I haven't used Joomla!, but I'm absolutely in love with Drupal. It's very easy to administer (if you're at least a little tech-savvy) and has modules available for just about anything you might ask of it.
For example, at my personal site, I have a personalized home page with all the content I would normally have on iGoogle or My Yahoo!. If you were actually logged in as me, that page would also have my stock quotes and weather information.
I liked it well enough to convert most sites I host to it (and it has great support for virtual hosting) because I found that I was spending more time managing the management system than the content in my old setups, where Drupal just gets out of the way and makes it easy maintain. Again, I love it.
Oh, and there are plenty of nice themes floating around. I really don't like the ones that come with it any more than some of the other posts, but it's easy enough to drop in another.
If they took 2 days to respond to an email of mine I'd know something is up. A response doesn't have to be "OK here's your check" [...] It could also be "Got your email, Marilyn [...]"
My daughter discovered this infernal thing called iGoogle, something exactly like a yahoo portal customized from her google/gmail account.
Hey, I like iGoogle (but still prefer My Yahoo!). In fact, I liked it so much that I installed Drupal and its MySite module on my home server so I could have something like it that I control completely. It also supports Google Gadgets, so you're not really giving up anything by using it.
Oh, definitely. The main advantage to my suggestion is that we already know how to make dams and we're good at distributing electricity, but that certainly doesn't mean there aren't 100 other goods ways.
One fairly efficient way is to use a water reservoir. During low-demand periods, use the energy to pump water uphill. During high-demand periods, turn that stored potential energy into electricity using turbines.
It's cheap, we're pretty good at building dams, and it scales well.
The price of the stock is completely irrelevant to how much risk you're taking.
Wrong. That's pretty much all it's related to.
If SCO did a 10000-to-1 reverse split, would they then be much more risky because their stock was trading at $10k?
No, because the price per percentage of the company would be unchanged.
Contrawise, various brokers allow fractional share purchases, but just because you can buy $100 worth of any stock doesn't mean they're equally risky.
Who ever said that? Certainly not I. OK, stocks 101: the price of a share is only relevant within the context of that company. If Wal-Mart had a 40:1 split, their $1/share stock would still be reasonably conservative because it's quite possible that it might go up. If SCO has $1/share stock, it'd be an incredible risk to by more because it seems more likely that its price will drop below that. Of course $1 of Wal-Mart in this case would convey less risk (and also less potential windfall profit) than $1 of SCO.
But my original supposition is still true. Although you can buy fractional shares, it's still common to buy a block of 100 shares from a broker. At this price point, I'd buy a block of SCO for $44 just as a conversation piece or to use as gift wrap or something. Maybe they'll get lucky and beat IBM and my $44 would turn into $1,000. If not, oh well - I'm out less than $50.
I'm not saying they should expect that at all. I'm saying that if people don't research their purchases, they shouldn't get much sympathy when they complain about known defects, intentional or not.
It's the much-hyped latest and greatest. Why should any customer ever have a reason to guess that it would be deliberately broken? They didn't buy the cheap alternative - in their minds, they paid full price for the best. They should, in fact, have every reason to believe that it would work well and do what they ask of it. And if you were completely non-technical, how would you even begin your search?
If the expected return is less than the purchase price, it is a bad buy, even if the tickets only cost $0.45 each.
The expected return on the lawsuit was $(small_percent) * $(huge_payoff). There was a non-zero (albeit slim) chance that the justice system would have awarded SCO a few billion dollars and then there stock would have been worth quite a bit. Again, there was little to lose and potentially a lot to gain. Given the relatively decent reward:risk ratio, quite a few people thought it was worth a shot.
I am not one of those people. I thought the whole thing was stupid. But the above and my previous answer are what a wise friend told me when I asked him why rational people would buy this dog of a stock.
The most surprising thing here to me is that this implies some share holders actually believed SCO had a case here.
Well, here's how it was explained to me:
SCO is so dirt-cheap right now that you can basically play with it without risk. At a dollar a share, you can buy a block of 100 shares and if it tanks you've lost a whopping $100. However, if by some miracle they actually managed to win, maybe that $100 would become a few thousand. Basically, it had a huge potential upside with almost no downside and a lot of people bought it just to see what might happen.
Well, that upside just vanished and the stock plummeted. You could also interpret this as meaning that 70% of SCO's market value was based on potential lottery winnings, and when the lottery date came and went without SCO winning, its price dropped to compensate.
But IANA stock analyst, so take that with a grain of salt.
But the concept of EOL'ing an operating system that's at the heart of bazillion old machines out there seems completely wrong, to the point of being bizarre.
My experience as a programmer leads me to disagree. Sometimes old branches of code reach the point where they simply can't be taken any further, regardless of what pressing needs (like security updates) are placed upon them. After a while, you end up with huge deltas between the current release codebase and the legacy branches, and it may not even be possible to reverse engineer patches from the former onto the latter. There eventually comes a time when you have to say "we've done all we think we can do with this" and wash your hands of it.
I'm by no measure a Microsoft apologist, but I won't hold this particular choice against them when it's one I've made myself in the past.
Seriously, the information was out there, all they had to do was spend 30 seconds on a search engine. There's really not much more anyone can do for these people.
Don't be an ass. My sister bought a new Dell recently. Why the hell would it even occur to her, a non-geek, to look into Vista's artificial limitations? You're begging the question by assuming that people should expect their computer to have those limitations in the first place.
Requisite automotive analogy: you go out and buy a new car. When you try to drive it to your mom's house in the next town, it breaks down at your city limit sign. Your mechanic laughs his ass off; all of them know that your model of car doesn't support inter-city driving. Didn't you research that before you bought it? Idiot!
Seriously, I'm waiting for a legitimate answer: why should customers expect products to be deliberately defective?
You know, I am really getting tired of the anti-global-warming people using anything they can find to discredit the science. [...] They are missing the point. [...] Whether global warming is really happening or not is not so much important as the fact that we are belching tons (literally) of pollution into the air and water.
In other words, you've already made up your mind and wish everyone else would hurry up and reach the same conclusion.
Look, everyone wants a nice, clean planet to live on. But what if global warming were somehow completely discredited? Would we still have to make the radical changes to our infrastructure that I suppose you'd advocate if the threat no longer existed? Put another way, if the science really were discredited and it turned out that all that pollution doesn't affect the environment after all, would we still have to make the changes? I mean, you're already certain that they're necessary.
Actually, I bought an old G3 for the kids and through 10.4 and an extra 512MB of memory on it. It runs like a champ. If Grandma wants to run Doom 3, maybe not so much, but web and email and everything else she'd be likely to do with Linux on the same hardware should be fine.
This could help me learn enough to develop a db as part of an application suite for photographers, for myself really but I'd like to be able to sale it to other photographers as well, especially if it's going to take me a significant amount of tyme to develop.
You want SQLite. It's fast, it's simple, and it's Free. You can embed it in your software (regardless of license) and it'll just work.
Don't care. I bought a Wii so that my wife and I could have a fun console that we could both enjoy. It's on the el-cheapo 19" TV in our bedroom, so HD is completely useless to me. We already have a DVD player. I specifically do not want BluRay. Nintendo's concentrating on quick, fun games instead of hard-core appeal (although Resident Evil 4 is incredibly great).
Despite all those reasons, Ars must be right: we bought a Wii because we just didn't know what the 360 or PS3 could do. Yeah, that's it.
The blood products branch MUST make money to do what they do, for processing blood products is quite expensive, and heavily regulated by the FDA.
In my hometown, there was such a backlash in the medical community about the outrageous prices that the Red Cross charged for blood, and the fact that they'd randomly shuffle blood products around the country, that someone opened a community-based donation center. It's become the de-facto blood source for that city. Donate blood and a local recipient gets it. Get blood and know that it came from your neighbor. All this at a fraction of the price that the Red Cross charged.
Others seem to be able to do it for less, so I don't really buy that argument.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't used Joomla!, but I'm absolutely in love with Drupal. It's very easy to administer (if you're at least a little tech-savvy) and has modules available for just about anything you might ask of it.
For example, at my personal site, I have a personalized home page with all the content I would normally have on iGoogle or My Yahoo!. If you were actually logged in as me, that page would also have my stock quotes and weather information.
I liked it well enough to convert most sites I host to it (and it has great support for virtual hosting) because I found that I was spending more time managing the management system than the content in my old setups, where Drupal just gets out of the way and makes it easy maintain. Again, I love it.
Oh, and there are plenty of nice themes floating around. I really don't like the ones that come with it any more than some of the other posts, but it's easy enough to drop in another.
That had to be asked, you understand. Nothing personal. :-)
You go by Marilyn?
Hey, I like iGoogle (but still prefer My Yahoo!). In fact, I liked it so much that I installed Drupal and its MySite module on my home server so I could have something like it that I control completely. It also supports Google Gadgets, so you're not really giving up anything by using it.
Oh, definitely. The main advantage to my suggestion is that we already know how to make dams and we're good at distributing electricity, but that certainly doesn't mean there aren't 100 other goods ways.
One fairly efficient way is to use a water reservoir. During low-demand periods, use the energy to pump water uphill. During high-demand periods, turn that stored potential energy into electricity using turbines.
It's cheap, we're pretty good at building dams, and it scales well.
That was a great story the last time you told it, too.
Wrong. That's pretty much all it's related to.
If SCO did a 10000-to-1 reverse split, would they then be much more risky because their stock was trading at $10k?
No, because the price per percentage of the company would be unchanged.
Contrawise, various brokers allow fractional share purchases, but just because you can buy $100 worth of any stock doesn't mean they're equally risky.Who ever said that? Certainly not I. OK, stocks 101: the price of a share is only relevant within the context of that company. If Wal-Mart had a 40:1 split, their $1/share stock would still be reasonably conservative because it's quite possible that it might go up. If SCO has $1/share stock, it'd be an incredible risk to by more because it seems more likely that its price will drop below that. Of course $1 of Wal-Mart in this case would convey less risk (and also less potential windfall profit) than $1 of SCO.
But my original supposition is still true. Although you can buy fractional shares, it's still common to buy a block of 100 shares from a broker. At this price point, I'd buy a block of SCO for $44 just as a conversation piece or to use as gift wrap or something. Maybe they'll get lucky and beat IBM and my $44 would turn into $1,000. If not, oh well - I'm out less than $50.
It's the much-hyped latest and greatest. Why should any customer ever have a reason to guess that it would be deliberately broken? They didn't buy the cheap alternative - in their minds, they paid full price for the best. They should, in fact, have every reason to believe that it would work well and do what they ask of it. And if you were completely non-technical, how would you even begin your search?
The expected return on the lawsuit was $(small_percent) * $(huge_payoff). There was a non-zero (albeit slim) chance that the justice system would have awarded SCO a few billion dollars and then there stock would have been worth quite a bit. Again, there was little to lose and potentially a lot to gain. Given the relatively decent reward:risk ratio, quite a few people thought it was worth a shot.
I am not one of those people. I thought the whole thing was stupid. But the above and my previous answer are what a wise friend told me when I asked him why rational people would buy this dog of a stock.
I have to salt my dog's food so that it drinks enough water to keep from being dehydrated.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with anything, but it's all I could think of that seemed to fit.
Me.
and why are they buying it?Gag gifts for the next decade and the pretense of luxury. Some people snort coke with a twenty dollar bill. I curb my dog with stock certificates.
Well, here's how it was explained to me:
SCO is so dirt-cheap right now that you can basically play with it without risk. At a dollar a share, you can buy a block of 100 shares and if it tanks you've lost a whopping $100. However, if by some miracle they actually managed to win, maybe that $100 would become a few thousand. Basically, it had a huge potential upside with almost no downside and a lot of people bought it just to see what might happen.
Well, that upside just vanished and the stock plummeted. You could also interpret this as meaning that 70% of SCO's market value was based on potential lottery winnings, and when the lottery date came and went without SCO winning, its price dropped to compensate.
But IANA stock analyst, so take that with a grain of salt.
My experience as a programmer leads me to disagree. Sometimes old branches of code reach the point where they simply can't be taken any further, regardless of what pressing needs (like security updates) are placed upon them. After a while, you end up with huge deltas between the current release codebase and the legacy branches, and it may not even be possible to reverse engineer patches from the former onto the latter. There eventually comes a time when you have to say "we've done all we think we can do with this" and wash your hands of it.
I'm by no measure a Microsoft apologist, but I won't hold this particular choice against them when it's one I've made myself in the past.
The guys who wrote "Jak & Daxter" thought so.
Don't be an ass. My sister bought a new Dell recently. Why the hell would it even occur to her, a non-geek, to look into Vista's artificial limitations? You're begging the question by assuming that people should expect their computer to have those limitations in the first place.
Requisite automotive analogy: you go out and buy a new car. When you try to drive it to your mom's house in the next town, it breaks down at your city limit sign. Your mechanic laughs his ass off; all of them know that your model of car doesn't support inter-city driving. Didn't you research that before you bought it? Idiot!
Seriously, I'm waiting for a legitimate answer: why should customers expect products to be deliberately defective?
In other words, you've already made up your mind and wish everyone else would hurry up and reach the same conclusion.
Look, everyone wants a nice, clean planet to live on. But what if global warming were somehow completely discredited? Would we still have to make the radical changes to our infrastructure that I suppose you'd advocate if the threat no longer existed? Put another way, if the science really were discredited and it turned out that all that pollution doesn't affect the environment after all, would we still have to make the changes? I mean, you're already certain that they're necessary.
The "Campaign Against Sco Harassment", of which I am president. You may abbreviate.
Yes, it runs on a G3.
And yes, I saw that the second I clicked "submit".
Actually, I bought an old G3 for the kids and through 10.4 and an extra 512MB of memory on it. It runs like a champ. If Grandma wants to run Doom 3, maybe not so much, but web and email and everything else she'd be likely to do with Linux on the same hardware should be fine.
You gave your own grandma an iMac and then put Linux on it?
Why do you hate your grandma?
You want SQLite. It's fast, it's simple, and it's Free. You can embed it in your software (regardless of license) and it'll just work.
Don't care. I bought a Wii so that my wife and I could have a fun console that we could both enjoy. It's on the el-cheapo 19" TV in our bedroom, so HD is completely useless to me. We already have a DVD player. I specifically do not want BluRay. Nintendo's concentrating on quick, fun games instead of hard-core appeal (although Resident Evil 4 is incredibly great).
Despite all those reasons, Ars must be right: we bought a Wii because we just didn't know what the 360 or PS3 could do. Yeah, that's it.
That would be true, but we don't have exponentially increasing computational resources. Moore's Law, for instance, describes geometric increase.
In my hometown, there was such a backlash in the medical community about the outrageous prices that the Red Cross charged for blood, and the fact that they'd randomly shuffle blood products around the country, that someone opened a community-based donation center. It's become the de-facto blood source for that city. Donate blood and a local recipient gets it. Get blood and know that it came from your neighbor. All this at a fraction of the price that the Red Cross charged.
Others seem to be able to do it for less, so I don't really buy that argument.