feelings (ie, I am offended).
You are confusing the availability of sexual information and imagery with sexual activity. There is, in fact, a strong inverse correlation between the availability of sexual information and the rates of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc. Ignorance is the problem, not pornography.
Now here is information worthy of/., but it doesn't change my original premise, which, stated concisely, is "We (enter country affiliation here) need to carefully decide which if any of our laws concerning sexuality are relevant, with a realization that there may have been good reasons for implementing those laws in the first place. Furthermore, what people are doing in (enter any other country) may serve as an example but does not necessarily have any bearing on what we should be doing."
And your conjecture that jealousy is somehow genetic is pure speculation.
Agreed. But it's not my conjecture. Something I picked up from watching the Discovery Channel, reinforced by my own personal experience (for those who must know, went to a swinger's party once. You know, people who believe in free sex, wife swapping and such. Jealousy was as rampant there as anywhere else I've seen. There was even a fight over one particular female.) It just seems to make sense (which doesn't make it fact) that a jealous male is more likely to produce more offspring, and thus produce jealous offspring. The mate of a non-jealous male may be producing offspring for jealous male, but the reverse isn't as likely.
Well, I've just read the whole thread, and I'm damned if I saw a "Europe is so great" post. And quit referring to disparate European countries as Europe.
I started the thread, so of course you didn't see any "Europe is so great" post in the thread. I was replying to other post. A quote from the third (I think) post.
I'm sure most Europeans consider the North American fear of all things naked in public pathetic.
I reiterate. America is not Europe, England, France, Japan, Sweden, Canada,... The solution that applies in any or all of the above does not necessarily apply here.
Whoah!!! The genius speaks!!! And judging by your poor quality choice of words, you sure don't have English as your first language, either...
And who decides that it is poor choice? You? Thank you for upholding my point of many people holding the "Americans are idiots because they're not us" attitude. Notice how another one of your post falls in line with your snotty superior attitude:
Yeah, and see how your legislative system has fared! I'm not even going to _bother_ starting in on what is wrong with your country...
Maybe the part you think is wrong is the part that I think is right. For instance, "ain't" is perfectly proper English where I come from. The school teachers may not like it, but everyone I converse with on a daily basis knows exactly what I mean. What's more it is often used in a situation where emphasis is desired. I purposely chose that word because I wanted to emphasize that "THIS AIN'T EUROPE!"
Now, this also AIN'T the UK, so take your 'quality choice of words" and "true English fashion" and fuck off, you English-centric snothead. (Pardons to all netizens with a clue.)
Since you bring it up, I think that genetic testing on ALL births should be mandatory, leaving NO QUESTION about who the father is.
I don't know about it being mandatory. Myself, I trust my wife, and, luckily, my kids look like me 8*) (of course, that doesn't rule out my brothers. Damn, there you go making me think...)
My position is that people who are asking society to take responsibility for there actions should be required to mitigate their reliance upon society as much as possible. If the mother isn't asking for public money, I don't care who the father is. It's when you start asking for me to help pay to raise the child that I want to know who it was that got to dance on my dime.
Examples? Remember that increase in, say, spousal abuse statistics, does not constitute social discord.
You mean to tell me that you've never seen a bar fight resulting from the interaction of a female and two males? I'm not saying a law will curb everything. I'm not even claiming that it will make things better. I am saying that problems exist, and as a society we must consider them.
Laws against adultery originally arose because of the need to know without question the father of a child.
Bullshit. Laws against adultery arose because men tended to treat their wives as property and wanted legal protection for their property. Besides, what's that "need to know without question"? Is it a social need or just personal desire?
The term 'bastard' has lost much of it's deragatory(sp?) nature in recent times, but the stigma at one time carried the weight of being a pariah on society. The 'need to know' was both social and personal. Society as a whole has no wish to pay to raise someone else's children, especially in times past when it was so much more difficult to do so. The individual male feels the same.
If you're married or even have a girlfriend, but would you be totally unphased if you learn that she's been sleeping around behind your back?
And a law is going to help me with that??? Er, man, I'd like some of that stuff you are smoking...
Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps the law can relieve you of the responsibility of children produced from such an occurance? Perhaps the law can release you from the contractual restraint of marriage in such situations? Perhaps if the laws were taken seriously, such a thing might not have happened at all (and to beat the naysayers to the punch, No. A law against adultery will not eliminate it entirely. But it WILL have a chilling effect.)
But what happens to the children born out of wedlock? How many end up on the welfare roles?
If you look at born-out-of-wedlock children of upper-middle class people, you'll find that almost none ends up on welfare. If you look at born-to-married-parents children of people who live in inner-city ghettoes, a lot of them will end up on welfare. And your point is?
That it takes two to make a baby, and statistically at least, the baby has a much better chance of growing out of welfare with two parents. The current situation involves a removal of responsibility from bang 'em and leave 'em men. My personal wish is for men to have responsibility for children they foster. Yes, there are exceptions, but most women know the father of their baby. If that man won't accept at least financial responsibility, I believe it to be a function of government to extract what is necessary. If the woman is going to ask me to support the child through welfare, I do not believe it beyond the pale for me to expect her to reveal the name of the father.
Some of the ancient laws actually have a purpose.
Sure they do. It's just that this purpose is not relevant any more, or looks really silly.
I would (and did in the original posting) agree that many are potentially outdated. My point is that deciding which are must be done with more care than:
for(i=0; i NUM_LAWS; i++){ if(involves_sex(law[i])) discard(law[i]); }
Most coins have two sides, as does this one. Mr. Katz, how much public sexuality is appropriate?
I ask this question, because to much open sexuality CAN breed social discord. Evolution has bred into the human creature thing like jealousy. There are things like STDs (which condoms are NOT a panacea, no matter what you've heard on MTV). Laws against adultery originally arose because of the need to know without question the father of a child.
It's easy to sit back and say that law which are based in 100's or 1000's of years of history are ridiculous, but have we really evolved out of the need for them. I don't know if you're married or even have a girlfriend, but would you be totally unphased if you learn that she's been sleeping around behind your back?
There are laws against extra-marital sex, and these are mostly ignored nowadays. I would hazard to say that most here agree with this state of affairs. But what happens to the children born out of wedlock? How many end up on the welfare roles? In other words, how many am I helping to raise with my tax dollars? Why isn't the 'man' who fathered the child paying his fair share? (My personal belief is that a woman should be required to name the father before receiving welfare. Funds could then be recouped appropriately.)
I do agree that our laws need to be looked at, but I disagree that we need to throw them out willy-nilly. We can have laws on the books that aren't actively enforced, but if you show up in court with at problem that arises from the breaking of said law you'll get smacked. Some of the ancient laws actually have a purpose.
For the people claiming that Europe is so great because they do this and that. Fuck-off. This ain't Europe. We'll decide to do things our way. Besides, wasn't it Sweden that wouldn't allow Donald Duck to appear on TV because he wasn't wearing pants?
Re:Somewhere in the world...
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 2
The internet is the new city.
Does this mean it is destined to be destroyed, as Nostradamus predicted?:)
I've often wondered, the biblical Book of Revelations talks of a beast that will rise out of the masses and know everything about everyone and it would be controled by the antiChrist. Does the beast == wireless internet?
Somewhere in the world...
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 2
there is a child crying. I do not know the child, but it cries nonetheless.
Somewhere in the world, a dot.com is going under. I do not know the dot.com or the information they produced, but they are going under nonetheless.
Somewhere in the world, a grandmother is creating a web page of her grandchildren's pictures. I do not know the grandmother or her grandchildren, and I will never visit her web page, but the page is created nonetheless.
Just because something is happening somewhere in the world doesn't mean I have to be cognizant of it. The Net gives us the ability to be cognizant of everything. Having the ability to do something is not a requirement that it be done.
At the heyday of the industrial age, people moving from remote farms to the city would be overwhelmed by all the noise and 'hustl-n-bustle'. People who had grown up in the city were quite used to the noise and activity, and subconsciously filtered it all out.
The internet is the new city. Those who spend time here learn to filter the noise to the point where it isn't even noticed. Newbies come and feel that they must read every word of every article. They must know the city as well as they knew their farmstead. The gurus out there know that you ignore everything except what is important to you.
As for exponential growth being fatality, the argument is that as a species grow larger than the ability of the environment to support them, the species will die out. But I pose the question, what happens when the environment is growing exponentially, say along the lines of Moore's Law?
Slashdot Mirror
IBM already has the fastest web server in the world in their mainframe. Why would anyone want to switch to Linux and give up on the VIPA Takeover and Sysplex technologies? This whole demonstration is just extra hype to get Linux people interested in what the mainframe hardware can do. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing)
The path of advancement in computer hardware has been so simple that it can be stated in one sentence -- Add more of the same.
Even the most advanced silicon coming out of Intel, et al., are nothing but very advanced adders. Once you have the basic adder, the rest is a problem in manufacturing and packaging (how can we make it smaller, and then how do we keep it cool, supply power, etc)
I predict (with all the authority I can muster) that quantum computers will follow the same path, only faster (since we've already solved many of the problems before). Once the scientist are able to manipulate a few bits, it will be a very fast progression to manipulating a lot of bits. It's just a matter of doing the same. Of course, they have to move out of the realm of "moving pins with bulldozers" first 8*)
I will not buy an American made car. Or better to say, I will not buy a car designed by an American corporation. Why? The same reason I don't use M$ products. Neither entity has a goal of delivering me a quality product. Instead, they both concentrate solely on maximising their own gain. American made cars appear to be designed to die at about 5 years (this has been my experience, YMMV). What a suprise that this is about the same time as most people's finance period. It is my belief that American metallurgy and quality control is good enough that a corporate boss can say "I want this part to last between 30 and 36 months" and he'll get his way. The point here isn't that American make poor quality cars. Just the opposite, they make high quality cars that are designed to break down under coporate fiat.
The same is true of M$. The quality of the end product is not controlled by the quality of the engineers. It is dictated by corporate fiat. In this case, Bill says "You have 3 months to produce a product", and then the company markets a first pass attempt. M$ definately has good programmers, but that doesn't mean that they are allowed to make good products.
Real-time doesn't just mean guaranteed processor bandwith. The response time is bounded. This is important.
Consider an automated assembly line application such as a sorter. A reader reads a bar code and sends a package down 1 of 10 lines. If a timer is used to control when an actuator will push the box off the line, the timer better not pop too early or the box won't be there yet.
I know this example is contrived, but it is the best I could think of in a short time. The basic point is that in a real-time OS the computer not only has to respond within a specified time, but that time is bounded so that the computer can't respond before the specified time either.
Funny how I remember Carl using this phrase repeatedly in the PBS series "Cosmos", but I never remembering hearing it from Johnny Carson (of course, I never really watched Johnny Carson).
Just a nit-pick.
.25 microns as opposed to .08 micron is close to negligable.
The increased speed doesn't really come for shorter junctions. The difference in the amount of time an electron takes to cross
The smaller components enable faster speed by decreasing the RC constant. RC stands for resistance times capacitance. Think of filling a bucket with a hose. A bigger hose lets you fill the bucket faster. It's also faster to fill a glass than a tanker truck with the same hose. You can think of circuits in the same way. It takes a certain amount of time to charge and discharge a circuit. Decrease the amount of resistance or increase the voltage so that more current flows and the circuit charges faster. Reduce the size of the circuit and you don't have as much to fill.
Overclockers often need to increase the voltage when trying to increase speed. What's happening is that above a certain clock rate, capacitors that control gates don't have a chance to completely charge/discharge before the clock switches. If you force more electrons to flow down the same pipe by 'increasing the pressure', the caps will be able to completely charge/discharge and the circuit will work. Of course, if you try to push the force of a fire hydrant through a drinking straw...
In North Carolina it is illegal to sell illegal drugs without a tax stamp!!
This is a result of our (American) combative justice system and rules against double jeopardy. The reasoning here is that the politicians create tools for the prosecuting attorneys to use. When a criminal slips out of a charge due to some ridiculous technicality, the prosecutor can whip out the next charge. Remember the police who beat Rodney King. The jury let them off of felony assault, so they couldn't be retried for that. Instead they were charged with violating his civil rights, or some such concoction.
Another reason is that politician or prosecutor don't feel that a law carries enough punishment, so peripheral charges are created. This gives the system more flexibility in how they treat different people. That is to say, they can be more arbitrary in how they apply the law.
Read the article. They also invented text-to-speech. I guess those programs I got with my first 8-bit SoundBlaster card were stolen from Microsoft by a future CreativeLabs employee with a time machine. He stole the programs from Windows 2005 and travelled back to 1993 where he relabled the program and gave it away with overpriced sound cards.
So, libraries who allow minors to access pron get their budgets whacked.
Bill repellation algorithm:
1) Quietly allow the law to be implemented.
2) Take your 8yr old nephew to the library (without his mother knowing about it of course)
3) Show him all the neat tricks that the lovely women of the internet can do with their genitalia.
4) Inform the librarians and the news media about the filth that the libraries let your nephew see, and with righteous indignation demand that the libraries funding be cut IMMEDIATELY as the law requires!!
5) Snicker inside as the politicians scramble to retroactively repeal the silly law when it's discovered that every library in the state is going to be shut down.
If you can't smother them with kindness, hit them with a brick!!
I still don't understand why large cities can't combine their problems. Why is it not possible to create a large clay bowl a 100 yds across and several miles long and cover it with a transparent material. Feed waste water, pulverized trash and all sorts of bio-agents like this into one end. Along the way, air pumps keep the water supplied with oxygen and force exhaust gas full of fuel out of the system. On the other end you extract a ground enriching slurry to sell to farmers, and all along the middle you collect flamable gas to pipe to a power generator located next to the enclosure.
So it doesn't produce a lot of electricity? You at least got some, you reduce the landfill load, you take care of your waste water treatment and you return some nutrients to the land.
"If the railroad had not been invented to move my son away, there would have been no need for the telephone for him to talk to me."
100 years ago you befriended and socialized with those who lived close to you. You had no choice. Walking 100 miles was not an option. If the people around you were jerks or uninteresting...oh well. You were stuck.
The car has opened our options. We congregate with people we actually like and share interest with. Unfortunately, home builders don't generally bother with front porches anymore, because no one uses them. No one sits on their porches to talk to the neighbors walking by, because all the neighbors have driven to be with the people that they actually find interesting. This lack of direct socialization have made neighborhoods lonelier and less friendly.
Enter the internet with the ability to connect people even more precisely and over a larger area. The local landscape becomes even lonelier and less friendly.
Should the government take away our cars and ISPs and make us all shake hands with our neighbors? Or should we all just accept that people are choosing who they wish to relate to, and the boring people next door are loosing out?
OS/2? Microsoft was all behind it, until they weren't.
If you lay down with a snake, you'll get bit.
Microsoft has always shown themselves to be a snake pit. They play nice and then screw any partner when it's to their advantage. Why would they be different now?
Here's my take. Microsoft releases a product to stave off the DeCSS and Samba type hackers (ie. someone who will hack the protocol and open source an implementation just because they have no other alternative.) Their fear is that once this is done they have to enter whack-the-mole mode, which several large groups have found to be ridiculously ineffective.
Since the client plays everywhere, Media Player becomes the defacto standard while the hackers are quietly content using MS' closed source solution (Why would I work on writing my own code when I have a decent client already?). Microsoft can now cut off any further development/bug fixes for the Linux client. It is left to stagnate. It takes a year for the hackers to wake up, and another 6 months to develope a client. By this time MS has had time to extend (read, break) the protocol. Everyone now knows that if you want to watch online movies you have to use a MS excuse for an OS.
Don't be played for a fool, people. Don't accept a closed source client or protocol. If they don't release the source and specs, then start asking people why they are letting MS put a noose around their business' neck.
why not save the cache to permanent storage. The processor optimizes the code and then saves the optimized code to disk as a "shadow" executable. The next time the program is loaded the OS would indicate that it has already been optimized and pass the shadow to the processor which could bypass the translator. The translator could attach a signature to the shadow, and if it didn't agree it would reload the program and translate from scratch. In this way, you would get permantly optimized code for all your programs while retaining the flexibility of the current design.
Of course, one problem with this would be getting support for shadow programs built into the OS. I wonder if Transmeta has anyone that could handle this?
As for the others claiming the economy is cyclical, do they honestly believe Clinton had nothing to do with the longest sustained period of growth the US economy has ever seen?
It had much more to do with:
-The ending of the cold war allowing a vast reduction in military spending.
-The vast amounts of investment wealth available from working baby boomers who will soon begin retiring.
-A fiscal policy of low interest rates by Alan Greenspan that decreased static savings accounts and increased stock market investments.
-Low energy cost spurred by high production in OPEC nations.
I honestly believe that Clinton had very little to do with the longest sustained period of growth the US economy has ever seen. Since you obviously consider his impact substantial, could you please list which of his policies had any direct or indirect effect on the economy?
Now there's an idea. Let's all just get along and take responisbility for ourselves. But then, what do the politicians take credit for?
I agree with you and would be willing to help.
When mothers use state agencies to extort child support from men, we should make 99.99995% sure that it's the right guy who's paying.
I would go a step further. If the accused father contest it, we should use the same standard that we use for a criminal trial, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers. Of course, DNA testing by a couple independant labs will remove all reasonable doubt from most people.
A woman in this situation would recieve aid until the outcome of the trial. If the man is acquitted, her and her child are SOL. Yes, I am advocating letting a child starve. But just try it and see how many women let their child starve before telling one simple fact. As with being confident about being able to prove paternal lineage, I am confident that human nature will forestall an epidemic of starving bastards(term used with original meaning).
As a consequence, your opinion must be interpreted as it is your will, intent, and wish that a significant number of single mothers should be cut off from welfare benefits.
/. ? And, by the way, why the use of offensive language? Flamebate?
I don't wish the government to tax me in order to give away cars to people who could otherwise afford their own. Would my opinion then be interpreted as wishing that poor old ladies be cut off from a way to go to church on Sundays? Fathers who owe child support go missing every day. There was recently an effort to round them up and make them support thier children and it saved millions of American dollars from the welfare roles in North Carolina. (also created a very substantial discussion about father's rights in divorce cases)
In the situation you mention, the woman names the man, when/if he shows up he owes the government the money it paid to raise his child. If he is never found, we lost that one, but at least we caught some of them.
I'd say this is the Net and a forum for the exchange of ideas and opinions - not America or Europe or Africa or whatever. Or do you think only Americans (i.e. US citizens) should have access to
Agreed. I was responding to several post that referred to Americans as idiots and American law as pathetic, because (and the reason is important) we do it better. The offensive language adequately conveyed my feelings (ie, I am offended).
You are confusing the availability of sexual information and imagery with sexual activity. There is, in fact, a strong inverse correlation between the availability of sexual information and the rates of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc. Ignorance is the problem, not pornography.
/., but it doesn't change my original premise, which, stated concisely, is "We (enter country affiliation here) need to carefully decide which if any of our laws concerning sexuality are relevant, with a realization that there may have been good reasons for implementing those laws in the first place. Furthermore, what people are doing in (enter any other country) may serve as an example but does not necessarily have any bearing on what we should be doing."
Now here is information worthy of
And your conjecture that jealousy is somehow genetic is pure speculation.
Agreed. But it's not my conjecture. Something I picked up from watching the Discovery Channel, reinforced by my own personal experience (for those who must know, went to a swinger's party once. You know, people who believe in free sex, wife swapping and such. Jealousy was as rampant there as anywhere else I've seen. There was even a fight over one particular female.) It just seems to make sense (which doesn't make it fact) that a jealous male is more likely to produce more offspring, and thus produce jealous offspring. The mate of a non-jealous male may be producing offspring for jealous male, but the reverse isn't as likely.
Well, I've just read the whole thread, and I'm damned if I saw a "Europe is so great" post. And quit referring to disparate European countries as Europe.
... The solution that applies in any or all of the above does not necessarily apply here.
I started the thread, so of course you didn't see any "Europe is so great" post in the thread. I was replying to other post. A quote from the third (I think) post.
I'm sure most Europeans consider the North American fear of all things naked in public pathetic.
I reiterate. America is not Europe, England, France, Japan, Sweden, Canada,
Whoah!!! The genius speaks!!! And judging by your poor quality choice of words, you sure don't have English as your first language, either...
And who decides that it is poor choice? You? Thank you for upholding my point of many people holding the "Americans are idiots because they're not us" attitude. Notice how another one of your post falls in line with your snotty superior attitude:
Yeah, and see how your legislative system has fared! I'm not even going to _bother_ starting in on what is wrong with your country...
Maybe the part you think is wrong is the part that I think is right. For instance, "ain't" is perfectly proper English where I come from. The school teachers may not like it, but everyone I converse with on a daily basis knows exactly what I mean. What's more it is often used in a situation where emphasis is desired. I purposely chose that word because I wanted to emphasize that "THIS AIN'T EUROPE!"
Now, this also AIN'T the UK, so take your 'quality choice of words" and "true English fashion" and fuck off, you English-centric snothead. (Pardons to all netizens with a clue.)
Since you bring it up, I think that genetic testing on ALL births should be mandatory, leaving NO QUESTION about who the father is.
I don't know about it being mandatory. Myself, I trust my wife, and, luckily, my kids look like me 8*) (of course, that doesn't rule out my brothers. Damn, there you go making me think...)
My position is that people who are asking society to take responsibility for there actions should be required to mitigate their reliance upon society as much as possible. If the mother isn't asking for public money, I don't care who the father is. It's when you start asking for me to help pay to raise the child that I want to know who it was that got to dance on my dime.
too much open sexuality CAN breed social discord
Examples? Remember that increase in, say, spousal abuse statistics, does not constitute social discord.
You mean to tell me that you've never seen a bar fight resulting from the interaction of a female and two males? I'm not saying a law will curb everything. I'm not even claiming that it will make things better. I am saying that problems exist, and as a society we must consider them.
Laws against adultery originally arose because of the need to know without question the father of a child.
Bullshit. Laws against adultery arose because men tended to treat their wives as property and wanted legal protection for their property. Besides, what's that "need to know without question"? Is it a social need or just personal desire?
The term 'bastard' has lost much of it's deragatory(sp?) nature in recent times, but the stigma at one time carried the weight of being a pariah on society. The 'need to know' was both social and personal. Society as a whole has no wish to pay to raise someone else's children, especially in times past when it was so much more difficult to do so. The individual male feels the same.
If you're married or even have a girlfriend, but would you be totally unphased if you learn that she's been sleeping around behind your back?
And a law is going to help me with that??? Er, man, I'd like some of that stuff you are smoking...
Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps the law can relieve you of the responsibility of children produced from such an occurance? Perhaps the law can release you from the contractual restraint of marriage in such situations? Perhaps if the laws were taken seriously, such a thing might not have happened at all (and to beat the naysayers to the punch, No. A law against adultery will not eliminate it entirely. But it WILL have a chilling effect.)
But what happens to the children born out of wedlock? How many end up on the welfare roles?
If you look at born-out-of-wedlock children of upper-middle class people, you'll find that almost none ends up on welfare. If you look at born-to-married-parents children of people who live in inner-city ghettoes, a lot of them will end up on welfare. And your point is?
That it takes two to make a baby, and statistically at least, the baby has a much better chance of growing out of welfare with two parents. The current situation involves a removal of responsibility from bang 'em and leave 'em men. My personal wish is for men to have responsibility for children they foster. Yes, there are exceptions, but most women know the father of their baby. If that man won't accept at least financial responsibility, I believe it to be a function of government to extract what is necessary. If the woman is going to ask me to support the child through welfare, I do not believe it beyond the pale for me to expect her to reveal the name of the father.
Some of the ancient laws actually have a purpose.
Sure they do. It's just that this purpose is not relevant any more, or looks really silly.
I would (and did in the original posting) agree that many are potentially outdated. My point is that deciding which are must be done with more care than:
for(i=0; i NUM_LAWS; i++){
if(involves_sex(law[i]))
discard(law[i]);
}
Most coins have two sides, as does this one. Mr. Katz, how much public sexuality is appropriate?
I ask this question, because to much open sexuality CAN breed social discord. Evolution has bred into the human creature thing like jealousy. There are things like STDs (which condoms are NOT a panacea, no matter what you've heard on MTV). Laws against adultery originally arose because of the need to know without question the father of a child.
It's easy to sit back and say that law which are based in 100's or 1000's of years of history are ridiculous, but have we really evolved out of the need for them. I don't know if you're married or even have a girlfriend, but would you be totally unphased if you learn that she's been sleeping around behind your back?
There are laws against extra-marital sex, and these are mostly ignored nowadays. I would hazard to say that most here agree with this state of affairs. But what happens to the children born out of wedlock? How many end up on the welfare roles? In other words, how many am I helping to raise with my tax dollars? Why isn't the 'man' who fathered the child paying his fair share? (My personal belief is that a woman should be required to name the father before receiving welfare. Funds could then be recouped appropriately.)
I do agree that our laws need to be looked at, but I disagree that we need to throw them out willy-nilly. We can have laws on the books that aren't actively enforced, but if you show up in court with at problem that arises from the breaking of said law you'll get smacked. Some of the ancient laws actually have a purpose.
For the people claiming that Europe is so great because they do this and that. Fuck-off. This ain't Europe. We'll decide to do things our way. Besides, wasn't it Sweden that wouldn't allow Donald Duck to appear on TV because he wasn't wearing pants?
The internet is the new city.
:)
Does this mean it is destined to be destroyed, as Nostradamus predicted?
I've often wondered, the biblical Book of Revelations talks of a beast that will rise out of the masses and know everything about everyone and it would be controled by the antiChrist. Does the beast == wireless internet?
there is a child crying. I do not know the child, but it cries nonetheless.
Somewhere in the world, a dot.com is going under. I do not know the dot.com or the information they produced, but they are going under nonetheless.
Somewhere in the world, a grandmother is creating a web page of her grandchildren's pictures. I do not know the grandmother or her grandchildren, and I will never visit her web page, but the page is created nonetheless.
Just because something is happening somewhere in the world doesn't mean I have to be cognizant of it. The Net gives us the ability to be cognizant of everything. Having the ability to do something is not a requirement that it be done.
At the heyday of the industrial age, people moving from remote farms to the city would be overwhelmed by all the noise and 'hustl-n-bustle'. People who had grown up in the city were quite used to the noise and activity, and subconsciously filtered it all out.
The internet is the new city. Those who spend time here learn to filter the noise to the point where it isn't even noticed. Newbies come and feel that they must read every word of every article. They must know the city as well as they knew their farmstead. The gurus out there know that you ignore everything except what is important to you.
As for exponential growth being fatality, the argument is that as a species grow larger than the ability of the environment to support them, the species will die out. But I pose the question, what happens when the environment is growing exponentially, say along the lines of Moore's Law?
Except that the wheel has an Axle - Log Rollers don't.
CORRECT. Johnny, tell this man what he has won...
The great advancement with the wheel was the axle. There were 'rolly' type things before, but it was the axle that made wheels useful.