Actually, given the way you clarify what you say, I agree. Many people try to defend the programs that the Federal have enacted by twisting the wording of the Constitution. It looked like you were doing the same to me, which is unfortunate.
It looked as if you were saying that many of the Federal programs were acceptable as a result of the "necessary and proper clause", instead of that they were justifying them by using such. I would not accept that there is Constitutional support for such programs as Medicare or Social Security, but I understand how the Federal justifies them with the wording of the Constitution. I just believe that they are overstepping their authority by doing so.
I did not mean to make "necessary and proper" seem useless. I actually believe that it is essential, since the Constitution does not state how many things should be conducted, but only allow the Federal to carry out those functions. Without that clause, they would not be able to pass laws to specify how to proceed for those powers. I do not believe that it should serve as support for any power that is not specifically enumerated, however. In the case of census, for example, the Federal has to have the power to make the data collection mandatory. If this means creating a department to oversee the census, then it would be provided for under "necessary and proper".
I don't have interest in being a lawyer. It's just not a field I want to be involved with. I actually am disgusted that the profession is necessary, though I do not have a problem with it existing. That the law is so complicated that it requires specialists in the field shows that there is substantial problem with our legal structure. However, I also believe that the majority of the law should rest on the States, which makes lawyers important for any company operating outside of a local level.
Education: That that percentage drops daily, and has for fourty years. Federal meddling has been increasing over the same period, starting from nearly nothing.
Currency: That is why the dollar is falling against most other currency, why we have no backing to the dollar, and why people are currently buying huge amounts of gold?
Congress: Since everyone is elected by the People, they represent only the People; the States lost their say with the amendment for the direct election of Senators.
Taxes: The Federal levies income tax, and collects by force. They then use this money for Social Security, etc, and you have no choice in the matter. Again, people *DO* question their legality, like most of the Constitution and Libertarian parties, among many others. I don't remember anything in the Constitution about the Federal forcing me to give up my money to pay for health care or retirement pyramid schemes, and that's because it isn't there.
Just because our taxes are lower today does not mean that it is okay. There wasn't supposed to be a Federal income tax, because it allows the Federal to grow large and gain too much power. It allows the Federal to make the States rely on it to exist. Exactly as it has done, and how it is today.
The Civil Rights Act was a bad choice. I would consider it to be a blatent cause of racism, as well as trampling my Constitutional right to freedom of association. Having a law that says government may not discriminate is fine and necessary, but forcing the People to do the same is unacceptable. To make it worse, as most things the Federal does, this act didn't work; we ended up with such lunacy as Affirmative Action. There have even been successful cases of people that have sued others under the act, because their workplace didn't account for their horrible fear of black people.
Limitation of power: Federal power was purposefully limited to what was written in the Constitution, and what was necessary to support those function. That's all the neccessary and proper clause is for: support. Just because it was abused does not mean that it was intended to be abused. Lawyers don't see a problem, well, they get rich as a result; they're not likely to speak out.
I said they have no power other than the enumerated powers. There is no other intelligent way to read the Constitution than that. They explicitly state just that. I also said that one of the powers under the Constitution is for the Federal to enact laws to allow it to complete those other enumerated powers. The Federal has unconstitutionally enact many laws that do not operate to support their role in the Constitution, and, frequently, work against other rights specifically reserved to the People.
Yes, it was. The 17th amendment made the Senate elected by the people in the same way as the House of Representatives. This change happened within months of removing the check against Federal size, by enacting the 16th, which allowed the collection of income tax at the Federal level. www.archive.gov is your friend for this stuff!:)
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
No, you can do what you're saying. It's just that if you do, you aren't really running 64 bit, since, as you point out, all your apps are 32 bit. Ubuntu-64 compiles everything targetted at AMD64, so you need to do crazy things to get it all to work and get most of the 32 bit platform installed along with your 64 bit stuff.
The downside is having to have a 32bit C lib, 32 bit browser, 32 bit Java, etc. It quickly starts to eliminate the reason to try to run 64 bit if all of your software is targetted to IA-32.
Considering that Itanium, P4, Athlon, and Opteron are totally useless for portable systems... what's your point? You don't use a 100W chip in a laptop. Intel maintains the P3 line for portables, and AMD has their own separate line of portable chips.
Yeah, no kidding, and the worst offenders are these wonderful things that everyone tauts as the fix to the problem: the web browser, and assorted plugins, and Java. The next biggest is video codecs, courtesy of the Windows people that can't seem to understand why it's nice to be able to play back that precious content if they want you to buy it.
I tried to run 64 bit Linux with Ubuntu. It wasn't worth it. I spent a week screwing around with it and trying to be able to just reliably play a video, or to even start a something that was written in Java. I formatted and went back to 32 bit Ubuntu. It's no picnic trying to do the same with Windows, either; very similar problems.
Yes, and that might have happened, if it weren't for the 17th and 18th amendments. However, you are very wrong about what the Constitution says, and what people believe. The Constitition is *very* clear about these things. Most of the bloating of the Federal that has led to their current overbearing existance is a result of the perversion of the Commerce clause.
Also, Article I, Section 8:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Congress is allowed to make law only to allow for the powers in the Constitution. *That* is the necessary and proper clause. It *specifically* says only powers granted by the Constitution. The Federal needs to be able to exercise those powers, and so must be able to create laws to do so. To take the example from this thread: the Constitution says the Federal has to power to take census, but the Federal must pass laws to codify *how* this is to occur, as it is not stated in the Constitution.
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The People have rights that are not listed, and the government may not use the fact that those rights are not listed to prevent the People from exercising them.
Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If it isn't listed in the Constitution, the Federal doesn't have the power, end of story. Honestly, people that say otherwise, judges and such included, are *wrong*.
If you want to actually take a little initiative... look how far the US has fallen since the People let the Federal ignore the Constitution. Our education is a travesty, we pay ridiculous amounts in Federal taxes, the States and Towns are on the edge of bankrupcy but the Fed is sitting high, we have programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Welface, and Social Security that are so flawed that it's ridiculous, and you can't get out from under them. You have massive agencies devoted to spying on the populace, agencies that you don't even get to know what they do, massive amounts of secret documentation, and an unstable currency due to Federal manipulation of the economy. *ALL* of these things are functions that the Federal is doing that they are not Constitutionally allowed to do.
I would say that Congress doesn't have the power to delegate those agencies, and that they *are* illegal. But you have no State representation in the Federal, and the Federal controls all the budgets. If you're a State, you pretty much have to do what the Fed wants, or you're screwed.
This is what the Civil War was about, so don't believe for a second that the Federal isn't doing anything wrong. When you ignore your charter and step all over the way things are supposed to work, you tend to piss people off. Back then, the States had a say; today they don't.
Intel rushed everything to do with P4. Netburst is an engineering fiasco, and it hurt performance for a long time, and still does frequently. Even today, the Intel hyper-threading implementation hinders performance in some conditions. If you have an architecture that has a higher IPC for less complexity than another, there needs to be very good reasons for a transition instead of further development. Intel decided to stop P3 while it had life left, go to P4 with Netburst, add HT, repeatedly fix HT, and then restart P3 development with the Pentium-M because of numerous problems with everything in the P4.
Nobody else out there needs clocks as high as Intel for the same performance. AMD is still around the 2GHz mark on Athlon64; Sun doesn't even need to push their UltraSPARCs even that high because of a better ISA. Hell, Itanium is substantially better than P4, but it's another of Intel's flops caused by their own marketing. We don't need 10GHz parts, we just need better parts.
The PC world has never been about the best technology... just the cheapest and easiest to market. That's why we have half-assed things like SATA and the x86 ISA, for example.
The P3 design is old (dates back to Pentium-Pro), but it provides more per clock than the travesty that is the P4. It doesn't have constant issues with branch predication failures causing a potentially 24 cycle execution halt, from flushing the pipeline, for example. Compared to P4, it also requires substantially less power to do the same work *and* it's much less expensive to manufacture. The P4 is a bad design, and it's amazing the amount of money they've thrown at it, just to have to keep working on P3 because of the P4 shortcomings.
Perhaps you're right, and if so, then I'd pretty much agree with that. I find that most of the time that people say something similar to the Google thing, it's because they don't understand how their tech actually works. (This is where real training courses and books and such help.)
When I actually don't know the solution, but I know how the tech works, and what it's supposed to be doing, I don't need to look anything up. I diagnose what the problem is, then look to see what could cause it. Once I find that, I fix it, or I look to reference on the particular thing. (Unless, of course, it's an emergency and it just needs to be fixed NOW.) Then, I not only know how to fix *that* problem, but what causes that problem, and I've probably learned more about the tech in question.
I don't like putting things in production until I know them inside and out. Sometimes I can't have that, but I work very hard to make it happen. If it breaks, I need to be able to find out why it did that, how to fix it, and how to stop it from happening again.
Depending on a looking everything up on Google is a bad practice, just becuase you'll so often get only the solution, not the cause. You learn by doing, not by having someone just tell you the answer or by following a list of "type this" instructions.
Your example of MetaLink is basically vendor documentation. You could think of it as calling the vendor and asking, but more convenient. If you already know Oracle, and have some bizzarre or time critical problem, then it's a great resource. If you use it as one of the first steps in problem-solving, then you probably should be doing a lot more learning about Oracle.
First, the reason the certs don't matter is because you can get by without learning anything. You *can*, however, learn a lot from those programs, if you want to. Getting the cert means the opportunity for organized education on the topic.
Second, if you have to use Google Groups, or whatever, for something ridiculous, like 90% of your problems, then you probably don't know what you're doing. Using all available avenues to solve your problem is certainly needed. Always needing to look for help whenever you have a problem shows lack of experience and education. This goes back to getting yourself certs to better your ability; you could also just buy a book and get a similar betterment.
Sure I look at Google for answers to problems, but for many problems, I know how to deal with it already. Most of the time that I look up something, it's a reference to the problem that I'm solving, because I don't remember the exact procedure. However, if you're dead in the water because your Internet link is broken, and you have to look 90% of your issues up on Google, you're screwed.
Your dual boot would require all sorts of special circumstance things. If you're maintaining hundreds or thousands of machines, having a few that you can't just use your tools for creates problems. Having to reboot a machine means having to log into your machine special and wait for it to come around. The more people do it, the more unreasonable it gets.
The two machine situation is much easier to deal with. Send everything a WOL packet, wait for them to boot, do your work. Or just set policy that machines don't get turned off, if you like.
Remember, that is *not* your computer. It's the company computer that they let you use. You play by their rules... complain, find other work, whatever, but if you want to mess around, do it at home.
I would rather deal with VMWare than with dual-boot. I would rather still to have two machines at the desk. It is the easiest of all available options for having two OS's at one desk.
---
You see, one of a two machine setup will not always be down, as you can have both on at the same time. With dual-boot, you have no choice, one *must* be down at all times.
You get different IPs for different ethernet addresses. You have two machines with two network cards, so you have two IPs, simple as that. This is not a problem. From administrative standpoint, two IPs is easy to deal with. You just include both in your management software and away you go. One machine with two OS's doesn't work this way.
You *would* be remotely rebooting the machine. It is absolutely asinine to think that you would go to each machine in person. It would take weeks to get a single update deployed in most corporate settings if you did that. If you have to write some silly set of scripts to do things, you now have a nonstandard setup. You can't manage that machine as a UNIX box or a Windows box; you have to make a special group for all Linux machines, BSD machines, Solaris machines, etc, and then *another* set of special groups for every combination of those.
If the person has two machines, you have the standard Windows image and the standard Linux (or whatever) image. You drop whichever is appropriate onto the broken machine. The user should never have critical data only stored on the workstation.
Interesting... when was that article from? Doesn't change what I was saying, as they are still independantly charging fees, but interesting none the less.
As a current BoA customer, if I use a non-BoA ATM, they charge me a $1.50 fee, which is debitted as a separate transaction. If the non-BoA ATM owner charges a fee, it is debitted as part of the transaction. If I withdraw $20 from a Chase ATM, Chase will charge me $1.50, for a $21.50 total transaction. The next business day, BoA will debit me an additional $1.50, as a bank fee in another transaction. The terms are clearly written out in the fee schedule you get when opening an account, as with any other bank.
You're right that in the case of ATM networks, there will often be a per-transaction fee for using a network ATM with a non-network bank. This is either assessed as part of the original fee (rarely), or more commonly the way that you said, as part of the fee your bank charges you.
(I'm calling the bank with the funds the destination, and the bank where the transaction starts as the origination.) What you spelled out is that BoA charges the customer $1.45 for using an ATM that isn't theirs. The PLUS network charges $0.05 per transaction to the destination bank, for using their network. The originating bank charges $1.50 to every customer that isn't a member of their bank, and $0.50 to each destination bank.
The only bank that really shouldn't be taking profit is the one where your account sits. The existance of the other fees are reasonable, albeit high. This is still very different from the BellSouth situation.
No, that does not happen. What *is* happening is that your bank either charges you a fee to use an ATM, or not. If they don't, and you use their ATMs, then you pay nothing. If you use an out of network ATM, they may levy a transaction fee. The bank that owns the ATM may also assess a transaction fee; after all, it is their ATM.
So... your bank charges you for using a foreign ATM. The foreign bank charges you for using their ATM with a foreign account. That is why when you withdraw $20, you get debitted $21.50 and then get another debit for $1.50, for example. One goes to your bank, one goes to another bank.
You could liken this to being charged to access Internet, and then being charged to access a certain web site. You're paying one fee to your ISP, and the other to the particular web site.
It is *very* different from the scam that BellSouth is planning.
Actually, it is covered under the 9th amendment. The 4th amendment gives you very specific privacies that it is supposed to be impossible for the government to circumvent, at any level; they are guaranteed.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Since the Constitution does not take away your privacy, you have the right to privacy under the Constitution.
The 10th amendment allows for that right to be altered by the States.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So, save for the privacies guaranteed elsewhere in the Constitution, the States may make laws regarding privacy. However, just because a law does not exist, does not mean you lack the right. Quite to the contrary, you have the right unless a law exists.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This means that the government is outright forbidden to conduct unreasonable search and seizure. It also forbids unsubstantiated warrants to be issued. It allows the government the ability to issue warrant, search, or siezure when there is good reason that is supposed under oath and to an exact place, person, or thing. That is quite a narrow power!
With the way the Constitution is written, this is supposed to mean that the government can do those things *only* under that exactly described set of conditions. That inspector that you're talking about, by the Constitution, would require a court supported warrant to a specific place to do a search. The reason of "someone said this bad thing was happening" is insufficient, because you cannot state, under oath, that "bad thing" is happening, unless the person saying that it is can affirmatively testify to the occurrance of "bad thing".
I recognize that things aren't working that way at the moment, but that is what the Constitution *says* is supposed to be going on.
Sorry, I meant it as they would be better on PC, not that they are *currently* better. If the console studios released on PC, they could be better than they are on consoles. You could eliminate disc swaps, control annoyances, and have better graphics, among many other things.
Almost... the 686 would have been the Pentium Pro, and the 787 would've been the Pentium IV. P2 and P3 were the same architecture as PPro; Intel just tacked on a few instruction here and there, and changed the process size.
You muddy things up even more with the Intel lines, because the Pentium M is really a P3 in architecture (P3 gets more per clock than P4, so needs lower clocks and less power). However, they're selling them along side the P4, so you would have two brands there: the Sexium 3M and the Septium.
I'd be willing to say that there isn't a very good reason to own 100 new games over the last three years, at all.
While you were able to own those three systems for ~$500, you did forget additional expense for network capability, multiple controllers, etc. You also still don't get all the real benefits of a computer (ie: internet, document processing, development, etc).
The next crop of consoles will set you back a lot more than a PC, though. 400$ for the XBox, 400$ for the PS3, 200$ for a Revolution... and then you get to buy controllers, AV adaptors, and games. And you still don't get to do any of the useful PC things.
Also, you seem to forget that genres like platformers and RPGs are better on a PC anyway. Using a gamepad for many of those things is constraining, especially if you've played PC games in those genres. The music games and other party games are only nicer on a console because you don't have to worry about anything. As the XBox shows, a PC plugged into a TV is all you really need, and if it's a real PC, you can do a lot more than just games.
What user is going to want this feature? I would be hard pressed to find a single person that makes use of this function. To make it worse, Windows doesn't tell you that the machine is doing this, and you can't turn it off without disabling wireless entirely. It might sound nice, in theory, and you might think it would be used... but consider: how many people actually used IrDA. MS did the same thing with autodetection and configuration using it, but very few people cared.
This is another stupid mis-feature from Microsoft. It isn't new, in that MS has had it since they included wireless networking support. However, this flaw is sort of specific to MS, in that they were the only ones foolish enough to implement it.
It is not really possible for States to keep of the Federal teat. With the passage of the 18th amendment, it was guaranteed that the Federal would tax to the point that the States wouldn't be able to levy tax enough to operate independantly. Since then, we have enjoyed the steady erosion of freedom that a heavy centralized government always brings. It was the nail in the coffin for States rights, as well as the loss of one of the few checks against the Federal as a whole.
The States can't operate without Federal money just as the local governments can rarely operate without State and Federal money. Pull the money up high, and you control those below you.
Because in the locking case, you overcome static friction *once* and are now working with the lower value kinetic friction. In the other case, you lock, release, lock, release, etc; you must overcome static friction each time. This means you lose more momentum.
With ABS, you only have brief moments of skidding. The control system clamps and releases the brakes repeatedly. During the clamped periods, you have tire skid. During the released periods, you have no skid.
Re:Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
One case you make is for plain sight, where there isn't an expectation of privacy. Now, if someone took my picture, and then created an advertisement around it, and didn't ask my permission, I would be, rightfully, quite pissed off. They would be profiting from exploiting my image. Well, if Apple was harvesting this user data, and using it to profit, it would be the same thing. They would be using something of a personal nature, without asking permission, without compensation, and without disclosure. I don't really care if it's obvious that the feature requires the data to work, they didn't *ask* for the data; they just took it. That is unethical, so yes, what Apple is doing is unethical, and that makes Apple unethical. They can overcome this by apologising, and fixing the problem.
In this case, I would *definitely* consider that I own that data. It was created on my behalf, but without my permission or knowledge. They basically stole data from me, and that is unacceptable.
In prior version of iTunes, Apples was not trying to sell you stuff, per se. This recommendation feature didn't exist. As evidenced, some people *don't want it* because they don't like being sold things, or because they don't like invasions of privacy, no matter how minor. It becomes not worth it to use the software.
BTW, you wouldn't be "sold" that car in the situation you laid out. You already decided to buy the car, and were trying to get the best possible deal. If you walked into a dealership wanting a station wagon, and came out with a SUV, then you would've been sold the SUV, rather than having bought the station wagon. The salesman would've pushed the sale on you. A good salesman will generally know that you already want that car, unless you lie about already having decided.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, given the way you clarify what you say, I agree. Many people try to defend the programs that the Federal have enacted by twisting the wording of the Constitution. It looked like you were doing the same to me, which is unfortunate.
It looked as if you were saying that many of the Federal programs were acceptable as a result of the "necessary and proper clause", instead of that they were justifying them by using such. I would not accept that there is Constitutional support for such programs as Medicare or Social Security, but I understand how the Federal justifies them with the wording of the Constitution. I just believe that they are overstepping their authority by doing so.
I did not mean to make "necessary and proper" seem useless. I actually believe that it is essential, since the Constitution does not state how many things should be conducted, but only allow the Federal to carry out those functions. Without that clause, they would not be able to pass laws to specify how to proceed for those powers. I do not believe that it should serve as support for any power that is not specifically enumerated, however. In the case of census, for example, the Federal has to have the power to make the data collection mandatory. If this means creating a department to oversee the census, then it would be provided for under "necessary and proper".
I don't have interest in being a lawyer. It's just not a field I want to be involved with. I actually am disgusted that the profession is necessary, though I do not have a problem with it existing. That the law is so complicated that it requires specialists in the field shows that there is substantial problem with our legal structure. However, I also believe that the majority of the law should rest on the States, which makes lawyers important for any company operating outside of a local level.
Education: That that percentage drops daily, and has for fourty years. Federal meddling has been increasing over the same period, starting from nearly nothing.
Currency: That is why the dollar is falling against most other currency, why we have no backing to the dollar, and why people are currently buying huge amounts of gold?
Congress: Since everyone is elected by the People, they represent only the People; the States lost their say with the amendment for the direct election of Senators.
Taxes: The Federal levies income tax, and collects by force. They then use this money for Social Security, etc, and you have no choice in the matter. Again, people *DO* question their legality, like most of the Constitution and Libertarian parties, among many others. I don't remember anything in the Constitution about the Federal forcing me to give up my money to pay for health care or retirement pyramid schemes, and that's because it isn't there.
Just because our taxes are lower today does not mean that it is okay. There wasn't supposed to be a Federal income tax, because it allows the Federal to grow large and gain too much power. It allows the Federal to make the States rely on it to exist. Exactly as it has done, and how it is today.
The Civil Rights Act was a bad choice. I would consider it to be a blatent cause of racism, as well as trampling my Constitutional right to freedom of association. Having a law that says government may not discriminate is fine and necessary, but forcing the People to do the same is unacceptable. To make it worse, as most things the Federal does, this act didn't work; we ended up with such lunacy as Affirmative Action. There have even been successful cases of people that have sued others under the act, because their workplace didn't account for their horrible fear of black people.
Limitation of power: Federal power was purposefully limited to what was written in the Constitution, and what was necessary to support those function. That's all the neccessary and proper clause is for: support. Just because it was abused does not mean that it was intended to be abused. Lawyers don't see a problem, well, they get rich as a result; they're not likely to speak out.
I said they have no power other than the enumerated powers. There is no other intelligent way to read the Constitution than that. They explicitly state just that. I also said that one of the powers under the Constitution is for the Federal to enact laws to allow it to complete those other enumerated powers. The Federal has unconstitutionally enact many laws that do not operate to support their role in the Constitution, and, frequently, work against other rights specifically reserved to the People.
Yes, it was. The 17th amendment made the Senate elected by the people in the same way as the House of Representatives. This change happened within months of removing the check against Federal size, by enacting the 16th, which allowed the collection of income tax at the Federal level. www.archive.gov is your friend for this stuff! :)
AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
No, you can do what you're saying. It's just that if you do, you aren't really running 64 bit, since, as you point out, all your apps are 32 bit. Ubuntu-64 compiles everything targetted at AMD64, so you need to do crazy things to get it all to work and get most of the 32 bit platform installed along with your 64 bit stuff.
The downside is having to have a 32bit C lib, 32 bit browser, 32 bit Java, etc. It quickly starts to eliminate the reason to try to run 64 bit if all of your software is targetted to IA-32.
Alpha was used in everything up to supercomputers, too. You may have heard of Cray Supercomputing? They used Alpha processors.
Considering that Itanium, P4, Athlon, and Opteron are totally useless for portable systems... what's your point? You don't use a 100W chip in a laptop. Intel maintains the P3 line for portables, and AMD has their own separate line of portable chips.
Yeah, no kidding, and the worst offenders are these wonderful things that everyone tauts as the fix to the problem: the web browser, and assorted plugins, and Java. The next biggest is video codecs, courtesy of the Windows people that can't seem to understand why it's nice to be able to play back that precious content if they want you to buy it.
I tried to run 64 bit Linux with Ubuntu. It wasn't worth it. I spent a week screwing around with it and trying to be able to just reliably play a video, or to even start a something that was written in Java. I formatted and went back to 32 bit Ubuntu. It's no picnic trying to do the same with Windows, either; very similar problems.
Yes, and that might have happened, if it weren't for the 17th and 18th amendments. However, you are very wrong about what the Constitution says, and what people believe. The Constitition is *very* clear about these things. Most of the bloating of the Federal that has led to their current overbearing existance is a result of the perversion of the Commerce clause.
Also, Article I, Section 8:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Congress is allowed to make law only to allow for the powers in the Constitution. *That* is the necessary and proper clause. It *specifically* says only powers granted by the Constitution. The Federal needs to be able to exercise those powers, and so must be able to create laws to do so. To take the example from this thread: the Constitution says the Federal has to power to take census, but the Federal must pass laws to codify *how* this is to occur, as it is not stated in the Constitution.
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The People have rights that are not listed, and the government may not use the fact that those rights are not listed to prevent the People from exercising them.
Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If it isn't listed in the Constitution, the Federal doesn't have the power, end of story. Honestly, people that say otherwise, judges and such included, are *wrong*.
If you want to actually take a little initiative... look how far the US has fallen since the People let the Federal ignore the Constitution. Our education is a travesty, we pay ridiculous amounts in Federal taxes, the States and Towns are on the edge of bankrupcy but the Fed is sitting high, we have programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Welface, and Social Security that are so flawed that it's ridiculous, and you can't get out from under them. You have massive agencies devoted to spying on the populace, agencies that you don't even get to know what they do, massive amounts of secret documentation, and an unstable currency due to Federal manipulation of the economy. *ALL* of these things are functions that the Federal is doing that they are not Constitutionally allowed to do.
I would say that Congress doesn't have the power to delegate those agencies, and that they *are* illegal. But you have no State representation in the Federal, and the Federal controls all the budgets. If you're a State, you pretty much have to do what the Fed wants, or you're screwed.
This is what the Civil War was about, so don't believe for a second that the Federal isn't doing anything wrong. When you ignore your charter and step all over the way things are supposed to work, you tend to piss people off. Back then, the States had a say; today they don't.
Intel rushed everything to do with P4. Netburst is an engineering fiasco, and it hurt performance for a long time, and still does frequently. Even today, the Intel hyper-threading implementation hinders performance in some conditions. If you have an architecture that has a higher IPC for less complexity than another, there needs to be very good reasons for a transition instead of further development. Intel decided to stop P3 while it had life left, go to P4 with Netburst, add HT, repeatedly fix HT, and then restart P3 development with the Pentium-M because of numerous problems with everything in the P4.
Nobody else out there needs clocks as high as Intel for the same performance. AMD is still around the 2GHz mark on Athlon64; Sun doesn't even need to push their UltraSPARCs even that high because of a better ISA. Hell, Itanium is substantially better than P4, but it's another of Intel's flops caused by their own marketing. We don't need 10GHz parts, we just need better parts.
The PC world has never been about the best technology... just the cheapest and easiest to market. That's why we have half-assed things like SATA and the x86 ISA, for example.
The P3 design is old (dates back to Pentium-Pro), but it provides more per clock than the travesty that is the P4. It doesn't have constant issues with branch predication failures causing a potentially 24 cycle execution halt, from flushing the pipeline, for example. Compared to P4, it also requires substantially less power to do the same work *and* it's much less expensive to manufacture. The P4 is a bad design, and it's amazing the amount of money they've thrown at it, just to have to keep working on P3 because of the P4 shortcomings.
Perhaps you're right, and if so, then I'd pretty much agree with that. I find that most of the time that people say something similar to the Google thing, it's because they don't understand how their tech actually works. (This is where real training courses and books and such help.)
When I actually don't know the solution, but I know how the tech works, and what it's supposed to be doing, I don't need to look anything up. I diagnose what the problem is, then look to see what could cause it. Once I find that, I fix it, or I look to reference on the particular thing. (Unless, of course, it's an emergency and it just needs to be fixed NOW.) Then, I not only know how to fix *that* problem, but what causes that problem, and I've probably learned more about the tech in question.
I don't like putting things in production until I know them inside and out. Sometimes I can't have that, but I work very hard to make it happen. If it breaks, I need to be able to find out why it did that, how to fix it, and how to stop it from happening again.
Depending on a looking everything up on Google is a bad practice, just becuase you'll so often get only the solution, not the cause. You learn by doing, not by having someone just tell you the answer or by following a list of "type this" instructions.
Your example of MetaLink is basically vendor documentation. You could think of it as calling the vendor and asking, but more convenient. If you already know Oracle, and have some bizzarre or time critical problem, then it's a great resource. If you use it as one of the first steps in problem-solving, then you probably should be doing a lot more learning about Oracle.
I believe you completely missed the GP's point.
First, the reason the certs don't matter is because you can get by without learning anything. You *can*, however, learn a lot from those programs, if you want to. Getting the cert means the opportunity for organized education on the topic.
Second, if you have to use Google Groups, or whatever, for something ridiculous, like 90% of your problems, then you probably don't know what you're doing. Using all available avenues to solve your problem is certainly needed. Always needing to look for help whenever you have a problem shows lack of experience and education. This goes back to getting yourself certs to better your ability; you could also just buy a book and get a similar betterment.
Sure I look at Google for answers to problems, but for many problems, I know how to deal with it already. Most of the time that I look up something, it's a reference to the problem that I'm solving, because I don't remember the exact procedure. However, if you're dead in the water because your Internet link is broken, and you have to look 90% of your issues up on Google, you're screwed.
Your dual boot would require all sorts of special circumstance things. If you're maintaining hundreds or thousands of machines, having a few that you can't just use your tools for creates problems. Having to reboot a machine means having to log into your machine special and wait for it to come around. The more people do it, the more unreasonable it gets.
The two machine situation is much easier to deal with. Send everything a WOL packet, wait for them to boot, do your work. Or just set policy that machines don't get turned off, if you like.
Remember, that is *not* your computer. It's the company computer that they let you use. You play by their rules... complain, find other work, whatever, but if you want to mess around, do it at home.
I would rather deal with VMWare than with dual-boot. I would rather still to have two machines at the desk. It is the easiest of all available options for having two OS's at one desk.
---
You see, one of a two machine setup will not always be down, as you can have both on at the same time. With dual-boot, you have no choice, one *must* be down at all times.
You get different IPs for different ethernet addresses. You have two machines with two network cards, so you have two IPs, simple as that. This is not a problem. From administrative standpoint, two IPs is easy to deal with. You just include both in your management software and away you go. One machine with two OS's doesn't work this way.
You *would* be remotely rebooting the machine. It is absolutely asinine to think that you would go to each machine in person. It would take weeks to get a single update deployed in most corporate settings if you did that. If you have to write some silly set of scripts to do things, you now have a nonstandard setup. You can't manage that machine as a UNIX box or a Windows box; you have to make a special group for all Linux machines, BSD machines, Solaris machines, etc, and then *another* set of special groups for every combination of those.
If the person has two machines, you have the standard Windows image and the standard Linux (or whatever) image. You drop whichever is appropriate onto the broken machine. The user should never have critical data only stored on the workstation.
Interesting... when was that article from? Doesn't change what I was saying, as they are still independantly charging fees, but interesting none the less.
As a current BoA customer, if I use a non-BoA ATM, they charge me a $1.50 fee, which is debitted as a separate transaction. If the non-BoA ATM owner charges a fee, it is debitted as part of the transaction. If I withdraw $20 from a Chase ATM, Chase will charge me $1.50, for a $21.50 total transaction. The next business day, BoA will debit me an additional $1.50, as a bank fee in another transaction. The terms are clearly written out in the fee schedule you get when opening an account, as with any other bank.
You're right that in the case of ATM networks, there will often be a per-transaction fee for using a network ATM with a non-network bank. This is either assessed as part of the original fee (rarely), or more commonly the way that you said, as part of the fee your bank charges you.
(I'm calling the bank with the funds the destination, and the bank where the transaction starts as the origination.) What you spelled out is that BoA charges the customer $1.45 for using an ATM that isn't theirs. The PLUS network charges $0.05 per transaction to the destination bank, for using their network. The originating bank charges $1.50 to every customer that isn't a member of their bank, and $0.50 to each destination bank.
The only bank that really shouldn't be taking profit is the one where your account sits. The existance of the other fees are reasonable, albeit high. This is still very different from the BellSouth situation.
No, that does not happen. What *is* happening is that your bank either charges you a fee to use an ATM, or not. If they don't, and you use their ATMs, then you pay nothing. If you use an out of network ATM, they may levy a transaction fee. The bank that owns the ATM may also assess a transaction fee; after all, it is their ATM.
So... your bank charges you for using a foreign ATM. The foreign bank charges you for using their ATM with a foreign account. That is why when you withdraw $20, you get debitted $21.50 and then get another debit for $1.50, for example. One goes to your bank, one goes to another bank.
You could liken this to being charged to access Internet, and then being charged to access a certain web site. You're paying one fee to your ISP, and the other to the particular web site.
It is *very* different from the scam that BellSouth is planning.
Actually, it is covered under the 9th amendment. The 4th amendment gives you very specific privacies that it is supposed to be impossible for the government to circumvent, at any level; they are guaranteed.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Since the Constitution does not take away your privacy, you have the right to privacy under the Constitution.
The 10th amendment allows for that right to be altered by the States.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So, save for the privacies guaranteed elsewhere in the Constitution, the States may make laws regarding privacy. However, just because a law does not exist, does not mean you lack the right. Quite to the contrary, you have the right unless a law exists.
You're reading it out of context.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
This means that the government is outright forbidden to conduct unreasonable search and seizure. It also forbids unsubstantiated warrants to be issued. It allows the government the ability to issue warrant, search, or siezure when there is good reason that is supposed under oath and to an exact place, person, or thing. That is quite a narrow power!
With the way the Constitution is written, this is supposed to mean that the government can do those things *only* under that exactly described set of conditions. That inspector that you're talking about, by the Constitution, would require a court supported warrant to a specific place to do a search. The reason of "someone said this bad thing was happening" is insufficient, because you cannot state, under oath, that "bad thing" is happening, unless the person saying that it is can affirmatively testify to the occurrance of "bad thing".
I recognize that things aren't working that way at the moment, but that is what the Constitution *says* is supposed to be going on.
Sorry, I meant it as they would be better on PC, not that they are *currently* better. If the console studios released on PC, they could be better than they are on consoles. You could eliminate disc swaps, control annoyances, and have better graphics, among many other things.
I suppose it could also be a processor the size of a Boeing wide-body. :)
Almost... the 686 would have been the Pentium Pro, and the 787 would've been the Pentium IV. P2 and P3 were the same architecture as PPro; Intel just tacked on a few instruction here and there, and changed the process size.
You muddy things up even more with the Intel lines, because the Pentium M is really a P3 in architecture (P3 gets more per clock than P4, so needs lower clocks and less power). However, they're selling them along side the P4, so you would have two brands there: the Sexium 3M and the Septium.
I'd be willing to say that there isn't a very good reason to own 100 new games over the last three years, at all.
While you were able to own those three systems for ~$500, you did forget additional expense for network capability, multiple controllers, etc. You also still don't get all the real benefits of a computer (ie: internet, document processing, development, etc).
The next crop of consoles will set you back a lot more than a PC, though. 400$ for the XBox, 400$ for the PS3, 200$ for a Revolution... and then you get to buy controllers, AV adaptors, and games. And you still don't get to do any of the useful PC things.
Also, you seem to forget that genres like platformers and RPGs are better on a PC anyway. Using a gamepad for many of those things is constraining, especially if you've played PC games in those genres. The music games and other party games are only nicer on a console because you don't have to worry about anything. As the XBox shows, a PC plugged into a TV is all you really need, and if it's a real PC, you can do a lot more than just games.
What user is going to want this feature? I would be hard pressed to find a single person that makes use of this function. To make it worse, Windows doesn't tell you that the machine is doing this, and you can't turn it off without disabling wireless entirely. It might sound nice, in theory, and you might think it would be used... but consider: how many people actually used IrDA. MS did the same thing with autodetection and configuration using it, but very few people cared.
This is another stupid mis-feature from Microsoft. It isn't new, in that MS has had it since they included wireless networking support. However, this flaw is sort of specific to MS, in that they were the only ones foolish enough to implement it.
It is not really possible for States to keep of the Federal teat. With the passage of the 18th amendment, it was guaranteed that the Federal would tax to the point that the States wouldn't be able to levy tax enough to operate independantly. Since then, we have enjoyed the steady erosion of freedom that a heavy centralized government always brings. It was the nail in the coffin for States rights, as well as the loss of one of the few checks against the Federal as a whole.
The States can't operate without Federal money just as the local governments can rarely operate without State and Federal money. Pull the money up high, and you control those below you.
Because in the locking case, you overcome static friction *once* and are now working with the lower value kinetic friction. In the other case, you lock, release, lock, release, etc; you must overcome static friction each time. This means you lose more momentum.
With ABS, you only have brief moments of skidding. The control system clamps and releases the brakes repeatedly. During the clamped periods, you have tire skid. During the released periods, you have no skid.
One case you make is for plain sight, where there isn't an expectation of privacy. Now, if someone took my picture, and then created an advertisement around it, and didn't ask my permission, I would be, rightfully, quite pissed off. They would be profiting from exploiting my image. Well, if Apple was harvesting this user data, and using it to profit, it would be the same thing. They would be using something of a personal nature, without asking permission, without compensation, and without disclosure. I don't really care if it's obvious that the feature requires the data to work, they didn't *ask* for the data; they just took it. That is unethical, so yes, what Apple is doing is unethical, and that makes Apple unethical. They can overcome this by apologising, and fixing the problem.
In this case, I would *definitely* consider that I own that data. It was created on my behalf, but without my permission or knowledge. They basically stole data from me, and that is unacceptable.
In prior version of iTunes, Apples was not trying to sell you stuff, per se. This recommendation feature didn't exist. As evidenced, some people *don't want it* because they don't like being sold things, or because they don't like invasions of privacy, no matter how minor. It becomes not worth it to use the software.
BTW, you wouldn't be "sold" that car in the situation you laid out. You already decided to buy the car, and were trying to get the best possible deal. If you walked into a dealership wanting a station wagon, and came out with a SUV, then you would've been sold the SUV, rather than having bought the station wagon. The salesman would've pushed the sale on you. A good salesman will generally know that you already want that car, unless you lie about already having decided.