That's as meaningless as asking where God came from. Without data we cannot speculate scientifically, and so far we have not been made aware of any relevant data.
As others have said, this is possible, but you are right that most users do not have this option. Part of the problem is that the X configuration system used in the current version of Debian is a debacle. I sincerely hope other distributions do a better job.
Was I the only one who was impressed at the President's technical knowledge -- namely of the fact that the capital-I "Internet" is a network of numerous lowercase-i internets?
I don't know that it's obvious that anyone ever really said it, but Bill Gates certainly didn't play any significant role in determining it.
What was likely said, and by an IBM engineer, was something along the lines of "a 1MB address space ought to be enough for this personal computer." Keep in mind that the PC was not intended as an architecture that would take over the world and still be around in 25 years. That happened purely by accident.
The 640K limit for base RAM was a simple consequence of the choice of processor, as the Intel 8086 is limited to a 1MB addressing bus. IBM presumably chose that particular chip because it was reasonably inexpensive and comparable with the CPUs of other personal computers of its day.
It was much later when Bill Gates came to be a symbol of the PC revolution, and as the most vocal proponent of the PC, it was natural for people to think of him when they encountered its most frustrating limitations. So I can believe him when he says he didn't say it.
On the other hand, there is plenty of doubt as to:
- What the actual consequences will be - Whether it is possible to avert them at this point anyway - Whether the costs of averting those consequences exceed the costs of those consequences - Whether it is better to act now or later, when we have better technology
Don't be an idiot. The courts only establish whether it is to be legally held as true, not whether it is really true. Ask OJ Simpson about this.
We can still argue about whether what Intel is doing is legal or not. The argument that they are not breaking laws because the legal authority has not yet spoken is a silly one.
Got news for you - it's 2005, and 1970 was 35 years ago. Not to mention that you are giving one anecdotal example with no references, and that you have in no way at all supported the claim that this is the general business climate in the United States.
You must be from Europe. Corporate thuggery does not exist in the United States to any meaningful degree. A huge portion of the US economy is just regular people who started their own companies. Just because we have more guns per capita than Europeans doesn't mean that business is conducted by the bullet.
It's actually completely clear that no information at all can be transmitted by entanglement. Attempting to come up with a way to do so is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept, like trying to make a perpetual motion machine using magnetism.
K, I think there should totally be an award for "Intelligent, Interesting Post that Undeservedly Generates the Most Stupid Replies", and that you should win it.
This particular venture was privately financed, so it essentially amounts to a bunch of people getting together and flying a really expensive kite. So now is a time we can skip the "space is waste" crap.
Fonts -- meaning that file (or files) of computer data that represent a particular typeface -- are absolutely copyrightable. That's why Linux distributors cannot distribute the fonts from Microsoft or Apple (though an end-user can download some fonts from Microsoft's web site, or use the fonts from their own Windows installation).
It is the typeface itself that cannot be copyrighted. But that's the way the characters look, not the data that represents them to a computer. So I'm free to clone the Arial typeface by developing my own font that represents it, but I can't just copy Microsoft's font.
Developing a good font from a typeface is a lot of hard work, I hear.
- are mainly lowly technicians, swapping parts around in a machine that happens to have obnoxiously complicated service procedures (due to its literally ancient design). Whether that is worth what they charge is up to you I suppose, but I for one am satisfied.
Let me introduce you to the word "idiot", Mr. Coward.
For all I know, the word "bad" refers to the Baddies, a now-extinct group that was killed off in the Great Genocide of 12633 BC. And I know for a fact that "dumb" is a slur against those who can't speak. How do the mentally retarded feel when I call someone "retarded"? How do they feel about the old word for it, "idiot"? I guess it's better to call someone a "fool", which has something to do with bags in Latin.
Anyway, history is bloody, bigoted, and mean; language naturally reflects history, but words that once referred to specific groups lose that reference over time. Americans don't encounter Romanis, so saying you were "gypped" doesn't really remind anyone of gypsies. Of course this could be completely different in England.
Which, of course, is part of why international relations are so difficult.
Well no, it's a stupid argument. It's like calling a paper company a media company because books are printed on paper. It's like calling a construction company a media company because they build radio towers.
Google is a technology company and everybody knows it, except apparently the BBC. This is the non-story of the year, but at least it gives Slashdotters a chance to say dumb things about the stock market.
I don't know what country you're from, but here in the US it's generally understood that an "average" person is far more likely to be drinking beer than working out.
You're taking a tremendously oversimplified approach to the interaction between the public and private sector in society.
First of all, lots of private companies compete successfully against the government. People buy bottled water (and other commercial drinks) when the only drink anyone really needs is the government-provided tap water. But it's not as simple as all that, either.
Once upon a time people had radios, but there wasn't much of a power grid. So to run your radio, you had to buy a battery from someone, and pay them to charge it when it ran out. So of course people made money on radio batteries.
When local governments decided to subsidize the installation of a comprehensive power grid, the citizens were happy that they didn't have to buy batteries anymore. I'm sure the private companies selling people batteries complained to no end that Big Brother was killing the little guy and so on, but nobody listened.
Of course, the government's decision to support something that wouldn't return a profit anytime soon led to an entire industry of home electronics. Time and time again, the government's infrastructure fuels private industry growth.
The free market gives you a right to try to make a profit, not the right to be successful.
Remember? It's life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. If we start trying to guarantee our corporations profits and guarantee our citizens happiness, we may as well call ourselves Europe.
Well, fortunately for Texans, the Texas legislature only meets once every two years and does so for a limited period of time. The current political climate in Austin is one of extreme acrimony after the redistricting battle in 2003 and the failure this year to come up with any school finance plan whatsoever. With fairly massive issues confronting the government, including budget problems (school finance and property taxes in particular), there is little time or patience for motions that have already failed in the past.
I'm sure the sponsor of this particular legislation will introduce it again, but since it turned out to be controversial there will probably not be serious support for it. Also, over the next two years some cities will probably see fit to experiment with municipal wi-fi, and those cities will be strongly opposed to such a move.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh really?
I hear 1.2 was a little premature, and would often give you an Illegal Operation. I think 2.2 was the recommended version.
That's as meaningless as asking where God came from. Without data we cannot speculate scientifically, and so far we have not been made aware of any relevant data.
As others have said, this is possible, but you are right that most users do not have this option. Part of the problem is that the X configuration system used in the current version of Debian is a debacle. I sincerely hope other distributions do a better job.
Was I the only one who was impressed at the President's technical knowledge -- namely of the fact that the capital-I "Internet" is a network of numerous lowercase-i internets?
The point being that the decision was internal to IBM, not something Microsoft was involved with.
Intel was absolutely the winner in the long run, as they gained a dominance in the PC CPU market that continues to this day.
I don't know that it's obvious that anyone ever really said it, but Bill Gates certainly didn't play any significant role in determining it.
What was likely said, and by an IBM engineer, was something along the lines of "a 1MB address space ought to be enough for this personal computer." Keep in mind that the PC was not intended as an architecture that would take over the world and still be around in 25 years. That happened purely by accident.
The 640K limit for base RAM was a simple consequence of the choice of processor, as the Intel 8086 is limited to a 1MB addressing bus. IBM presumably chose that particular chip because it was reasonably inexpensive and comparable with the CPUs of other personal computers of its day.
It was much later when Bill Gates came to be a symbol of the PC revolution, and as the most vocal proponent of the PC, it was natural for people to think of him when they encountered its most frustrating limitations. So I can believe him when he says he didn't say it.
On the other hand, there is plenty of doubt as to:
- What the actual consequences will be
- Whether it is possible to avert them at this point anyway
- Whether the costs of averting those consequences exceed the costs of those consequences
- Whether it is better to act now or later, when we have better technology
Don't be an idiot. The courts only establish whether it is to be legally held as true, not whether it is really true. Ask OJ Simpson about this.
We can still argue about whether what Intel is doing is legal or not. The argument that they are not breaking laws because the legal authority has not yet spoken is a silly one.
It's fairly well described on the Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Basically the two particles will exhibit the same state at the same time, but it's not possible to control what state that is.
Got news for you - it's 2005, and 1970 was 35 years ago. Not to mention that you are giving one anecdotal example with no references, and that you have in no way at all supported the claim that this is the general business climate in the United States.
You must be from Europe. Corporate thuggery does not exist in the United States to any meaningful degree. A huge portion of the US economy is just regular people who started their own companies. Just because we have more guns per capita than Europeans doesn't mean that business is conducted by the bullet.
It's actually completely clear that no information at all can be transmitted by entanglement. Attempting to come up with a way to do so is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept, like trying to make a perpetual motion machine using magnetism.
K, I think there should totally be an award for "Intelligent, Interesting Post that Undeservedly Generates the Most Stupid Replies", and that you should win it.
Yes! Then we'll make a Beowulf cluster of all the original jokes! But can we install Linux on it?
This particular venture was privately financed, so it essentially amounts to a bunch of people getting together and flying a really expensive kite. So now is a time we can skip the "space is waste" crap.
Whoa, you're not a lawyer for sure. Nor am I.
Fonts -- meaning that file (or files) of computer data that represent a particular typeface -- are absolutely copyrightable. That's why Linux distributors cannot distribute the fonts from Microsoft or Apple (though an end-user can download some fonts from Microsoft's web site, or use the fonts from their own Windows installation).
It is the typeface itself that cannot be copyrighted. But that's the way the characters look, not the data that represents them to a computer. So I'm free to clone the Arial typeface by developing my own font that represents it, but I can't just copy Microsoft's font.
Developing a good font from a typeface is a lot of hard work, I hear.
My transplant surgeons:
- were expensive (you don't even want to know)
- rely on human disease to get business
- are mainly lowly technicians, swapping parts around in a machine that happens to have obnoxiously complicated service procedures (due to its literally ancient design). Whether that is worth what they charge is up to you I suppose, but I for one am satisfied.
Let me introduce you to the word "idiot", Mr. Coward.
All true; this is a hard topic, though.
For all I know, the word "bad" refers to the Baddies, a now-extinct group that was killed off in the Great Genocide of 12633 BC. And I know for a fact that "dumb" is a slur against those who can't speak. How do the mentally retarded feel when I call someone "retarded"? How do they feel about the old word for it, "idiot"? I guess it's better to call someone a "fool", which has something to do with bags in Latin.
Anyway, history is bloody, bigoted, and mean; language naturally reflects history, but words that once referred to specific groups lose that reference over time. Americans don't encounter Romanis, so saying you were "gypped" doesn't really remind anyone of gypsies. Of course this could be completely different in England.
Which, of course, is part of why international relations are so difficult.
Well no, it's a stupid argument. It's like calling a paper company a media company because books are printed on paper. It's like calling a construction company a media company because they build radio towers.
Google is a technology company and everybody knows it, except apparently the BBC. This is the non-story of the year, but at least it gives Slashdotters a chance to say dumb things about the stock market.
No... there might not be that many of them, but in general, geek girls are only interested in geek guys.
So: hello, speciation.
I don't know what country you're from, but here in the US it's generally understood that an "average" person is far more likely to be drinking beer than working out.
You're taking a tremendously oversimplified approach to the interaction between the public and private sector in society.
First of all, lots of private companies compete successfully against the government. People buy bottled water (and other commercial drinks) when the only drink anyone really needs is the government-provided tap water. But it's not as simple as all that, either.
Once upon a time people had radios, but there wasn't much of a power grid. So to run your radio, you had to buy a battery from someone, and pay them to charge it when it ran out. So of course people made money on radio batteries.
When local governments decided to subsidize the installation of a comprehensive power grid, the citizens were happy that they didn't have to buy batteries anymore. I'm sure the private companies selling people batteries complained to no end that Big Brother was killing the little guy and so on, but nobody listened.
Of course, the government's decision to support something that wouldn't return a profit anytime soon led to an entire industry of home electronics. Time and time again, the government's infrastructure fuels private industry growth.
The free market gives you a right to try to make a profit, not the right to be successful.
Remember? It's life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. If we start trying to guarantee our corporations profits and guarantee our citizens happiness, we may as well call ourselves Europe.
Well, fortunately for Texans, the Texas legislature only meets once every two years and does so for a limited period of time. The current political climate in Austin is one of extreme acrimony after the redistricting battle in 2003 and the failure this year to come up with any school finance plan whatsoever. With fairly massive issues confronting the government, including budget problems (school finance and property taxes in particular), there is little time or patience for motions that have already failed in the past.
I'm sure the sponsor of this particular legislation will introduce it again, but since it turned out to be controversial there will probably not be serious support for it. Also, over the next two years some cities will probably see fit to experiment with municipal wi-fi, and those cities will be strongly opposed to such a move.