Out of curiosity, is this because Covad doesn't have equipment in your CO? (SpeakEasy goes through Covad to provide the DSL part of the connection; Covad leases a cage in your local Verizon CO and pays Verizon to route your phone line into Covad's box. Then Covad connects the circuit to SpeakEasy, which routes your traffic to the Internet.) Covad doesn't have equipment in every single CO in the country, which is why they can't provide service to everyone. Perhaps they just didn't think it would be cost-effective to lease a cage and set up equipment in your CO, or perhaps they just haven't gotten to it yet, or perhaps, as you say, somehow Verizon screwed them (but I'd be very interested to know exactly how, if that's it).
On a side note, I recently got a quick tour of Covad's HQ in San Jose. Pretty impressive facility. Their NOC actually looks like something you'd see in a big-budget Hollywood movie.;-)
I am betting that your "repeater" is really another CO, just fed with a fiber line from the other one that's 8 miles away, and the closer CO is 3 mi. away.
Not exactly, but close - it's a remote DSLAM, basically a smaller version of the same equipment they have in the CO, in a little box at the side of the road somewhere in your neighborhood. Your phone line runs into the box, then there's a fiber line from there to the CO. The actual DSL part of the line is just from your house to the box, which could be only 1,000 feet or so, so you should get better performance than if your line were running directly to the CO but you were at 15,000 feet. Unfortunately a remote DSLAM is typically less reliable than the DSLAM in the CO (more susceptible to weather, etc.) and the DSLAM in the CO might be upgraded to handle faster speeds than what the remote DSLAM can handle. Still, it usually works pretty well, and it's the only option for DSL if you don't live near the CO.
Here's a bit of trivia: the first three digits of your phone number after the area code are called the "exchange". Every CO is assigned a handful of exchanges, each of which has 10,000 phone numbers. Any phone number you see with the same first three numbers as yours is wired to the same CO as you. In some cases, number portability may allow someone to keep their phone number when they move near a different CO or switch to VOIP; this basically works by forwarding the call from your CO to wherever it's supposed to go (if your VOIP provider lets you keep your old phone number, they do it by paying your phone company to forward the number from your CO to the VOIP provider). Phone calls are routed to COs based on the area code and exchange sort of like the way IP packets are routed based on the subnet; you can't just reassign a single IP to another part of the world, because the Internet would break, but you could set up a proxy to forward the traffic to a different IP.
It doesn't matter that most people who use Google happen to currently be running Windows. The problem is that people who DON'T run Windows can ALSO use Google. Microsoft feels threatened by anything that allows Windows users to switch to other platforms.
Firefox is another good example of a threat - people can sit down at a Linux box, and open up Firefox just like they're used to on Windows. Microsoft knows they can't attack Mozilla directly, so they're doing the only thing they can, which is to make Internet Explorer "good enough" for most users, so they'll have less reason to switch from IE to Firefox, so people will once again add "I can't run the web browser I'm used to" to the list of reasons why they don't want to bother trying Linux.
So it's not the people running iTunes on Windows that Microsoft is concerned about - it's the people running iTunes on Windows who think to themselves, "hey, I need a new computer, maybe I should buy a Mac? I listen to music in iTunes and use GMail in Firefox, all that stuff works on the Mac, right? Cool... I'll give it a try!"
Of course there's a fine line between wanting to make a competing platform less attractive to potential switchers, and wanting to milk current users of that platform for all they're worth, thus the continued existence of Microsoft Office for the Mac. After getting caught doing something very naughty[1], they agreed to make Office for Mac stop sucking, and now they're not going to kill it because it's bringing in wads of cash. Having Entourage[2] available makes Exchange Server more valuable, because businesses that already have Macs can use Exchange instead of using a competing product. The existence of WMP for Mac allowed content producers to use Microsoft's media server products without dropping support for their Mac customers (finally Microsoft realized that they can't make WMP on Mac not suck, so they licensed a better solution from somebody else[3], but again, same idea). Having Remote Desktop available makes Windows Servers more attractive, etc.
Sometimes, it's about making money. Google exists solely because of ad revenue; Microsoft wants a larger piece of that pie. But also, Microsoft enters many of the markets they do because they don't want to get caught with their pants down if some technology other than PCs suddenly becomes popular and Microsoft doesn't have anything at all in that market. People like to play video games on something besides PC (and some game consoles can run a web browser), so Microsoft got involved. People can keep track of their contacts and appointments on a PDA instead of a PC, so Microsoft got involved. Remember set-top boxes like WebTV? For awhile a lot of people thought those might take off (among computer-illiterate morons), so Microsoft got involved. Apple created the iPod because no other MP3 player had decent Mac support; when Apple started selling the iPod to PC users too, Microsoft got involved.
[1] Rumor was, Microsoft stole some QuickTime source code and used it in WMP; instead of suing, Bill Gates and Gil Amelio reached an agreement that involved MS paying Apple an undisclosed wad of cash, publicly investing in non-voting Apple stock, publicly committing to continuing development of Office for Mac, and some other stuff.
[2] Entourage is the e-mail client included with Microsoft Office for Mac; it's sort of like Outlook Express with Exchange support (and some other things) bolted on. It doesn't work the same way as Outlook, so they didn't want to call it Outlook.
[3] Flip4Mac is a QuickTime plug-in that allows QuickTime-based applications (such as QuickTime Player) to play Windows Media files. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than WMP for Mac, which was a complete pile of crap.
Start with FreeSSL, a real cert that's valid for one month for free.
Then move on to Simple-SSL.com, $35 for two years or $44 for three years. Both certs are from RapidSSL.com (aka GeoTrust, but I've never seen spam from them), so they work in all the browsers most people care about, but Simple-SSL.com is much cheaper than RapidSSL.com even though it's exactly the same product.
"RapidSSL.com certificates are compatible with IE 5.01+, Netscape 4.7+, Mozilla 1+, AOL 5+, Firefox, Safari and many newer Windows and Mac based browsers and are single root install certificates (they do not use chaining technology), meaning that they are compatible with SSLv2 and SSLv3."
By the way, if anyone knows how to add additional certificates to a Motorola v551 mobile phone, please let me know...
This isn't the first time. The G4 Cube came out at about the same time as the Nintendo GameCube, and before that I remember seeing Nintendo systems in translucent plastic iMac colors.
I disagree with your assertion that most Christians are only Christians because it's a safer bet than the alternatives. I'm a Christian because I believe the Bible to be true, which is because what the Bible says is consistent with my experience in life and I find it reasonable to assume that in the lack of evidence to the contrary, anything that consistently agrees with my own experience (and the experience of others around me whom I respect) is likely to be true. Pascal's Wager doesn't really apply here.
You've also made a bit of an error in applying it to the global warming debate: Pascal's Wager assumes that there is no significant cost if the side you've chosen turns out to be wrong. In fact, the cost is precisely what companies are so upset about. They argue that the proposed changes required to slow/stop/reverse global warming will be extremely expensive.
Because I'm an atheist, I believe that no one will save me but myself. Whatever you do, you do because no mysterious figure will coddle you, you've got to do it on your own and if you don't take care of yourself and your surroundings, you can't count on anyone else to do it for you.
As a Christian, it has been my experience that God not only does take care of me, but does so with much greater success than my own efforts. I find it fascinating to see the ways in which God answers questions, without communicating in words.
God doesn't take care of you, you do.
As an atheist, this is basically true for you, and I'm sure your experience bears it out... but that doesn't mean God doesn't take care of me.
IF there is a god, he's got better things to do than to worry about my sorry ass. He's got kids to put through college a universe to run and a big mortgage. To me seems VERY self centered and enormously selfish to believe that out of EVERYTHING in the universe that would need tending, (if there is a god who tends to things) that a worthwhile god would listen to my whining about the piddly events in my life.
Jesus addressed this (Matthew 10:29-31, Luke 6:6-7): out of everything in the universe that needs tending, God takes care of sparrows, which aren't very valuable; you are worth much more than a sparrow, so why wouldn't He take even greater care of you?
Sure, it would be self-centered and arrogant to presume God to be interested in your problems - were it not for God's direct open invitation to do so. In fact, God actually WANTS you to ask Him for help. God is omnipotent, capable of doing anything He wants to do; nothing you can ask for is too difficult for Him to handle, but the awesome thing is that He cares about us as well.
The future you make, you make yourself and with the people and environment you surround yourself with.
Speaking of the future... I assume you believe that when you die, your spirit will cease to exist. Eternal existence separated from God will come as a rather unpleasant surprise, then.:-(
Um, I filed my taxes electronically this year. How's that gonna work if they don't have Internet access?
(But this information definitely should not have been on a computer that was used for downloading porn, or rather, a computer with this information on it definitely should not have been used for downloading porn...)
I know that confidentiality agreements are standard in our industry, but seriously, city officials should NEVER have to sign something that allows them to bypass their responsibility to the people they serve in the area. This is a BAD idea
What responsibility are you referring to, than an NDA would allow them to bypass?
With all this power hungry datacenters they keep building, what is google doing to be a bit more environmentlaly green?
More environmentally green than what?
Datacenters suck up power, in the S.F bay area, Exodus Communications (runner/owner of colo facilities during the dotcom boom), consumed more power than the NUMMI http://www.nummi.com/ auto manufacturing factory....which is why Google chose a location where hydroelectric power is plentiful.
Is building 10s of thousands of servers the right idea?
What alternative would you suggest?
I've talked to quite a few datacenter managers lately and they all have power problems, many have physical space in their datacenters for more gear, but do not have enough power to continue expanding....which is why Google chose a location where hydroelectric power is plentiful. Did it occur to you that Google has learned from the datacenters whose managers you've talked to, and won't make the same mistakes?
Maybe if Google wanted to build a "secret" datacenter they shouldn't have let the New York Times write an article about it....
It doesn't look to me like Google "let" the NYT write this article at all. Noticed who they talked to for this story:
a supercomputing pioneer and a founder of Applied Minds
executive director of the Port of Klickitat
executive director of The Dalles Area Chamber of Commerce
a former Google executive who is now director of engineering at ISC
a computer networking expert who was a founder of @Home
What did Google officially contribute to the article?
"Companies are historically sensitive about where their operational infrastructure is," acknowledged Urs Holzle, Google's senior vice president for operations.
I see your point, but Asimov's robots that were governed by the Three Laws always had the ability to be aware of that sort of thing, which the robot mentioned in the article obviously didn't. The lack of Asimov's Three Laws wasn't the problem here. Basically, the author of the article has no idea what he's talking about.
I accept that Asimovian robots ensure that they stay within the laws by passing judgement on themselves, but even they wouldn't shut down if they were unaware that they had killed someone, so perhaps the first law could be stated as "A robot may not intentionally injure a human being...".
Upon becoming aware that it has unintentionally injured a human being, the robot will have problems; not having been aware at the time doesn't let it off the hook.
Sounds like you have the opportunity now to go see a doctor on your own then, and get a diagnosis. Be prepared to accept that there may be some alternative explanation, but chances are, they'll give you drugs that will make college much more bearable - and maybe your parents will see the difference.
Re:monopolies to commodities: won't get fooled aga
on
Net Neutrality or Not?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Telecommunication companies thought they could create differentiated products like "video on demand" where everyone would get their TV, movies and music from the telecommunication companies. Instead, P2P systems have taken care of those needs, with the result of people not wanting huge downloads from a central company, but rather they will download from other "end users".
Wrong - people DO want huge downloads from a central company, but they can't get that, so they're downloading from other end users instead. Things are slowly starting to change: now you can get some of the content you want, for a little more than you'd like to pay for it. In time, you'll be able to get more content for less money, but that's several years away (and remember, if Apple didn't have a monopoly position, they couldn't negotiate prices down as low as they are now - they had to fight pretty hard to keep songs at $0.99, and were only able to force the record companies to agree because the record companies can't afford to lose Apple's customers altogether).
You should read Asimov's robot stories and novels. It's not that simple - violating the First Law causes permanent damage to the robot's positronic brain. Simple conflicts between the laws (e.g. ordering a robot to harm a human) can cause minor psychological problems, which a robot psychologist (i.e. someone who understands the psychology of robots, not actually a robot herself) can discern by measuring the responses to certain questions. Fascinating stuff. Start with the short stories, then move on to Caves of Steel, then The Naked Sun.
Admittedly PHP sucks, but isn't comparing it to BASIC a little harsh?
Sure, it's easy to write crap code in PHP if you don't know what you're doing. It's considerably harder to write crap code (that actually works) in C if you don't know what you're doing. So everyone should use C, so people who don't know what they're doing can't write code? I don't think so.
If you do know what you're doing, you can mostly use good design and practices in PHP - not as well as other languages like Perl (and I assume Ruby and Python), but a hell of a lot better than BASIC which, if I remember correctly, doesn't support local variables, short-circuit evaluation, passing arguments to subroutines and returning values, and plenty of other things I can't think of at the moment - let alone OOP. PHP at least tries. On top of that, languages like PHP have functionality built-in or readily available to deal with things like XML, databases and network I/O, so you don't have to write all of that code yourself.
I'm thinking anyone who compares PHP to BASIC either doesn't know BASIC, or doesn't know PHP.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity, is this because Covad doesn't have equipment in your CO? (SpeakEasy goes through Covad to provide the DSL part of the connection; Covad leases a cage in your local Verizon CO and pays Verizon to route your phone line into Covad's box. Then Covad connects the circuit to SpeakEasy, which routes your traffic to the Internet.) Covad doesn't have equipment in every single CO in the country, which is why they can't provide service to everyone. Perhaps they just didn't think it would be cost-effective to lease a cage and set up equipment in your CO, or perhaps they just haven't gotten to it yet, or perhaps, as you say, somehow Verizon screwed them (but I'd be very interested to know exactly how, if that's it).
;-)
On a side note, I recently got a quick tour of Covad's HQ in San Jose. Pretty impressive facility. Their NOC actually looks like something you'd see in a big-budget Hollywood movie.
I am betting that your "repeater" is really another CO, just fed with a fiber line from the other one that's 8 miles away, and the closer CO is 3 mi. away.
Not exactly, but close - it's a remote DSLAM, basically a smaller version of the same equipment they have in the CO, in a little box at the side of the road somewhere in your neighborhood. Your phone line runs into the box, then there's a fiber line from there to the CO. The actual DSL part of the line is just from your house to the box, which could be only 1,000 feet or so, so you should get better performance than if your line were running directly to the CO but you were at 15,000 feet. Unfortunately a remote DSLAM is typically less reliable than the DSLAM in the CO (more susceptible to weather, etc.) and the DSLAM in the CO might be upgraded to handle faster speeds than what the remote DSLAM can handle. Still, it usually works pretty well, and it's the only option for DSL if you don't live near the CO.
Here's a bit of trivia: the first three digits of your phone number after the area code are called the "exchange". Every CO is assigned a handful of exchanges, each of which has 10,000 phone numbers. Any phone number you see with the same first three numbers as yours is wired to the same CO as you. In some cases, number portability may allow someone to keep their phone number when they move near a different CO or switch to VOIP; this basically works by forwarding the call from your CO to wherever it's supposed to go (if your VOIP provider lets you keep your old phone number, they do it by paying your phone company to forward the number from your CO to the VOIP provider). Phone calls are routed to COs based on the area code and exchange sort of like the way IP packets are routed based on the subnet; you can't just reassign a single IP to another part of the world, because the Internet would break, but you could set up a proxy to forward the traffic to a different IP.
It doesn't matter that most people who use Google happen to currently be running Windows. The problem is that people who DON'T run Windows can ALSO use Google. Microsoft feels threatened by anything that allows Windows users to switch to other platforms.
Firefox is another good example of a threat - people can sit down at a Linux box, and open up Firefox just like they're used to on Windows. Microsoft knows they can't attack Mozilla directly, so they're doing the only thing they can, which is to make Internet Explorer "good enough" for most users, so they'll have less reason to switch from IE to Firefox, so people will once again add "I can't run the web browser I'm used to" to the list of reasons why they don't want to bother trying Linux.
So it's not the people running iTunes on Windows that Microsoft is concerned about - it's the people running iTunes on Windows who think to themselves, "hey, I need a new computer, maybe I should buy a Mac? I listen to music in iTunes and use GMail in Firefox, all that stuff works on the Mac, right? Cool... I'll give it a try!"
Of course there's a fine line between wanting to make a competing platform less attractive to potential switchers, and wanting to milk current users of that platform for all they're worth, thus the continued existence of Microsoft Office for the Mac. After getting caught doing something very naughty[1], they agreed to make Office for Mac stop sucking, and now they're not going to kill it because it's bringing in wads of cash. Having Entourage[2] available makes Exchange Server more valuable, because businesses that already have Macs can use Exchange instead of using a competing product. The existence of WMP for Mac allowed content producers to use Microsoft's media server products without dropping support for their Mac customers (finally Microsoft realized that they can't make WMP on Mac not suck, so they licensed a better solution from somebody else[3], but again, same idea). Having Remote Desktop available makes Windows Servers more attractive, etc.
Sometimes, it's about making money. Google exists solely because of ad revenue; Microsoft wants a larger piece of that pie. But also, Microsoft enters many of the markets they do because they don't want to get caught with their pants down if some technology other than PCs suddenly becomes popular and Microsoft doesn't have anything at all in that market. People like to play video games on something besides PC (and some game consoles can run a web browser), so Microsoft got involved. People can keep track of their contacts and appointments on a PDA instead of a PC, so Microsoft got involved. Remember set-top boxes like WebTV? For awhile a lot of people thought those might take off (among computer-illiterate morons), so Microsoft got involved. Apple created the iPod because no other MP3 player had decent Mac support; when Apple started selling the iPod to PC users too, Microsoft got involved.
[1] Rumor was, Microsoft stole some QuickTime source code and used it in WMP; instead of suing, Bill Gates and Gil Amelio reached an agreement that involved MS paying Apple an undisclosed wad of cash, publicly investing in non-voting Apple stock, publicly committing to continuing development of Office for Mac, and some other stuff.
[2] Entourage is the e-mail client included with Microsoft Office for Mac; it's sort of like Outlook Express with Exchange support (and some other things) bolted on. It doesn't work the same way as Outlook, so they didn't want to call it Outlook.
[3] Flip4Mac is a QuickTime plug-in that allows QuickTime-based applications (such as QuickTime Player) to play Windows Media files. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than WMP for Mac, which was a complete pile of crap.
Then move on to Simple-SSL.com, $35 for two years or $44 for three years. Both certs are from RapidSSL.com (aka GeoTrust, but I've never seen spam from them), so they work in all the browsers most people care about, but Simple-SSL.com is much cheaper than RapidSSL.com even though it's exactly the same product.
By the way, if anyone knows how to add additional certificates to a Motorola v551 mobile phone, please let me know...
This isn't the first time. The G4 Cube came out at about the same time as the Nintendo GameCube, and before that I remember seeing Nintendo systems in translucent plastic iMac colors.
I disagree with your assertion that most Christians are only Christians because it's a safer bet than the alternatives. I'm a Christian because I believe the Bible to be true, which is because what the Bible says is consistent with my experience in life and I find it reasonable to assume that in the lack of evidence to the contrary, anything that consistently agrees with my own experience (and the experience of others around me whom I respect) is likely to be true. Pascal's Wager doesn't really apply here.
;-)
You've also made a bit of an error in applying it to the global warming debate: Pascal's Wager assumes that there is no significant cost if the side you've chosen turns out to be wrong. In fact, the cost is precisely what companies are so upset about. They argue that the proposed changes required to slow/stop/reverse global warming will be extremely expensive.
Other than that I agree with you.
Because I'm an atheist, I believe that no one will save me but myself. Whatever you do, you do because no mysterious figure will coddle you, you've got to do it on your own and if you don't take care of yourself and your surroundings, you can't count on anyone else to do it for you.
:-(
As a Christian, it has been my experience that God not only does take care of me, but does so with much greater success than my own efforts. I find it fascinating to see the ways in which God answers questions, without communicating in words.
God doesn't take care of you, you do.
As an atheist, this is basically true for you, and I'm sure your experience bears it out... but that doesn't mean God doesn't take care of me.
IF there is a god, he's got better things to do than to worry about my sorry ass. He's got kids to put through college a universe to run and a big mortgage. To me seems VERY self centered and enormously selfish to believe that out of EVERYTHING in the universe that would need tending, (if there is a god who tends to things) that a worthwhile god would listen to my whining about the piddly events in my life.
Jesus addressed this (Matthew 10:29-31, Luke 6:6-7): out of everything in the universe that needs tending, God takes care of sparrows, which aren't very valuable; you are worth much more than a sparrow, so why wouldn't He take even greater care of you?
Sure, it would be self-centered and arrogant to presume God to be interested in your problems - were it not for God's direct open invitation to do so. In fact, God actually WANTS you to ask Him for help. God is omnipotent, capable of doing anything He wants to do; nothing you can ask for is too difficult for Him to handle, but the awesome thing is that He cares about us as well.
The future you make, you make yourself and with the people and environment you surround yourself with.
Speaking of the future... I assume you believe that when you die, your spirit will cease to exist. Eternal existence separated from God will come as a rather unpleasant surprise, then.
The question is, how did God decide what was "right" ?
Surely if God created the universe and everything in it, He should have a pretty solid understanding of how it's supposed to work, no?
Um, I filed my taxes electronically this year. How's that gonna work if they don't have Internet access?
(But this information definitely should not have been on a computer that was used for downloading porn, or rather, a computer with this information on it definitely should not have been used for downloading porn...)
I know that confidentiality agreements are standard in our industry, but seriously, city officials should NEVER have to sign something that allows them to bypass their responsibility to the people they serve in the area. This is a BAD idea
What responsibility are you referring to, than an NDA would allow them to bypass?
With all this power hungry datacenters they keep building, what is google doing to be a bit more environmentlaly green?
...which is why Google chose a location where hydroelectric power is plentiful.
...which is why Google chose a location where hydroelectric power is plentiful. Did it occur to you that Google has learned from the datacenters whose managers you've talked to, and won't make the same mistakes?
More environmentally green than what?
Datacenters suck up power, in the S.F bay area, Exodus Communications (runner/owner of colo facilities during the dotcom boom), consumed more power than the NUMMI http://www.nummi.com/ auto manufacturing factory.
Is building 10s of thousands of servers the right idea?
What alternative would you suggest?
I've talked to quite a few datacenter managers lately and they all have power problems, many have physical space in their datacenters for more gear, but do not have enough power to continue expanding.
Actually it's The Dalles, not The Dalls.
It doesn't look to me like Google "let" the NYT write this article at all. Noticed who they talked to for this story:
What did Google officially contribute to the article?
* With purchase of second Tibet of equal or greater value
I see your point, but Asimov's robots that were governed by the Three Laws always had the ability to be aware of that sort of thing, which the robot mentioned in the article obviously didn't. The lack of Asimov's Three Laws wasn't the problem here. Basically, the author of the article has no idea what he's talking about.
I accept that Asimovian robots ensure that they stay within the laws by passing judgement on themselves, but even they wouldn't shut down if they were unaware that they had killed someone, so perhaps the first law could be stated as "A robot may not intentionally injure a human being...".
Upon becoming aware that it has unintentionally injured a human being, the robot will have problems; not having been aware at the time doesn't let it off the hook.
oh, and nice sig
Thanks... I'm afraid I don't recognize the language yours is in?
Sounds like you have the opportunity now to go see a doctor on your own then, and get a diagnosis. Be prepared to accept that there may be some alternative explanation, but chances are, they'll give you drugs that will make college much more bearable - and maybe your parents will see the difference.
Telecommunication companies thought they could create differentiated products like "video on demand" where everyone would get their TV, movies and music from the telecommunication companies. Instead, P2P systems have taken care of those needs, with the result of people not wanting huge downloads from a central company, but rather they will download from other "end users".
Wrong - people DO want huge downloads from a central company, but they can't get that, so they're downloading from other end users instead. Things are slowly starting to change: now you can get some of the content you want, for a little more than you'd like to pay for it. In time, you'll be able to get more content for less money, but that's several years away (and remember, if Apple didn't have a monopoly position, they couldn't negotiate prices down as low as they are now - they had to fight pretty hard to keep songs at $0.99, and were only able to force the record companies to agree because the record companies can't afford to lose Apple's customers altogether).
You should read Asimov's robot stories and novels. It's not that simple - violating the First Law causes permanent damage to the robot's positronic brain. Simple conflicts between the laws (e.g. ordering a robot to harm a human) can cause minor psychological problems, which a robot psychologist (i.e. someone who understands the psychology of robots, not actually a robot herself) can discern by measuring the responses to certain questions. Fascinating stuff. Start with the short stories, then move on to Caves of Steel, then The Naked Sun.
I've been pretty happy with Rocks so far. It's not perfect, but it looks well-designed, the documentation is friendly, and there's a mailing list.
In a contest they would.
Or that Oprah thing?
I stand corrected!
Admittedly PHP sucks, but isn't comparing it to BASIC a little harsh?
Sure, it's easy to write crap code in PHP if you don't know what you're doing. It's considerably harder to write crap code (that actually works) in C if you don't know what you're doing. So everyone should use C, so people who don't know what they're doing can't write code? I don't think so.
If you do know what you're doing, you can mostly use good design and practices in PHP - not as well as other languages like Perl (and I assume Ruby and Python), but a hell of a lot better than BASIC which, if I remember correctly, doesn't support local variables, short-circuit evaluation, passing arguments to subroutines and returning values, and plenty of other things I can't think of at the moment - let alone OOP. PHP at least tries. On top of that, languages like PHP have functionality built-in or readily available to deal with things like XML, databases and network I/O, so you don't have to write all of that code yourself.
I'm thinking anyone who compares PHP to BASIC either doesn't know BASIC, or doesn't know PHP.
He'll need a new throat and his kids will need some serious therapy.
I see no reason why his kids (if he has any - I wouldn't think so, if he's 24 and just got out of college) should suffer for his actions.
As for needing a new throat, well, that probably wouldn't be consistent with the 8th Amendment.