If your company is large enough (1000+ employees), you might consider simply ignoring the dress code. I know this may not be applicable, but my high school used to (and it theory still does) have a dress code banning short shorts, "spaghetti-string" shirts, etc. Every year the administration would give us a lecture on what the dress code was, and every year they were ignored. This year, they just gave up. No lecture, no sporadic crackdowns. Try it, it may work.
I would advise against using systemboards (motherboards with sound, video etc. built in)for two reasons. The video and sound tend to be cruddy, and often aren't supported in Linux.
...for two reasons.
1.) Space programs usually have a strong military influence. The US-Soviet space race was really just a demonstration of the two contries' ability to lob nukes around the world, and put a military base on the Moon from which to lauch additional nukes. Countries generally like to keep military things internal.
2.) National pride. People like to sing "I did it my way", without anyone else's help.
Personally, I agree with you, but large-scale unity won't happen for a while yet. I don't count the ISS, because it's really just a collection of modules that were made by nation's individually.
I just had a thought...why not send resupply flights after a manned Mars spacecraft? If the manned ship didn't have to carry all its consumables, it could be made cheaper and smaller. Could they launch unmanned supply ships after the manned vessel? Some of those could be designed to go faster than the manned ship and overtake it every few months, while others could be sent on a different orbit to meet the manned vessel at Mars. We already have the technology to send fairly large payloads such as probes to Mars - could we do this?
Actually, Sir, space exploration is one of the most useful programs the United States has ever undertaken. It's lead to advances in computer technology, military hardware, navigation (ever use GPS? How do you think the sattelites got up there?), communication (Iridium, satellite TV, satellite Internet access) weather monitoring (satellites,) monitoring of global warming, potential space-based medicine manufacturing, potential space-based power stations - I could go on for hour about the things space exploration has done for the world. Suffice to say that only war has advanced technology faster than space exploration. And unlike war, space is not a waste of money.
Mexico has land near the equator, so they could set up an equatorial launch facility easily. They also have oil, and a complete lack of environmental or labor laws that would make the manufactoring of spacecraft a lot cheaper and faster. Hmm...
Uh, we have the same problem in the USA. In fact, we have it worse. Our president looks suspiciously like a chimpanzeee (take a look at www.bushorchimp.com) and our congress is now being run by Democrats who will block everything Bush tries to do, and Bush in turn will squash any democratic bills whatsoever.
You think you have it bad because you can't decide on a space program. We're lucky if we can all agree on what "space" is! You think the idea of Canada as a spacefaring nation is laughable - I say that it's the idea of the US as a serious space power that is laughable. We're just coasting, not innovating.
It seems to me that NASA of late has gotten sort of unimpressive. The Mars probes have been - well, unspectacular - and ISS funding is always iffy. Frankly, the American people do not seem all that enthusiastic about space exploration (present company excluded, of course:-)).
Perhaps things will be different for the Canadians. The CSA is still relatively inexperienced, still experimenting. It reminds me a lot of NASA in the sixties, when even the average American citizen was saying "Man on moon! Man on moon!" If the Canadian government stays relatively consistant in space policy (a big if) and if there are no metric-english unit mistakes, I think the CSA could prove to be the upstart that revitalizes world-wide interest in space.
No, I don't blaim MS for other people's failures. What I do blaim them for if balatantly trying to invade the privacy of their users passport, ignoring court rulings by intergrating more stuff in WinXP, and using a series of EULAs that are illegal in a large portion of Europe, for crying out loud. There's a difference between competition and anti-competitive practices.
Good point. Frankly, I thought that the Bord Queen should never have been introduced. Sure, she's well done, but there is only one thing the Borg should be saying: "We are the Bord. You will be assimilated. Resistance is Futile. Your technological and biological distinctiveness will be added to our own." Then the ultra-powerful tractor beems should suck a few ships into a cube and assimilate the crew.
Incidentally, was it just me, or did Admiral Janeway seem to take an awful long time to be assimilated. Even after accounting for the virus, the Bord Queen still controlled her drones until she fell apart. Shouldn't mthe Admiral have been controlled as well. We saw the bloody gadgets on her face, for crying out loud...
After reading the businessweek article, I find myself with a pronounced feeling of dread. People used to worry about the government invading their privacy, but there's no check on Microsoft. If the MS split decision is overturned (and it seems it will be) Microsoft seems bent on controlling every aspect of the internet, despite their denials.
Just for starters, the passport "service" scares the heck out of me. Oh yes, let's give windows my personal information and credit card number, and any site that wants it can just access it like a cookie. Good idea!
It seems clear that MS cannot be trusted to control internet standards. Viva Linux!
"With XP, Microsoft can finally harness its battery of products and Web sites, feeding customers from one product into another in a chain reaction with a potentially explosive result. Test versions of Windows XP include quick access to an easy-to-use browser that has a button that starts Microsoft's Windows Media Player. That browser zips you to Microsoft's MSN Web portal...What's more, Windows XP offers to plug you in to altogether new Internet services, such as Microsoft's alert system that e-mails or pages you when a flight is late or a stock dips low enough to buy."
Um...If the DoJ thought binding IE into windows was illegal, what the heck are they going to think of this?
Strangely enough, I find that caffeine helps my back tremendously. Specifically, caffeinated mints work wonders.
The other thing I is use my sister's cat as a backrest. He's a big guy, so he doesn't mind, and the purr of a cat has been shown to reduce time needed for bones to mend, so I suppose that it's not inconcievable that is also is a muscle relaxant. Anyway, it works.
This is what I hate/love about Compaq. They come up with these interesting, innovative designs (Ipaq desktop, their laptops, etc) and then load them down with proprietary hardware. I have a Deskpro with Pentium II, and it has so much wacky proprietary stuff it isn't funny. The "BIOS" is stored in part on a hard drive partition, for the love of Pete! And yet, it has one of the easiest-to-open, nicest NLX cases I've ever seen.
What's this have to do with the new designs? Well, I am certain that they will be very nice, useful, and cool as heck, but no one will understand the stuff in them! Even where standards exist that Compaq could use, they will use their own proprietary, undocumented hardware. That means that any sort of tweaking/Linux distribs/etc. will much harder than it has to be. Why can't we all just use standards?
The way I see it, donating to Mandrake is not only okay, it should be encourage by the Linux community. After all, Linux and the GPL tools Mandrake works on are released open-source, right? So basically, when you give money to Mandrake, you're helping highly skilled programmers write new GPL code which you yourself can then download and use for anything you like without paying a dime.
How many private, non-corporate users actually pay a dime for their distribs anyway? The difference between Ford and Mandrake asking for cash to fund development is that Ford is guaranteed cash from their users, while Mandrake is not. Who are we to get upset when they ask politely for an optional donation to help program code that we ourselves can then use? I don't see Ford posting how-tos on their web site for building their newest V8.
It's intuitively obvious upon further observation that Wheat's response is a deeply meaningful, symbolic work. One need only consider the repeated insults to a man named "Cliff" to understand that this essay really isn't about 2001 at all. No, this is about the small, screaming voice in each and every one of us that is afraid of heights, that froze when our phys-ed teacher in elementary school told us to climbd the monkey bars. Wheat is telling us in a very subtle way that there's no need to be afraid of heights because they do not really matter.
Likewise, the name "Wheat" is also highly symbolic. It suggests that Wheat is saying that litereray criticism is fueled primarily by the need of litererary critics to put food on the table (wheat = food).
I congratulate you, Mr. Wheat, on your deeply meaningful response to Cliff's criticism. It has enriched my life.
Guys, come on, it's just a book. It's not worth getting worked up over. Logically, since all of the shared culteral context of our civilization is based on our collective pool of literature, I'm sure intentional and unintentional symbols of all sorts of spiffy allegories and whatnot can be found, but you'll never prove any of them one way or the other, because the preception and acceptence of a symbol depends a lot on the reader.
I'm an Honors English student, and I've seen all sorts of arguments rage for an entire 90-minute period over whether or not Hester Prynne in The Scarlet Letter actually loved Chillingworth! And you know what, at the end of the discussion, I hated the book. Nothing sucks the joy out of a book or movie quite like literary criticism.
I know this would never happen, but I wish more movies wouild be made about people making peace, instead of war. For example, in 1995 a group of Japanese and American Pearl Harbor veterans met at the USS Arizona memorial, and shook hands, and hugged, and at least made the effort to forgive each other for the hell that was Pearl Harbor.
When I heard about this, I thought - and still think - that this was one of the noblest, most heroic things I had ever heard. To forgive a man who killed your friends, because that is simply the right thing to do - I don't know if I could do that, but I hope I could. These men - Japanese and American both - at the 1995 meeting were heroes, but will any movies be made celebrating that? No, but a movie about these same men bombing the *$%! out of each other will sell like the proverbial hotcakes. I think that's sick, and I think that's wrong.
I was listening to NPR yesterday, and they had a guy on (I forget his name, sorry) who made a couple of interesting points. First of all, he mentioned that there is a higher incidence of hate crimes against Asian-Americans on Dec. 7. He also mentioned that after the release of other Pearl Harbor movies such as Tora Tora Tora, there has been a temporary increase in violence against Asian-Americans.
This is an interesting example of a well-known phenomenon, the larger-than-life effect of movies. Quite simply, the images and sounds of a move can have enormous psychological impact on people even when they know rationally that there is no reason for them to be emotional. That's how, for example, horror movies and tearjerkers can be effective. Our brains just aren't wired to disregard the sort of full-screen, Dolby Digital input you get in a movie theatre.
In short, it is entirely possible that "Pearl Harbor" may cause an increase in racist behavior, if past experience is anything to go by. Note, however, that I am not saying the producers, writers, or audience are bigots. I am just saying that movies influence people in a variety of subconcious ways, and this movie may have the effect I mentioned. Thoughts?
"The screenwriter is clearly going for another grand-scale Titanic."
Why do I suspect that a legion of 12 to 14 year old girls will be crying about how sad it is that Pearl Harbor gets bombed?
At least when intercepting an asteroid or come, you can get an idea of the thing's orbit from Earth (although with a comet you have to allow for random outgassing). However, to destroy or move an asteroid or comet, you have to know mass and composition. This is the sort of thing that would have to be determined by a probe, with a high degree of detail. Knowing the composition of a tiny piece won't do - you have to know what most of the asteroid is made of with a high degree of certainty, and where all the different material deposits are located in order to find center of mass.
Right now, we don't have the ability to do that. This interception is, in reality, rather meaningless from an Earth-protection point of view, although it is cool. And of course, there's always the scientific benefit.
I just had a thought - with all the marketing muscle of AMD and Transmeta, might they decide simply to do away with the whole concept of x86 compatability? The effort to integrete x86 compatability into Itanium gives it a drag on performance which isn't really needed on a server, so long as it can run a native proxy/router whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
If Mozilla were being made by Microsoft, we would have to pay for the betas, and it wouldn't be any good until version 3.1
If your company is large enough (1000+ employees), you might consider simply ignoring the dress code. I know this may not be applicable, but my high school used to (and it theory still does) have a dress code banning short shorts, "spaghetti-string" shirts, etc. Every year the administration would give us a lecture on what the dress code was, and every year they were ignored. This year, they just gave up. No lecture, no sporadic crackdowns. Try it, it may work.
I would advise against using systemboards (motherboards with sound, video etc. built in)for two reasons. The video and sound tend to be cruddy, and often aren't supported in Linux.
...for two reasons.
1.) Space programs usually have a strong military influence. The US-Soviet space race was really just a demonstration of the two contries' ability to lob nukes around the world, and put a military base on the Moon from which to lauch additional nukes. Countries generally like to keep military things internal.
2.) National pride. People like to sing "I did it my way", without anyone else's help.
Personally, I agree with you, but large-scale unity won't happen for a while yet. I don't count the ISS, because it's really just a collection of modules that were made by nation's individually.
I just had a thought...why not send resupply flights after a manned Mars spacecraft? If the manned ship didn't have to carry all its consumables, it could be made cheaper and smaller. Could they launch unmanned supply ships after the manned vessel? Some of those could be designed to go faster than the manned ship and overtake it every few months, while others could be sent on a different orbit to meet the manned vessel at Mars. We already have the technology to send fairly large payloads such as probes to Mars - could we do this?
Actually, Sir, space exploration is one of the most useful programs the United States has ever undertaken. It's lead to advances in computer technology, military hardware, navigation (ever use GPS? How do you think the sattelites got up there?), communication (Iridium, satellite TV, satellite Internet access) weather monitoring (satellites,) monitoring of global warming, potential space-based medicine manufacturing, potential space-based power stations - I could go on for hour about the things space exploration has done for the world. Suffice to say that only war has advanced technology faster than space exploration. And unlike war, space is not a waste of money.
Mexico has land near the equator, so they could set up an equatorial launch facility easily. They also have oil, and a complete lack of environmental or labor laws that would make the manufactoring of spacecraft a lot cheaper and faster. Hmm...
Uh, we have the same problem in the USA. In fact, we have it worse. Our president looks suspiciously like a chimpanzeee (take a look at www.bushorchimp.com) and our congress is now being run by Democrats who will block everything Bush tries to do, and Bush in turn will squash any democratic bills whatsoever.
You think you have it bad because you can't decide on a space program. We're lucky if we can all agree on what "space" is! You think the idea of Canada as a spacefaring nation is laughable - I say that it's the idea of the US as a serious space power that is laughable. We're just coasting, not innovating.
It seems to me that NASA of late has gotten sort of unimpressive. The Mars probes have been - well, unspectacular - and ISS funding is always iffy. Frankly, the American people do not seem all that enthusiastic about space exploration (present company excluded, of course :-)).
Perhaps things will be different for the Canadians. The CSA is still relatively inexperienced, still experimenting. It reminds me a lot of NASA in the sixties, when even the average American citizen was saying "Man on moon! Man on moon!" If the Canadian government stays relatively consistant in space policy (a big if) and if there are no metric-english unit mistakes, I think the CSA could prove to be the upstart that revitalizes world-wide interest in space.
Good luck, people.
No, I don't blaim MS for other people's failures. What I do blaim them for if balatantly trying to invade the privacy of their users passport, ignoring court rulings by intergrating more stuff in WinXP, and using a series of EULAs that are illegal in a large portion of Europe, for crying out loud. There's a difference between competition and anti-competitive practices.
Good point. Frankly, I thought that the Bord Queen should never have been introduced. Sure, she's well done, but there is only one thing the Borg should be saying: "We are the Bord. You will be assimilated. Resistance is Futile. Your technological and biological distinctiveness will be added to our own." Then the ultra-powerful tractor beems should suck a few ships into a cube and assimilate the crew.
Incidentally, was it just me, or did Admiral Janeway seem to take an awful long time to be assimilated. Even after accounting for the virus, the Bord Queen still controlled her drones until she fell apart. Shouldn't mthe Admiral have been controlled as well. We saw the bloody gadgets on her face, for crying out loud...
After reading the businessweek article, I find myself with a pronounced feeling of dread. People used to worry about the government invading their privacy, but there's no check on Microsoft. If the MS split decision is overturned (and it seems it will be) Microsoft seems bent on controlling every aspect of the internet, despite their denials.
Just for starters, the passport "service" scares the heck out of me. Oh yes, let's give windows my personal information and credit card number, and any site that wants it can just access it like a cookie. Good idea!
It seems clear that MS cannot be trusted to control internet standards. Viva Linux!
"With XP, Microsoft can finally harness its battery of products and Web sites, feeding customers from one product into another in a chain reaction with a potentially explosive result. Test versions of Windows XP include quick access to an easy-to-use browser that has a button that starts Microsoft's Windows Media Player. That browser zips you to Microsoft's MSN Web portal...What's more, Windows XP offers to plug you in to altogether new Internet services, such as Microsoft's alert system that e-mails or pages you when a flight is late or a stock dips low enough to buy."
Um...If the DoJ thought binding IE into windows was illegal, what the heck are they going to think of this?
From the BusinessWeek article: "the loudspeakers resounded with a new chant: "Microsoft, bomaye! Microsoft, bomaye!" (bomaye means "kill him".
I always knew Microsoft was a ruthless competitor, but murder? Will hitmen now need to buy Microsoft Silencers to remain competitive?
Gah! I just noticed my mispellings and typos. That's what I get for not using Preview! :-)
Strangely enough, I find that caffeine helps my back tremendously. Specifically, caffeinated mints work wonders.
The other thing I is use my sister's cat as a backrest. He's a big guy, so he doesn't mind, and the purr of a cat has been shown to reduce time needed for bones to mend, so I suppose that it's not inconcievable that is also is a muscle relaxant. Anyway, it works.
This is what I hate/love about Compaq. They come up with these interesting, innovative designs (Ipaq desktop, their laptops, etc) and then load them down with proprietary hardware. I have a Deskpro with Pentium II, and it has so much wacky proprietary stuff it isn't funny. The "BIOS" is stored in part on a hard drive partition, for the love of Pete! And yet, it has one of the easiest-to-open, nicest NLX cases I've ever seen.
What's this have to do with the new designs? Well, I am certain that they will be very nice, useful, and cool as heck, but no one will understand the stuff in them! Even where standards exist that Compaq could use, they will use their own proprietary, undocumented hardware. That means that any sort of tweaking/Linux distribs/etc. will much harder than it has to be. Why can't we all just use standards?
The way I see it, donating to Mandrake is not only okay, it should be encourage by the Linux community. After all, Linux and the GPL tools Mandrake works on are released open-source, right? So basically, when you give money to Mandrake, you're helping highly skilled programmers write new GPL code which you yourself can then download and use for anything you like without paying a dime.
How many private, non-corporate users actually pay a dime for their distribs anyway? The difference between Ford and Mandrake asking for cash to fund development is that Ford is guaranteed cash from their users, while Mandrake is not. Who are we to get upset when they ask politely for an optional donation to help program code that we ourselves can then use? I don't see Ford posting how-tos on their web site for building their newest V8.
It's intuitively obvious upon further observation that Wheat's response is a deeply meaningful, symbolic work. One need only consider the repeated insults to a man named "Cliff" to understand that this essay really isn't about 2001 at all. No, this is about the small, screaming voice in each and every one of us that is afraid of heights, that froze when our phys-ed teacher in elementary school told us to climbd the monkey bars. Wheat is telling us in a very subtle way that there's no need to be afraid of heights because they do not really matter.
Likewise, the name "Wheat" is also highly symbolic. It suggests that Wheat is saying that litereray criticism is fueled primarily by the need of litererary critics to put food on the table (wheat = food).
I congratulate you, Mr. Wheat, on your deeply meaningful response to Cliff's criticism. It has enriched my life.
Guys, come on, it's just a book. It's not worth getting worked up over. Logically, since all of the shared culteral context of our civilization is based on our collective pool of literature, I'm sure intentional and unintentional symbols of all sorts of spiffy allegories and whatnot can be found, but you'll never prove any of them one way or the other, because the preception and acceptence of a symbol depends a lot on the reader.
I'm an Honors English student, and I've seen all sorts of arguments rage for an entire 90-minute period over whether or not Hester Prynne in The Scarlet Letter actually loved Chillingworth! And you know what, at the end of the discussion, I hated the book. Nothing sucks the joy out of a book or movie quite like literary criticism.
I know this would never happen, but I wish more movies wouild be made about people making peace, instead of war. For example, in 1995 a group of Japanese and American Pearl Harbor veterans met at the USS Arizona memorial, and shook hands, and hugged, and at least made the effort to forgive each other for the hell that was Pearl Harbor.
When I heard about this, I thought - and still think - that this was one of the noblest, most heroic things I had ever heard. To forgive a man who killed your friends, because that is simply the right thing to do - I don't know if I could do that, but I hope I could. These men - Japanese and American both - at the 1995 meeting were heroes, but will any movies be made celebrating that? No, but a movie about these same men bombing the *$%! out of each other will sell like the proverbial hotcakes. I think that's sick, and I think that's wrong.
I was listening to NPR yesterday, and they had a guy on (I forget his name, sorry) who made a couple of interesting points. First of all, he mentioned that there is a higher incidence of hate crimes against Asian-Americans on Dec. 7. He also mentioned that after the release of other Pearl Harbor movies such as Tora Tora Tora, there has been a temporary increase in violence against Asian-Americans.
This is an interesting example of a well-known phenomenon, the larger-than-life effect of movies. Quite simply, the images and sounds of a move can have enormous psychological impact on people even when they know rationally that there is no reason for them to be emotional. That's how, for example, horror movies and tearjerkers can be effective. Our brains just aren't wired to disregard the sort of full-screen, Dolby Digital input you get in a movie theatre.
In short, it is entirely possible that "Pearl Harbor" may cause an increase in racist behavior, if past experience is anything to go by. Note, however, that I am not saying the producers, writers, or audience are bigots. I am just saying that movies influence people in a variety of subconcious ways, and this movie may have the effect I mentioned. Thoughts?
"The screenwriter is clearly going for another grand-scale Titanic."
Why do I suspect that a legion of 12 to 14 year old girls will be crying about how sad it is that Pearl Harbor gets bombed?
At least when intercepting an asteroid or come, you can get an idea of the thing's orbit from Earth (although with a comet you have to allow for random outgassing). However, to destroy or move an asteroid or comet, you have to know mass and composition. This is the sort of thing that would have to be determined by a probe, with a high degree of detail. Knowing the composition of a tiny piece won't do - you have to know what most of the asteroid is made of with a high degree of certainty, and where all the different material deposits are located in order to find center of mass.
Right now, we don't have the ability to do that. This interception is, in reality, rather meaningless from an Earth-protection point of view, although it is cool. And of course, there's always the scientific benefit.
I just had a thought - with all the marketing muscle of AMD and Transmeta, might they decide simply to do away with the whole concept of x86 compatability? The effort to integrete x86 compatability into Itanium gives it a drag on performance which isn't really needed on a server, so long as it can run a native proxy/router whatever.