Some one made a good point about this. Sure most users never use more the 10% of Word's features, but each user uses a different 20%, so you have to have them all to keep everyone happy.
Weel if I can't afford a Game Cube at that price, I'm certainly not going to buy a less powerful laptop for that price, at least not for its gaming value. The whole point here is that you can get gaming power equivelent to todays fastest computers in a portable package for less than $400, expensive but impressive.
Re:Hmmm, game appliance for $350
on
Portable GameCube
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yes, it is expensive, but it is still a lot more powerful than a $500 laptop. The laptop might be good for retro gaming, but this plays the latest (not that I could afford one).
Maybe not now, but in the last couple of years it has been impossible for the public sector to compete with the private in terms of wages, especially when you factor in options) this means that economic incentives move people to the provate sector. Even if you have a few people who stay public fo rthe good of society, economics will be on the side of the private sector.
First, who has the right approach, KDE or GNOME? Which system is better? If we don't know that it would be a mistake to devote all of our energy to one. Second, the kernel has no competition? What about BSD?
I think the point that is being made is that that the poloticians might have left him, but his fellow soldier never would have, especially not out in th open.
When I was over there for a month in the Southampton area I don;t remember any local channels. Is it possible that a radio only tunes into BBC channels? (It was a rental car)
You might be right, but sometimes I just want to tune into a station which I know plays music I like. I too hate the stations, mostly surrent pop stations, which only have a 20 or so song loop which they play. On other stations, such as the Classic Rock station I listen to, repeats are far less frequent.
1) Yes, I admit its a weak link, but if a company does well either, profits go to shareholders, or they go into growth, assuming management knows what they are doing, wither way, shareholder wins.
2) Well, technically the shareholders elect the managers, so they are giving the managers the go ahead to do what they think is best for the company, which they own part of.
3) I disagree, Berkshire has been one of the most successful long term invesments of the last 40 years, and Buffet has always been against dividends. Shareholds feel he knows better how to invest the profit, i.e. better than they could invest their diviends.
The _point_ of womeone own shares is to own a part of the company. What is good for the company is good for the shareholder. If what is good for the company (including share holders) is giving out dividens, then so be it. If the managers think they have a better idea, then so be it. Berkshire Hathaway thinks they have better ways to spend money than dividends, and I think most of their shareholders agree that they are doing the right thing with _their_ money.
You can use AOL over cable/dsl, just choose TCP/IP instead of a phone number as you access point. Atleast that worked in the past. You still have to pay for AOL of course, but I think they let you pay less.
Too bad BBC radio is awful. Atleast when you leave certain cityies in the US you can escape radio stations, but 5 radio stations just doesn't cut it. BBC1 is the only mildly interesting channel, but it is such a mix that only 1 in 10 songs is something you like. Centralization reduces choice, as is obvious by the comparison of 5 radio channel to the average (just a guess) of 10-15 in any good sized city.
I would much rather give up some gigs to have a deck of cards form factor. The nomad is just to big to carry regularly, and this unit still has magnitudes more storage than other small MP3 players, sounds perfect.
First, you have a point about the online gambling and shutting down his funding, although it isn't clear that terrorist are running these sites. AND it is being used as excuse to sheild me(a college student) from horrors of horrors, online gambling, that's a crock, but another debate.
Onto the main point, how would more military spending have helped prevent these attacks? Should we have inceptors over every major city to shoot down any hijacked planes? If you are saying we should be funding the CIA and FBi more heavily you may have a point, but they are not the military. Besides with all the reports of their inefficiency it is tough to believe that throwing more money at the problem will solve it.
Lastly, I can't believe you could even suggest that banning cryptography would prevent terrorists from using. Do you think cyptography is hard? Do you think there are not thousands of people in the world qualified to write software to do it? The point is is that not allowing law abiding citizens cyptography will compromise their privacy, but will not prevent "bad" people from suing it.
If I remember the war on drugs was promoted by talking about a drug lord conspiracy to turn us into a country of lotus eaters by corrupting our youth. It was the same use of fear to pas legislation which gave law enforcement unheard of powers at home, and the gov. unlimited powers to do things in Latin America, like set up dictators favorable to our cause.
When the war on drugs was first put forth it sounded like a good idea, no people have relized it didn't change a thing. Except to give us an excuse to meddle in thye affairs of Latin America.
Slashdot Mirror
Some one made a good point about this. Sure most users never use more the 10% of Word's features, but each user uses a different 20%, so you have to have them all to keep everyone happy.
I don't think any one was suggesting Lexan windshields. They were suggesting lexan protection for the cameras.
Weel if I can't afford a Game Cube at that price, I'm certainly not going to buy a less powerful laptop for that price, at least not for its gaming value. The whole point here is that you can get gaming power equivelent to todays fastest computers in a portable package for less than $400, expensive but impressive.
Yes, it is expensive, but it is still a lot more powerful than a $500 laptop. The laptop might be good for retro gaming, but this plays the latest (not that I could afford one).
I just heard about this this afternoon, really amazing.
Maybe not now, but in the last couple of years it has been impossible for the public sector to compete with the private in terms of wages, especially when you factor in options) this means that economic incentives move people to the provate sector. Even if you have a few people who stay public fo rthe good of society, economics will be on the side of the private sector.
Where is this land anyways?
Let's just say that market pressures and incentive lower the ratio of dumb to smart people in the private sector.
I too am glad GNOME is there to spur KDE on. But if C is more efficient, why is Evolution slower? For me it is too slow to use.
Two points, (Sorry for feeding the trolls)
First, who has the right approach, KDE or GNOME? Which system is better? If we don't know that it would be a mistake to devote all of our energy to one. Second, the kernel has no competition? What about BSD?
I think the point that is being made is that that the poloticians might have left him, but his fellow soldier never would have, especially not out in th open.
Or a palm in a serial cradle, works pretty well.
You can configure whether apps "stack" in the task bar this way. Personnally I would like to switch it on and off for individual apps.
When I was over there for a month in the Southampton area I don;t remember any local channels. Is it possible that a radio only tunes into BBC channels? (It was a rental car)
You might be right, but sometimes I just want to tune into a station which I know plays music I like. I too hate the stations, mostly surrent pop stations, which only have a 20 or so song loop which they play. On other stations, such as the Classic Rock station I listen to, repeats are far less frequent.
1) Yes, I admit its a weak link, but if a company does well either, profits go to shareholders, or they go into growth, assuming management knows what they are doing, wither way, shareholder wins.
2) Well, technically the shareholders elect the managers, so they are giving the managers the go ahead to do what they think is best for the company, which they own part of.
3) I disagree, Berkshire has been one of the most successful long term invesments of the last 40 years, and Buffet has always been against dividends. Shareholds feel he knows better how to invest the profit, i.e. better than they could invest their diviends.
The _point_ of womeone own shares is to own a part of the company. What is good for the company is good for the shareholder. If what is good for the company (including share holders) is giving out dividens, then so be it. If the managers think they have a better idea, then so be it. Berkshire Hathaway thinks they have better ways to spend money than dividends, and I think most of their shareholders agree that they are doing the right thing with _their_ money.
You can use AOL over cable/dsl, just choose TCP/IP instead of a phone number as you access point. Atleast that worked in the past. You still have to pay for AOL of course, but I think they let you pay less.
Too bad BBC radio is awful. Atleast when you leave certain cityies in the US you can escape radio stations, but 5 radio stations just doesn't cut it. BBC1 is the only mildly interesting channel, but it is such a mix that only 1 in 10 songs is something you like. Centralization reduces choice, as is obvious by the comparison of 5 radio channel to the average (just a guess) of 10-15 in any good sized city.
IE for UNIX?
Don't feed the Trolls
I would much rather give up some gigs to have a deck of cards form factor. The nomad is just to big to carry regularly, and this unit still has magnitudes more storage than other small MP3 players, sounds perfect.
Give me a break.
First, you have a point about the online gambling and shutting down his funding, although it isn't clear that terrorist are running these sites. AND it is being used as excuse to sheild me(a college student) from horrors of horrors, online gambling, that's a crock, but another debate.
Onto the main point, how would more military spending have helped prevent these attacks? Should we have inceptors over every major city to shoot down any hijacked planes? If you are saying we should be funding the CIA and FBi more heavily you may have a point, but they are not the military. Besides with all the reports of their inefficiency it is tough to believe that throwing more money at the problem will solve it.
Lastly, I can't believe you could even suggest that banning cryptography would prevent terrorists from using. Do you think cyptography is hard? Do you think there are not thousands of people in the world qualified to write software to do it? The point is is that not allowing law abiding citizens cyptography will compromise their privacy, but will not prevent "bad" people from suing it.
If I remember the war on drugs was promoted by talking about a drug lord conspiracy to turn us into a country of lotus eaters by corrupting our youth. It was the same use of fear to pas legislation which gave law enforcement unheard of powers at home, and the gov. unlimited powers to do things in Latin America, like set up dictators favorable to our cause.
That is talking about the house comittee bill, not the senate bill. Feingold is the only one who voted no to that(the USA Act)
When the war on drugs was first put forth it sounded like a good idea, no people have relized it didn't change a thing. Except to give us an excuse to meddle in thye affairs of Latin America.