This has been modded as funny but I think it is an interesting solution.
A have a small office with five boxes, which sit under peoples desks. I would like to put these in a cupboard. My problem is I don't think there is a practical solition for the cabling. You have to have of course the keyboard, monitor and mouse plugged into the boxes. That calls for a lot of wires from the desks to the boxes. Furthermore, you can't have VGA cables longer than a few meters, because the signal degrades.
When I was learning to drive, a thing my driving instructor said to me has always stuck with me. He said the thing that causes most driving accidents is indecision.
I think companies like Sun (and Corel and others) start to fail when they become indecisive. They need to decide on their path and stick to it, rather than dressing up in a penguin suit one day and mocking linux the next.
Dinosaur one: It's great ruling the world isn't it? Dinosaur two: Yes, it's great! Dinosaur one: It's like, we're the best! You can't beat us! Dinosaur two: Yes! Like, we're the tops! Go dinos! Dinosaur one: Go dinos!! Dinosaur two: Yes! Go dinos!! Go go go!!! Dinosaur one: Look at that pretty light in the sky! Dinosaur two: Oh yes. Pretty! And growing.
Yes, Bill Gates is very clever. And he certainly "got it" at the beginning of the PC boom.
But that doesn't mean he is always right. Gates didn't forsee the importance of the internet. He dismissed it saying that Microsoft was working on equivalent technologies. He didn't "get" the Internet. I believe he doesn't get OSS either.
When I read these kind of pronouncements from Bill and Steve, what strikes me is how much they still don't seem to "get it".
They talk about "free software" as is it was equivalent to, say, shareware. What they don't seem to understand is that the cost of it has nothing to do with its success, nor is it the principal reason it is a threat to Microsoft.
Personally I'm glad they don't get it. It means they are more likely to make strategic mistakes that could be their downfall.
As with a lot of copyright issues, there is a lot of public misunderstanding about the law with regards to this type of thing. People have had it drummed into them that this type of thing is illegal, so they assume it is. But I think it is more complex than most people assume.
The main issues are:
a) It probably said in tiny writing on your ticket that you can't record it. b) The performance is a copyrighted work.
However, I see no reason why copyright rules shouldn't apply if recording is not prohibited on your ticket. i.e. I don't think it is necessarily illegal to make a copy for your own personal use, since you have already paid for the work by buying a ticket.
I'm sure you can blame EU regulation for most of these price differences and import problems:-)
You could do, but you'd be wrong.
The EU is all about opening up markets, not closing them. However, it is the national governments that hinder this.
For instance, the EU wants to make it so that anyone can purchase alcohol from anywhere else. So, for instance, you would be able to order wine directly from a French vinyard if you live in the UK, without paying any additional duties. This would greatly reduce the costs for the consumer. However, the UK government doesn't want this to happen.
If reliable (and not too costly) cold fusion could become a reality, it really could solve many of the world's problems.
Imagine - oil would no longer have much value, and so the Middle East would no longer be a constant battleground. We would no longer have to worry about global warming because CO2 production would go right down. And increasingly resource hungry emerging economies like China and India would no longer be such a threat to "our" oil resources.
If the USA spent 10% of it's military budget on alternative energy sources then this nut could be cracked quickly...
No. My upbringing was one of "aspiring middle-class", so I used to believe that being an Englishman meant being honest and having integrity. A working-class Sun reader probably won't be so naieve.
I have often suspected that British policy towards the EU is to try to very hard to get kicked out.
Personally I think the UK's relationship with the USA is at the heart of the UK's actions in the EU.
Some in the administration of the USA have said quite clearly that their policy towards the EU is one of divide and rule. We have seen this working quite clearly recently, when Blair put a lot of effort into developing a relationship with Spain and used that to divide Europe about the Iraq war.
The USA does not want a strong, united Europe. They like the fact that the UK is always half-in, half-out, because it means that Europe is less united an weaker. Quite what the UK gets out of it I don't know, but the relationship between the UK and USA has always been somewhat murkey, even to us Brits.
But the point of a Constitution is to create a new country.
Not true in this case.
It is important for everyone to realise that this is nothing to do with economics
Again, not true. It has everything to do with economics. The point of the consistution is to simplify and bring together many currently existing rules. The change from rotating presidency to fixed-term presidency, for instance, will be great for the economy of Europe, because it we won't have a president with two jobs any more. Do you think it would be good for the US economy if the president changed every six months?
From the Republic of Ireland? If so then you should know better. You have a great economy at the moment. A lot of that is due to your membership of the European Union. You have hugely successful companies like Ryanair which only exist because of the opening up of the European market and relaxation of rules.
Look how membership of the EU has helped your country over the past decade, compared to how the relationship you had with Britain has helped you.
Europeans everywhere - read the small print before voting.
I have read the new European constitution. I expect a lot of the people who are saying "no" to it haven't.
You wouldn't believe how biased the press in the UK is with regards to anything European. It really is sad. Most of the British do not have access to impartial information about Europe. And it's not just the "red-top" newspapers, it's so called "quality" papers such as The Times and The Telegraph. They only ever print negative stories about anything European, and some things are so distorted that they amount to lies and propoganda.
I find it a real shame because I genuinely used to believe that Britain jouralists had a strong sense of integrity and impartiality. Not any more.
(I'm British too but I travel a lot in Europe and my business involves trade between different EU countries.)
It is true that some Irish girls are totally hot. They are also very free-willed and strong headed, and are likely to tell someone such as yourself to get stuffed, only in more colourful language.
"Getting oil" is an outright ridiculous conclusion, in my opinion.
You keep repeating that but as I've said, when people say the war is about the oil they don't necessarily mean the USA physically getting their hands on the oil. It's about the wealth and power that oil represents and owning/controlling that.
So it's not about "getting oil". But it is about the oil.
The fact that they have the oil is what ensures that they'll be able to pay for all this reconstruction
Yep, that's the point. So when people say the Iraq war is about oil, they aren't necessarily wrong - it's the wealth that oil represents the USA wants, not the oil itself as such.
The reason that it seems logical to you that the war isn't about oil is that you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's not about making oil cheaper in the short term.
You do know that the plan is that Iraq is going to pay for its reconstruction from oil revenues? So all those American companies getting contracts worth billions of dollars are going to be paid for with the proceeds of Iraqi oil, however much the oil costs. So the net outcome is a huge movement of worth from Iraq to the USA.
That's why the administration isn't worried about being massively overcharged by the contractors like Haliburton. In fact, that's what they want - the more the Iraq war "costs" the more worth will eventually be moved from Iraq to the USA. Also, the administration is trying to make it so that most of the big companies in Iraq (services like telephones, water, electricity etc.) are american ones, so in the long term even when the Iraqi's are spending money at home there will be a tranfer of wealth to the USA. It's great business!
If I lived under a brutal dictatorship, I'd want someone to intervene on my behalf
Are you really sure about that?
I live in Spain, which had a dictator (who was sometimes brutal) up until about 25 years ago. But if you ask people today I think most would tell you that they wouldn't have wanted the USA to invade to get rid of him.
People everywhere have pride. They like to sort out their own problems. That's as true in the USA as anywhere else. I'm sure if Bush suddenly decided he was a dictator and was going to halt democratic elections the people of the USA wouldn't be clamouring for the Europeans or Chinese to "liberate" them.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why America was generally popular under Clinton and very unpopular under Bush. Is it because Clinton was incompetent? I don't think so. It must be something else...
(despite the fact that the Persian gulf contributes not even 25% of American oil imports, and of that oil, almost all of it comes happily from Saudi Arabia)
Would that be the same Saudi Arabia where Bin Laden and the terrorists who attacked the USA came from? Oh yes, it is.
Yes, it's dumb to think that invading Iraq has anything to do with oil! America's foreign policy is all about making the people of other countries happier. We all know that.
Slashdot Mirror
There's also generally an audio cable requirement, but you can use a single USB cable for keyboard/mouse/other peripherals.
As yes, stupid of me not to think of that.
However, the video cable is the real stumbling block that I've never found a solution to.
It always amazes me in big offices where everyone has a computer under or on their desk. Why should cupboards/racks only be for servers?
Put your computer(s) in the closet
This has been modded as funny but I think it is an interesting solution.
A have a small office with five boxes, which sit under peoples desks. I would like to put these in a cupboard. My problem is I don't think there is a practical solition for the cabling. You have to have of course the keyboard, monitor and mouse plugged into the boxes. That calls for a lot of wires from the desks to the boxes. Furthermore, you can't have VGA cables longer than a few meters, because the signal degrades.
Does anyone have a soultion to these problems?
When I was learning to drive, a thing my driving instructor said to me has always stuck with me. He said the thing that causes most driving accidents is indecision.
I think companies like Sun (and Corel and others) start to fail when they become indecisive. They need to decide on their path and stick to it, rather than dressing up in a penguin suit one day and mocking linux the next.
Dinosaur one: It's great ruling the world isn't it?
Dinosaur two: Yes, it's great!
Dinosaur one: It's like, we're the best! You can't beat us!
Dinosaur two: Yes! Like, we're the tops! Go dinos!
Dinosaur one: Go dinos!!
Dinosaur two: Yes! Go dinos!! Go go go!!!
Dinosaur one: Look at that pretty light in the sky!
Dinosaur two: Oh yes. Pretty! And growing.
They didn't get to be that way by accident.
Yes, Bill Gates is very clever. And he certainly "got it" at the beginning of the PC boom.
But that doesn't mean he is always right. Gates didn't forsee the importance of the internet. He dismissed it saying that Microsoft was working on equivalent technologies. He didn't "get" the Internet. I believe he doesn't get OSS either.
When I read these kind of pronouncements from Bill and Steve, what strikes me is how much they still don't seem to "get it".
They talk about "free software" as is it was equivalent to, say, shareware. What they don't seem to understand is that the cost of it has nothing to do with its success, nor is it the principal reason it is a threat to Microsoft.
Personally I'm glad they don't get it. It means they are more likely to make strategic mistakes that could be their downfall.
Why are concert recordings illegal?
As with a lot of copyright issues, there is a lot of public misunderstanding about the law with regards to this type of thing. People have had it drummed into them that this type of thing is illegal, so they assume it is. But I think it is more complex than most people assume.
The main issues are:
a) It probably said in tiny writing on your ticket that you can't record it.
b) The performance is a copyrighted work.
However, I see no reason why copyright rules shouldn't apply if recording is not prohibited on your ticket. i.e. I don't think it is necessarily illegal to make a copy for your own personal use, since you have already paid for the work by buying a ticket.
I'm sure you can blame EU regulation for most of these price differences and import problems :-)
You could do, but you'd be wrong.
The EU is all about opening up markets, not closing them. However, it is the national governments that hinder this.
For instance, the EU wants to make it so that anyone can purchase alcohol from anywhere else. So, for instance, you would be able to order wine directly from a French vinyard if you live in the UK, without paying any additional duties. This would greatly reduce the costs for the consumer. However, the UK government doesn't want this to happen.
You think the reason alternative energy projects are moving slowly is lack of money? Please.
Well, when JFK said he would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, he did it.
Perhaps it's not just lack of money but lack of the vision and determination to try hard enough.
If reliable (and not too costly) cold fusion could become a reality, it really could solve many of the world's problems.
Imagine - oil would no longer have much value, and so the Middle East would no longer be a constant battleground. We would no longer have to worry about global warming because CO2 production would go right down. And increasingly resource hungry emerging economies like China and India would no longer be such a threat to "our" oil resources.
If the USA spent 10% of it's military budget on alternative energy sources then this nut could be cracked quickly...
Too much to hope for I guess...
You must be a "Sun" reader.
No. My upbringing was one of "aspiring middle-class", so I used to believe that being an Englishman meant being honest and having integrity. A working-class Sun reader probably won't be so naieve.
I have often suspected that British policy towards the EU is to try to very hard to get kicked out.
Personally I think the UK's relationship with the USA is at the heart of the UK's actions in the EU.
Some in the administration of the USA have said quite clearly that their policy towards the EU is one of divide and rule. We have seen this working quite clearly recently, when Blair put a lot of effort into developing a relationship with Spain and used that to divide Europe about the Iraq war.
The USA does not want a strong, united Europe. They like the fact that the UK is always half-in, half-out, because it means that Europe is less united an weaker. Quite what the UK gets out of it I don't know, but the relationship between the UK and USA has always been somewhat murkey, even to us Brits.
But the point of a Constitution is to create a new country.
Not true in this case.
It is important for everyone to realise that this is nothing to do with economics
Again, not true. It has everything to do with economics. The point of the consistution is to simplify and bring together many currently existing rules. The change from rotating presidency to fixed-term presidency, for instance, will be great for the economy of Europe, because it we won't have a president with two jobs any more. Do you think it would be good for the US economy if the president changed every six months?
I'm Irish actually.
From the Republic of Ireland? If so then you should know better. You have a great economy at the moment. A lot of that is due to your membership of the European Union. You have hugely successful companies like Ryanair which only exist because of the opening up of the European market and relaxation of rules.
Look how membership of the EU has helped your country over the past decade, compared to how the relationship you had with Britain has helped you.
Europeans everywhere - read the small print before voting.
I have read the new European constitution. I expect a lot of the people who are saying "no" to it haven't.
why?
I expect because he is a Brit.
You wouldn't believe how biased the press in the UK is with regards to anything European. It really is sad. Most of the British do not have access to impartial information about Europe. And it's not just the "red-top" newspapers, it's so called "quality" papers such as The Times and The Telegraph. They only ever print negative stories about anything European, and some things are so distorted that they amount to lies and propoganda.
I find it a real shame because I genuinely used to believe that Britain jouralists had a strong sense of integrity and impartiality. Not any more.
(I'm British too but I travel a lot in Europe and my business involves trade between different EU countries.)
Vote No to European Constitution
Let me guess - you're British!
Personally I think the rest of Europe should have a vote to chuck Britain out of the EU. Britain just holds the rest of the EU back.
hot irish girls
It is true that some Irish girls are totally hot. They are also very free-willed and strong headed, and are likely to tell someone such as yourself to get stuffed, only in more colourful language.
"Getting oil" is an outright ridiculous conclusion, in my opinion.
You keep repeating that but as I've said, when people say the war is about the oil they don't necessarily mean the USA physically getting their hands on the oil. It's about the wealth and power that oil represents and owning/controlling that.
So it's not about "getting oil". But it is about the oil.
I talk to quite a few US people and few of them seem to "get" the EU.
Same with the Brits unfortunately!
Different people, but working together for the good of all of us.
You try telling that to the Brits!
The american way is "are you with us, or are you against us?".
Come on that's not fair. It's the Bush way, not the American way.
The fact that they have the oil is what ensures that they'll be able to pay for all this reconstruction
Yep, that's the point. So when people say the Iraq war is about oil, they aren't necessarily wrong - it's the wealth that oil represents the USA wants, not the oil itself as such.
The reason that it seems logical to you that the war isn't about oil is that you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's not about making oil cheaper in the short term.
You do know that the plan is that Iraq is going to pay for its reconstruction from oil revenues? So all those American companies getting contracts worth billions of dollars are going to be paid for with the proceeds of Iraqi oil, however much the oil costs. So the net outcome is a huge movement of worth from Iraq to the USA.
That's why the administration isn't worried about being massively overcharged by the contractors like Haliburton. In fact, that's what they want - the more the Iraq war "costs" the more worth will eventually be moved from Iraq to the USA. Also, the administration is trying to make it so that most of the big companies in Iraq (services like telephones, water, electricity etc.) are american ones, so in the long term even when the Iraqi's are spending money at home there will be a tranfer of wealth to the USA. It's great business!
If I lived under a brutal dictatorship, I'd want someone to intervene on my behalf
Are you really sure about that?
I live in Spain, which had a dictator (who was sometimes brutal) up until about 25 years ago. But if you ask people today I think most would tell you that they wouldn't have wanted the USA to invade to get rid of him.
People everywhere have pride. They like to sort out their own problems. That's as true in the USA as anywhere else. I'm sure if Bush suddenly decided he was a dictator and was going to halt democratic elections the people of the USA wouldn't be clamouring for the Europeans or Chinese to "liberate" them.
Because Bill Clinton was generally anti-American.
Wow. Some of you Americans are really confused these days.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why America was generally popular under Clinton and very unpopular under Bush. Is it because Clinton was incompetent? I don't think so. It must be something else...
(despite the fact that the Persian gulf contributes not even 25% of American oil imports, and of that oil, almost all of it comes happily from Saudi Arabia)
Would that be the same Saudi Arabia where Bin Laden and the terrorists who attacked the USA came from? Oh yes, it is.
Yes, it's dumb to think that invading Iraq has anything to do with oil! America's foreign policy is all about making the people of other countries happier. We all know that.