"the processing is done on backend servers (MS ones no less) on MS db engines, handing off SQL Queries to those industrial database engines, letting THEM process it (the bulk of the work), & sending back an answer... this IS all!"
That is a total lie. Not for trades. Nasdeq has never used either Tandem computers or Windows boxes for trades. Ever. Those Tandem computers that were replaced with Windows boxes never handled trades. That has been the exclusive domain of the HP NonStop boxes since 1982. Follow the links I posted. They have all the proof you need - except that you're an astro-turfer, so "proof" won't do if it contradicts the "Microsoft Way."
You go on and on about this "wonderful new" Windows system that can handle 5,000 messages a second. The TSX is testing their new system, running on Linux, that handles 20 x that - 100,000 per second. And its entirely redundant, so fail-over happens without losing a single message/trade/transaction.
Their current benchmark is 320 MILLION per HOUR - its designed to start at 2 billion transactions per trading day (obviously, a trading day is not 24 hours, so its real capacity is almost 10 billion per "real" day). So really, a system that "can be expanded to record up to 8 million new rows of data a day" is only 1/1000 the capacity. 1/1000 - 4 orders of magnitude less. So stop with the shilling for Microcrap. (Actually, the comparison is even worse, since the TSX system will record more than 1 row per transaction, since there's obviously way more than one table involved - its not a glorified flat file).
And what's REALLY NEAT - its home-grown.
Those tandem computers were never used for trades, as anyone who follows the links I posted and does any reading would know.
The system you're talking about is woefully inadequate in comparison to real systems.
"First off, this IS what I do for a living for a LONG time now, & here is HOW a well designed system today for this, works:
The DB engines from MS, run it pal... THE hard part, for stability, via stored proc return recordset data."
Bullshit Bingo Alert: "THE hard part, for stability, via stored proc return recordset data."
Hard? It takes 10 minutes to teach someone how to code for stored procedures in the *nix world, in c and/or c++. If you think that using stored procedure is complicated, you're in the wrong business. But really, stability comes from code that doesn't have buffer overruns, that allocates and de-allocates resources quickly and cleanly, and can run in a deterministic fashion - and Windows doesn't cut it.
So stop with the stupidity.
Ad to clear up one more piece of astro-turd:
"as well as bugginess supporting Win32 wares, the MOST used on the planet "
Windows is NOT the most used on the planet - its just the most used on the desktop. You forgot everything else, from embedded devices to supercomputers.
So get out of your momma's basement and get a job, get a real life, etc. You're hopeless, even as an astroturfer. Because nobody believes you have 15 months, never mind your claimed "15 years" experience - unless its working at "Worst Buy" selling "Pee-Cees".
Oh, FFS, learn to read. The system you're talking about doesn't execute the trades - read the link I posted. The Tandem systems you quote were never handling trades - if you had read the links, you'd have seen that trading was handled by the HP systems since 1982. 1982 - get it?
Real systems don't run Windows, and not slow systems like the ones you talk about. The TSX is installing their new system, which can handle 100,000 per SECOND, and has already been benchmarked at 320 million per HOUR, and it runs RedHat. That's several billion a day, and its engineered way past "5 9's" - order matching is done in millionths of a second, and the whole system falls over within seconds without losing a single piece of data.
One of the things I like about openSUSE is that I get 8 gigs of apps on a single DVD. An Ubuntu CD doesn't cut it if I have to then download a web server, all sorts of libraries, header files, utilities, etc.
The machines "disseminating the data" are not the same machines doing the trades. So yes, you ARE full of crap. Enjoy it. All those machines "disseminating data" can crash, and the trades will still continue, because the Windows boxes don't do the trading..
Again, learn to distinguish between the systems devoted to people's desktop needs and the more critical ones actually doing the trading.
BTW - speaking of Microsoft shilling - How's it feel having Dan Lying Lyons of Forbes outed as the Fake Steve Jobs?
BTW - that system is pretty crappy - "handling 5,000 transactions a second" and being able to "scale up to handle up to 8 million new rows of data a day" is nothing. Where I work, we do that with one BSD box, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 8 million rows of new data is not a problem - its business as usual.
I regularly run tests against the code mods I'm asked to make, (the server, as well as the loadable modules, is all c/c++) and, whether it as 100 threads or 400 threads, it handles 5,000 to 7,000 requests per second continuously, not just for a few minutes, but over the weekend (and this with only a half-gig of ram). And no, we don't do the "kill a thread to reclaim memory every 500 iterations" - if there's a leak, then tough shit - it has to be found.
Of course, there's another, slightly different server that handles "only" a couple of thousand queries per second under the same conditions, but its also a lot more db-intensive, as well as having to merge the results with similar queries from up to a dozen off-site computers with each query (and log the results).
So no, a system that can "scale up" to a hundred new rows a second doesn't impress me much when we're already past that under continuous loads with a single $1,000 - $2,000 server box, single-core cpu and not much ram, both on individual production BSD servers, and locally on both BSD and individual linux boxes.
We'd never be able to achieve anywhere NEAR these TCO/performance figures with Windows. So no, I'm not impressed, and no, the systems you're talking about are not the systems that execute trades.
AIX 6 is the next release of IBM's UNIX OS. This beta includes new capabilities for virtualization, security, availability and will run on IBM POWER4 and later systems.
I know... Lincoln actually had several opportunities to abolish slavery, but chickened out each time. Still, he finaly did what was right, so gotta give him SOME credit - after all, its rare nowadays that you remember a politician for the good things they do...
Don't bother - the claim that Nasdaq runs on Windows is bogus astroturfing. As I pointed out here, Nasdaq executes trades on HP servers running NonStop operating system RVU G06.24 or later and OpenView. Its been that way since 1982.
This is just people confusing what they see on some traders' desktop with what really goes on in the back room.
Nasdaq doesn't do trades using Windows Server2k and SQLServer2005 - the trades are handled by HP servers running NonStop operating system RVU G06.24 or later and OpenView. Its been that way since 1982. Note the date on the link - March 21st, 2005.
Since 1982, HP NonStop systems have run the core applications for the NASDAQ trading floor, which includes the buying and selling of shares electronically for large-scale institutional customers. Today, NASDAQ serves a market that is growing at a projected rate of 35 percent a year, with online trading and a robust economy continuing to fuel an explosion of investor participation. HP's Adaptive Enterprise strategy is helping NASDAQ continue to adapt to a changing business environment and ensure every trade is executed efficiently regardless of transaction volumes.
" a manager whose only real knowledge of Linux is "if it's so good, why would you give it away for free"?"
"Because the best things in life are free - you PAY for crap like Windows."
Ask him is he things solaris or java or aix are "unprofessional" products. Versions of all those available for free downloads - heck, Sun sent me the install dvds for opensolaris for free. Then ask him why he thinks that a few thousand programmers working at Microsoft can beat out a world-wide network of programmers, many paid by industry leaders like IBM and Novell, whose work is peer-reviewed!
Would he feel confident if his doctor started recommending non-peer-reviewed cures and drugs? Does he like the idea doing away with the notion of a fair trial by a jury of his peers? Would he trust an airplane, a nuclear power plant, his fridge or toilet if they ran Windows?
Then tell him that he really needs to get with the times - his attitude is stuck in the '80s. - that's 1380, when everything was run by guilds with "secret knowledge." Lincoln freed the slaves in 1863, and since then, people want more and more of that "freedom" in all parts of their lives.
"If you want an unlocked phone, maybe you should.... well, I don't know. Maybe buy a fucking phone that is not fucking locked."
The cell carriers justify selling locked phones by saying that the owner needs to be with the company for a certain length of time to "pay back" the subsidized cost of the phone... HOWEVER, they also say that if you cancel the plan early, you have to pay a penalty equal to the amount of the balance of the subsidy. So why can't I have my phone unlocked after I've paid for it, including the subsidy? Why do they want $100 for what is less than 1 minute's work? Just give me the code and I'll unlock it myself. Oops - that means I'll be able to unlock other people's phones too...
Of course, if you know where to look, you can unlock your phone yourself.
DETAILS:
Domain Name suprnova.org without content.
DOMAIN STATISTICS:
Unique Visitors per month*: 168,113
Visitors to this Sedo Listing*: 600
Previous Offers for this Domain: 21
* Data from the previous 32 days
"You did know that an attempt to commit a crime is itself a crime? Try forcing a lock the charge will be attempted burglary."
In other words, you're charged with a different crime - "attempted burglary, not borglary. If you read the article, the charges, penalties, etc., are the same for an attempt as for the actual crime.
Attempted burglary can include a spur-of-the-moment going up to a closed door and seeing if its locked - the actual damages of an unsuccessful attempt are none, and its certainly not in the same league as successfully attacking the door with a crowbar which you brought along (premeditated) for that express purpose.
Instead of doubling jail terms for this, why not double them for white collar crime, perjury, and rape? Oh, right... the perps of white collar crime own the politicians, the politicians and their friends want to be able to continue perjuring themselves, and they're too busy raping over the electorate to give a sh*t.
Your memory is close - the original design called for no more than 25 flights per shuttle, with a fleet of 8 shuttles to be rotated. This was changed to 100 flights per shuttle, with a fleet of 4, to justify the "lowered costs" of shuttle missions, which has proven wildly optimistic. Turns out that it was cheaper to use expendable boosters.
Actual performance is 1 in 56. Either one is a LOT more realistic than what NASA originally claimed before the Challenger disaster, which was 1 in 100,000. That was even more ridiculous than those million-hour MTBF estimates for hard disks, when you consider that a million-hour MTBF drive that fails after 10,000 hours is off by 2 orders of magnitude, but NASA was off by more than 4 orders of magnitude.
1 in 56... that's a heck of a lot less than 1 in 100,000.
Ranging in diameter from 19 to 40 inches, the tanks have lightweight titanium or steel shells wrapped with the same type of fabric used to make bulletproof vests -- Kevlar -- or carbon graphite. They hold helium and nitrogen gas at extremely high pressures (up to 4,600 pounds per square inch) and are extraordinarily dangerous.
"You certainly wouldn't want a 4-foot-diameter helium bottle that's pressurized to about 4,000 psia to burst on you," Hale said. "That would be a bad thing."
A tank rupture on the ground could lead to a fire or explosion that could injure or kill workers in the launch pad area. A failure in flight could lead to the loss of a shuttle and the astronauts inside.
Built for NASA in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the copper-colored spheres were designed, developed, manufactured and tested for 10 years of shuttle fleet operations.
The NASA records show that proper engineering analyses were done in 1988 to certify the tanks for an additional decade of use. But no subsequent recertification was done in 1998 when the agency's extended warranty expired.
NASA engineers raised questions about the tanks, which are named Composite Overwrap Pressure Vessels, as the agency was struggling to return the shuttle fleet to service after the 2003 Columbia accident.
The aerospace industry already had expressed concern about the structural integrity of similar tanks on satellites and aircraft, and the agency's newly anointed NASA Engineering and Safety Center took up the cause in 2004.
The safety center's engineers concluded the orbiter tanks are much more likely to fail than NASA previously thought.
Past NASA analyses assumed the tanks would leak before they burst. New studies and tests show that they would explode before they leaked, increasing the hazard considerably.
In other words, the shuttles fly with parts that are at almost 300% of their original design lifespan, that are over their "recertified" 20-year lifespan by almost 50%, and, if they fail, can kill.
This is the "new NASA?" Sounds like the NASA of the 80's and '90s to me. Too bad the "Old NASA" of the '60s is no more. Odds now are about 1 in 3 that we'll see another disaster before STS-132 completes the mission series.
This is just anther retread... they tried this during the Atari - Colecovision days, and it was a HUGE FLOP!
Why? Because the people who like to play video games don't want to watch other people play, and the people who don't like to play video games - surprise! - they don't want to watch other people play either.
With pro sports, the rules and playing field are simple and easy enough for most people to grok at a glance - with video games, either you're familiar with the in-game territory that's being played at that moment - in which case its BORING, in a "been there, done that" kind of way, or you haven't, in which case it's like a movie spoiler.
Part of the entertainment is discovering this stuff yourself... so all these advertisers are just SUCKERS!
My nephews liked it - to quote them - "because of the big boobs with the great shading." No wonder the article says "perhaps it also helped stimulate other developing nerds to embrace the computers that are supposedly run by these enjoyable CG characters.".
They have two great brand names. It would be silly to kill one of them off, since they use them to segment their markets. If they were both aimed at the same buyers (a la "Nissan" and "Datsun" back in the day) I could understand rationalizing the nameplate, but this is just a waste.
If they wanted to, they could always do "Linksys by Cisco" - reaping the benefits of both brand names.
"A 47 year old woman went from 247 to 2002 lbs in 6 months "
Wow, she must be a real porker...:-)
Seriously though:
"for example, i'd bet my wife has eaten more food than i have and i know she exercises less, yet she weighs 130 and change and i weigh 170 and small change. if our bodies handled food equally, she should weigh more than i do."
Studies show that, on average, women walk several miles more a day then men - housework, chasing after the kids, groceries, etc. 3 miles a day more might not sound like much, but that's 1,000 miles a year. Similarly, women do 40% more housework than men. That also burns off the calories.
Slashdot Mirror
"the processing is done on backend servers (MS ones no less) on MS db engines, handing off SQL Queries to those industrial database engines, letting THEM process it (the bulk of the work), & sending back an answer... this IS all!"
That is a total lie. Not for trades. Nasdeq has never used either Tandem computers or Windows boxes for trades. Ever. Those Tandem computers that were replaced with Windows boxes never handled trades. That has been the exclusive domain of the HP NonStop boxes since 1982. Follow the links I posted. They have all the proof you need - except that you're an astro-turfer, so "proof" won't do if it contradicts the "Microsoft Way."
You go on and on about this "wonderful new" Windows system that can handle 5,000 messages a second. The TSX is testing their new system, running on Linux, that handles 20 x that - 100,000 per second. And its entirely redundant, so fail-over happens without losing a single message/trade/transaction.
Their current benchmark is 320 MILLION per HOUR - its designed to start at 2 billion transactions per trading day (obviously, a trading day is not 24 hours, so its real capacity is almost 10 billion per "real" day). So really, a system that "can be expanded to record up to 8 million new rows of data a day" is only 1/1000 the capacity. 1/1000 - 4 orders of magnitude less. So stop with the shilling for Microcrap. (Actually, the comparison is even worse, since the TSX system will record more than 1 row per transaction, since there's obviously way more than one table involved - its not a glorified flat file).
And what's REALLY NEAT - its home-grown.
"First off, this IS what I do for a living for a LONG time now, & here is HOW a well designed system today for this, works:
The DB engines from MS, run it pal... THE hard part, for stability, via stored proc return recordset data."
Bullshit Bingo Alert: "THE hard part, for stability, via stored proc return recordset data."
Hard? It takes 10 minutes to teach someone how to code for stored procedures in the *nix world, in c and/or c++. If you think that using stored procedure is complicated, you're in the wrong business. But really, stability comes from code that doesn't have buffer overruns, that allocates and de-allocates resources quickly and cleanly, and can run in a deterministic fashion - and Windows doesn't cut it.
So stop with the stupidity.
Ad to clear up one more piece of astro-turd:
"as well as bugginess supporting Win32 wares, the MOST used on the planet "
Windows is NOT the most used on the planet - its just the most used on the desktop. You forgot everything else, from embedded devices to supercomputers.
So get out of your momma's basement and get a job, get a real life, etc. You're hopeless, even as an astroturfer. Because nobody believes you have 15 months, never mind your claimed "15 years" experience - unless its working at "Worst Buy" selling "Pee-Cees".
Oh, FFS, learn to read. The system you're talking about doesn't execute the trades - read the link I posted. The Tandem systems you quote were never handling trades - if you had read the links, you'd have seen that trading was handled by the HP systems since 1982. 1982 - get it?
Real systems don't run Windows, and not slow systems like the ones you talk about. The TSX is installing their new system, which can handle 100,000 per SECOND, and has already been benchmarked at 320 million per HOUR, and it runs RedHat. That's several billion a day, and its engineered way past "5 9's" - order matching is done in millionths of a second, and the whole system falls over within seconds without losing a single piece of data.
http://nginyang.uvt.nl/feisty/ubuntu
hhttp:nginyanguvtnlkubuntufeistykbuntu
One of the things I like about openSUSE is that I get 8 gigs of apps on a single DVD. An Ubuntu CD doesn't cut it if I have to then download a web server, all sorts of libraries, header files, utilities, etc.
The machines "disseminating the data" are not the same machines doing the trades. So yes, you ARE full of crap. Enjoy it. All those machines "disseminating data" can crash, and the trades will still continue, because the Windows boxes don't do the trading..
Again, learn to distinguish between the systems devoted to people's desktop needs and the more critical ones actually doing the trading.
BTW - speaking of Microsoft shilling - How's it feel having Dan Lying Lyons of Forbes outed as the Fake Steve Jobs?
BTW - that system is pretty crappy - "handling 5,000 transactions a second" and being able to "scale up to handle up to 8 million new rows of data a day" is nothing. Where I work, we do that with one BSD box, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 8 million rows of new data is not a problem - its business as usual.
I regularly run tests against the code mods I'm asked to make, (the server, as well as the loadable modules, is all c/c++) and, whether it as 100 threads or 400 threads, it handles 5,000 to 7,000 requests per second continuously, not just for a few minutes, but over the weekend (and this with only a half-gig of ram). And no, we don't do the "kill a thread to reclaim memory every 500 iterations" - if there's a leak, then tough shit - it has to be found.
Of course, there's another, slightly different server that handles "only" a couple of thousand queries per second under the same conditions, but its also a lot more db-intensive, as well as having to merge the results with similar queries from up to a dozen off-site computers with each query (and log the results).
So no, a system that can "scale up" to a hundred new rows a second doesn't impress me much when we're already past that under continuous loads with a single $1,000 - $2,000 server box, single-core cpu and not much ram, both on individual production BSD servers, and locally on both BSD and individual linux boxes.
We'd never be able to achieve anywhere NEAR these TCO/performance figures with Windows. So no, I'm not impressed, and no, the systems you're talking about are not the systems that execute trades.
"AIX has a free download somewhere? Where??"
Read about it from IBM themeselves: http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/218 54.wss
More info here http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=servers&article Id=9026901&taxonomyId=155&intsrc=kc_top
The AIX Beta program is now open to everyone, not just "by invitation."
The downlaod page is here: http://www14.software.ibm.com/webapp/download/sear ch.jsp?pn=AIX
There you go ...
I know ... Lincoln actually had several opportunities to abolish slavery, but chickened out each time. Still, he finaly did what was right, so gotta give him SOME credit - after all, its rare nowadays that you remember a politician for the good things they do ...
"FBI Raids Home of Suspected NSA Leaker ".
Oops - NSA, not NASA.
(Will NASA diaper jokes ever go out of style? That too depends ... :-)
http://www.suddenlysenior.com/Images/malebrainwome n.gif
Don't bother - the claim that Nasdaq runs on Windows is bogus astroturfing. As I pointed out here, Nasdaq executes trades on HP servers running NonStop operating system RVU G06.24 or later and OpenView. Its been that way since 1982.
This is just people confusing what they see on some traders' desktop with what really goes on in the back room.
Bullshit astroturfing.
Nasdaq doesn't do trades using Windows Server2k and SQLServer2005 - the trades are handled by HP servers running NonStop operating system RVU G06.24 or later and OpenView. Its been that way since 1982. Note the date on the link - March 21st, 2005.
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2005/05032 1c.html
" a manager whose only real knowledge of Linux is "if it's so good, why would you give it away for free"?"
"Because the best things in life are free - you PAY for crap like Windows."
Ask him is he things solaris or java or aix are "unprofessional" products. Versions of all those available for free downloads - heck, Sun sent me the install dvds for opensolaris for free. Then ask him why he thinks that a few thousand programmers working at Microsoft can beat out a world-wide network of programmers, many paid by industry leaders like IBM and Novell, whose work is peer-reviewed!
Would he feel confident if his doctor started recommending non-peer-reviewed cures and drugs? Does he like the idea doing away with the notion of a fair trial by a jury of his peers? Would he trust an airplane, a nuclear power plant, his fridge or toilet if they ran Windows?
Then tell him that he really needs to get with the times - his attitude is stuck in the '80s. - that's 1380, when everything was run by guilds with "secret knowledge." Lincoln freed the slaves in 1863, and since then, people want more and more of that "freedom" in all parts of their lives.
At least google gets the answer to the most important question in the world right. It IS "42"!
"if people don't pay for an album that they would have done had they not been able to copy it digitally (and therefore flawlessly)"
Since when are mp3s flawless copies?
"If you want an unlocked phone, maybe you should .... well, I don't know. Maybe buy a fucking phone that is not fucking locked."
The cell carriers justify selling locked phones by saying that the owner needs to be with the company for a certain length of time to "pay back" the subsidized cost of the phone ... HOWEVER, they also say that if you cancel the plan early, you have to pay a penalty equal to the amount of the balance of the subsidy. So why can't I have my phone unlocked after I've paid for it, including the subsidy? Why do they want $100 for what is less than 1 minute's work? Just give me the code and I'll unlock it myself. Oops - that means I'll be able to unlock other people's phones too ...
Of course, if you know where to look, you can unlock your phone yourself.
"Didn't you guys get the memo political correctness is dead, fat people are fat, short people are short, and bald guys are still bald"
Now, back on-topic: as of this morning, suprnova.org is still a doorway page, with a title that says "This web site is for sale!"
There's a link to sedo.com's listing of the site for sale info
What gives?
"Write to your misrepresentatives if you can."
There, fixed it for you.
"You did know that an attempt to commit a crime is itself a crime? Try forcing a lock the charge will be attempted burglary."
In other words, you're charged with a different crime - "attempted burglary, not borglary. If you read the article, the charges, penalties, etc., are the same for an attempt as for the actual crime.
Attempted burglary can include a spur-of-the-moment going up to a closed door and seeing if its locked - the actual damages of an unsuccessful attempt are none, and its certainly not in the same league as successfully attacking the door with a crowbar which you brought along (premeditated) for that express purpose.
Instead of doubling jail terms for this, why not double them for white collar crime, perjury, and rape? Oh, right ... the perps of white collar crime own the politicians, the politicians and their friends want to be able to continue perjuring themselves, and they're too busy raping over the electorate to give a sh*t.
Your memory is close - the original design called for no more than 25 flights per shuttle, with a fleet of 8 shuttles to be rotated. This was changed to 100 flights per shuttle, with a fleet of 4, to justify the "lowered costs" of shuttle missions, which has proven wildly optimistic. Turns out that it was cheaper to use expendable boosters.
The best "current guess" is 1 in 76
Actual performance is 1 in 56. Either one is a LOT more realistic than what NASA originally claimed before the Challenger disaster, which was 1 in 100,000. That was even more ridiculous than those million-hour MTBF estimates for hard disks, when you consider that a million-hour MTBF drive that fails after 10,000 hours is off by 2 orders of magnitude, but NASA was off by more than 4 orders of magnitude.
1 in 56 ... that's a heck of a lot less than 1 in 100,000.
Then there's stupidity like this
In other words, the shuttles fly with parts that are at almost 300% of their original design lifespan, that are over their "recertified" 20-year lifespan by almost 50%, and, if they fail, can kill.
This is the "new NASA?" Sounds like the NASA of the 80's and '90s to me. Too bad the "Old NASA" of the '60s is no more. Odds now are about 1 in 3 that we'll see another disaster before STS-132 completes the mission series.
Considering that, on average, they have a 1 in 50 chance of going "BOOM!" or other disaster, and that the shuttle fleet ain't getting any younger ...
NASA originally estimated the odds of a disaster as being as low as 1 in 100,000. Even their current "guestimate" of 1 in 100 is off by half.
This is just anther retread ... they tried this during the Atari - Colecovision days, and it was a HUGE FLOP!
Why? Because the people who like to play video games don't want to watch other people play, and the people who don't like to play video games - surprise! - they don't want to watch other people play either.
With pro sports, the rules and playing field are simple and easy enough for most people to grok at a glance - with video games, either you're familiar with the in-game territory that's being played at that moment - in which case its BORING, in a "been there, done that" kind of way, or you haven't, in which case it's like a movie spoiler.
Part of the entertainment is discovering this stuff yourself ... so all these advertisers are just SUCKERS!
My nephews liked it - to quote them - "because of the big boobs with the great shading." No wonder the article says "perhaps it also helped stimulate other developing nerds to embrace the computers that are supposedly run by these enjoyable CG characters.".
ewww ...
They have two great brand names. It would be silly to kill one of them off, since they use them to segment their markets. If they were both aimed at the same buyers (a la "Nissan" and "Datsun" back in the day) I could understand rationalizing the nameplate, but this is just a waste.
If they wanted to, they could always do "Linksys by Cisco" - reaping the benefits of both brand names.
"A 47 year old woman went from 247 to 2002 lbs in 6 months "
Wow, she must be a real porker ... :-)
Seriously though: "for example, i'd bet my wife has eaten more food than i have and i know she exercises less, yet she weighs 130 and change and i weigh 170 and small change. if our bodies handled food equally, she should weigh more than i do."
Studies show that, on average, women walk several miles more a day then men - housework, chasing after the kids, groceries, etc. 3 miles a day more might not sound like much, but that's 1,000 miles a year. Similarly, women do 40% more housework than men. That also burns off the calories.
Borland - Inprise - Borland.