Re:Amazing how much leaving out Windows saves you
on
More Cheap Linux PCs
·
· Score: 1
Or hoe about...
Hell, the OS vendors will have to lower prices very soon, at this rate. That's certainly the case with the Windows Server versions (although frankly if you spend more on licensing than hardware, you're going to be unhappy...).
Remeber, if the hardware cost is high, they can sell the software hardware, after all, how want to run a $2000 and then go to save $100 on the OS? (I am not saying you can't run Linux, I am talking about the usual way of thinking of *mostly everyone else*). Now, if the OS comes preinstalledthe computer is $10, I bet you'd very much like a $10 system than a $110 one. So OS vendors (less cheap ones) are the ones that will very much soon get into trouble.
Not to mention all the extra goodies. Nobody in their right mind would buy a $200 system and pay $400 or so for an Office suite.
I got tired of my sister complaining the Cheapo Upgrade some friend did for her was not at all good (Celeron 300 for a Celeron 1 Ghz, this was a year or more ago), and about Windows 2000 hunging, and slow, and sluggist, I got the brillian idea of saying: "Give me $70 and I'll buy a speed unit". Got to the local dealer and bought 510 MB of RAM, that coupled with the 128 the system, made my ears happy.
I even said stuff like "woah, I bet not even the plotter guys at the univerity can open that drawing" so she tried that...hehe, they open it, ok, but barely (10 minutes for each operation).:-)
I was happy. And yes, they do NOT know how memory affects things. Not even supposedly knoledgeable people. The just don't think things right. I have a friend that cares a lot more to have 7500 rpm HD with 128 RAM than a 512 system with a 5500 prm one (and no, he doesn't do DB work, or HD intensive tasks, he does cacheable stuff mostly).
It must depend on where you live, and how you define "poor". I know many poor families that can't buy a new computer. But their kids may have a chance at us$200, if their parents are not lucky enough to work for a company that gives them the old PCs, or smart enough to find a used one in working shape. By lots, I mean by the hundred.
Another fact is that I know very few people without a TV, and that makes me wonder if the kids parent are the real problem, and not the actual kids.
These kids schools also don't have computer labs and teacher to stimulate the childs. Less than less, Internet connections. Yet, in our country the educational budget is huge...don't know where the money goes though (well, I have some idea).
Problem is many developers just don't care, because they are ok. Only the ones making great additions and no money are the ones complaining, specifically, in the end user apps arena.
A. GPL enforces many restrictions on what can and cannot be done with the licensed code. The PHP developers decided to release PHP under a much more loose license (Apache-style), to help PHP become as popular as possible.
It may be based on what you want, but it's more free than the GPL.
http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt
The PHP want widespread use in comercial enviroments, and the myths of the GPL are dispelled by their license. They can profit because they sell courses and specialized products, and because they have an edge, as they control newer version and have them readily available before others. And no other can beat them at enhancing PHP, in fact, that value for them.
Also, PHO proves you can't blame de GPL for anythig. They moved out of that license without a hassle and no fork is known to match the original PHP.
If the project is about bringing a SUPERCHEAR alternative to routers, for free, you can't expect big bucks coming to your side. In these cases a sponsorship is posible, asking money from the people that are traing to save money by reusing a 386 por they local school is difficult.
In the end, the GPL makes sense to a lot of corporations that do not want to depend on a single OS for ALL their business needs. The users should also share this concern, but they haven been forced to eat the MS pill of disgust, and don't regard Windows AND Office as "the computer", not an extra cost imposed to them.
Also, a lot of GPL isn't right for every project of course, but it makes a lot of sense if you are developing an application for your company use and do not plan to distribute it. Basically, everything comes for free, and you'll only want to contribute back if you feel moraly obligued or if you want to offload the cost of maintaining the application if it will be helpfull to many other people/companies.
I belive in god, but at no point do I put that belief above my fellow man.
That's the key. Don't try to impose your point of view by force, and don't think you know it all. It's a firm belief. Now, when they try to ban your religion, is it ok?
In any case, religion can be good or bad for society, as well as atheism. I don't know about Nazism much, so I couldn't really tell. Only thing that I can say is that it was really sad and unforgibable. Let's not forget also how the modern Israel was born. History is plagued by mistakes, yet, germans and jeus are get people when not in berserk mode.
Has nothing to do with religion. If you read the evangelium, you will not find what you think it's writen there. ItÂs just an example.
What some stupid dudes, including some popes, did in the name of religion, has absolutelly nothing to do with what religion is supposed to be. Granted, stupid people do dumb thing thing in the name of religion, as well as some atheist do in the name of... whatever. That doesn't change th reality: there might be god, and as long as it doesn't fuck up your right to do whatver you want, you can't blame them. Hipocrats are another thing also, and they are found everywhere. Don't confuse the "in the name of god" from "god" itself, whoever/whatver he/He is.
I am an agnostic, and as such, I wouldn't go evangelizing about societies needs to be atheists. That is just plain sad, not because we can't bear reality, and we must invent god, but because God has a very high degree of probabilities of existing, however he is.
You are right in the point, yet most investors are gamblers. I'd do the same than you would, but it's noteworthy how irrational everyintg can be, for sustained periods of time.
Exactly what I say, I thank you for that. I am not talking about biologists, I am talking about some friends of mine, and some slashdot folks, and some other guys arround earth. Natural selection ins mistquen to regularly for another entrirely different beast.
People have to do something for a living, or be maintained. So the solutions are obvious, keep giving them work, or pay them to survive.
If you have robots farming efficiently, and doing mostly everything, why would you need capitalism? You'll only need markets, so that robots produce what is wanted, but only as a "what to produce" guide.
Now, of course, people will always desire to control others, so the end result, and how it works, that is, the important details, can vary to a great degree. You may found yourself expoited to death in one or another way, or a happy society where everyone can participate of the wealth.
You could start theorizing. What if I could replace lawers with smart (?) computers? They must do something else. Now carry on, and there will be no more work. Now the problem becomes this: who owns these replacements? The society or some folks? That leads to your answer.
Goal of life is not to be successful, it's to be happy and have your answers. Now, if YOUR goal in life is to be successful, then you will obviously judge other by your rule. You will also judge yourself by that rule, and maybe one day, you will realize this "successfull" was imposed to you, and it's not your goal in life.
Personally, I don't regard poor people that live how they like without complaning much, as stupid. I'd say I'd admire them in some way. On the other hand, the poor ones that are always complain, talking about how everything done is unfair, and that do nothing, well, that's something that has to me _cured_.
What you have to understand is that nobody selects. I mean, an insect is really less evolved than a human, not to say an amoeba, and they are not marked for extintion per se.
This "selection" thingy is becomeing to be regarded as a misterious secret-hand that drives things to perfection, driving to extintion less evolved species. Like a nature-god, and it really (sorry) pisses me of. They praise natural selection, and neglect God, and in fact, they believe in a directed or guided selection.
Sorry, that is not the case. There is no natural selection, there is only fit for condition, or survival. For example, we like Elephants Teeth (marfil?), and thus we depleted this animals to near extintion. Do you see some natural selection there? Are they in any way inferior?
There's no other criteria than beign able to survive, whatever the circunstances, to natural selection. So humans with big heads would not disapear just because you think the extra brain is unneeded.
As a side note, I do not believe in stochastic life and inteligence. This DNA stuff is much to elegant to have been caused by chance.
They are only beneficial to the investor, however, when they undervalue a stock.
What does undervalued mean? Value, in stock markets is a perception. However, investors benefit a lot from overvalued stocks. They only have to sell before others do. The one that loses is society, because it pumps money where it should not go (companies that are not making a good use of the resources, but that have the credit due to the overprice).
Because you also teach values, like honesty and solidarity, and you must also teach with the example. Jesus, Ghandi et al. where teacher, and examples to be followed.
Knowledge can be teached, and values aside, it's also helpfull, because you become more productive and have a better welfare. That happens when the things learned are usefull.
Would you pay 50 dollars for a dollar bill just because millions of fuckwits were also paying 50 dollars for a dollar bill?
No, but I would pay 49,95. And that's what people that buy / sell stocks do. They don't give a fucking shit if the dollar sells for $10000 or $1.
To make things worst, this short term illusion can kill (underpriced) or give new air to companies (overpriced).
Yes, market illusions are a part of reality, and affect the long term value of companies. They give you oportunities, or substract from them, affecting results.
But that's minor compared to the fact that my box doesn't record programs that advertisers think I want to see.
A choice has to be made. Do we want to pay for shows directly or indirectly. There is no way to produce show if there is no way for them to extract some money from you. So skipping the ads is a good way to either have less shows that apeal to the techies groups or to kickstart user funded shows. That is, each user contributes a small amount of money to they shows they like.
I see this coming and I think I like it. Why not pay for the shows I like? I can better use my extra time of not having to deal with ads for working. My time value is worth more what the adverticers value me watching them.
What I do know is not what will happen is having shows that I like and that never carry ads and that I never pay for.
Ok, my post was absurd in the sense that I greatly exagerated, but the point is was trying to make a point. Some people do not grasp the inmensity of the memory that would be required to traverse some trees. They just think of what...a "larger" tree? By abstracting better computer can beat any tree, they fail to realize not enough energy and matter exists in the universe to do such calculation, while two kilograms of grey mass that take hamburgers as power supplies can outsmart painlessly. I think this issue along brings a lot of attention of how smart the human brain is, and smartness is what AI should be.
If the bighorkinmachine ever went down, you're SOL, EVERYONE is down.
I'd say YOU are simply out of luck, because everyone with one gram of gray mass would make application servers redundant (remember, you don't even have to pay per machine instalations with Linux) and will also have redundancy of the/home dir. And it doesn't gets as expensive and unscalable and messed as Citrix ad hoc solutions.
No, it can't. It'd never be able to evaluate, say a Go game on a board 100000000x100000000. There isn't enough matter on earth for the calculation. You NEED to abstract and have a strategy with Go. Whether you believe everything can be solved by brute force is simply irrelevant. Only AI can take shortcuts and make the imposible happen. Yes, organization and abstraction, in a word, inteligence beats brute force, at least in our finite universe.
Slashdot Mirror
Or hoe about ...
Hell, the OS vendors will have to lower prices very soon, at this rate. That's certainly the case with the Windows Server versions (although frankly if you spend more on licensing than hardware, you're going to be unhappy...).
Remeber, if the hardware cost is high, they can sell the software hardware, after all, how want to run a $2000 and then go to save $100 on the OS? (I am not saying you can't run Linux, I am talking about the usual way of thinking of *mostly everyone else*). Now, if the OS comes preinstalledthe computer is $10, I bet you'd very much like a $10 system than a $110 one. So OS vendors (less cheap ones) are the ones that will very much soon get into trouble.
Not to mention all the extra goodies. Nobody in their right mind would buy a $200 system and pay $400 or so for an Office suite.
I got tired of my sister complaining the Cheapo Upgrade some friend did for her was not at all good (Celeron 300 for a Celeron 1 Ghz, this was a year or more ago), and about Windows 2000 hunging, and slow, and sluggist, I got the brillian idea of saying: "Give me $70 and I'll buy a speed unit". Got to the local dealer and bought 510 MB of RAM, that coupled with the 128 the system, made my ears happy.
:-)
I even said stuff like "woah, I bet not even the plotter guys at the univerity can open that drawing" so she tried that...hehe, they open it, ok, but barely (10 minutes for each operation).
I was happy. And yes, they do NOT know how memory affects things. Not even supposedly knoledgeable people. The just don't think things right. I have a friend that cares a lot more to have 7500 rpm HD with 128 RAM than a 512 system with a 5500 prm one (and no, he doesn't do DB work, or HD intensive tasks, he does cacheable stuff mostly).
It must depend on where you live, and how you define "poor". I know many poor families that can't buy a new computer. But their kids may have a chance at us$200, if their parents are not lucky enough to work for a company that gives them the old PCs, or smart enough to find a used one in working shape. By lots, I mean by the hundred.
Another fact is that I know very few people without a TV, and that makes me wonder if the kids parent are the real problem, and not the actual kids.
These kids schools also don't have computer labs and teacher to stimulate the childs. Less than less, Internet connections. Yet, in our country the educational budget is huge...don't know where the money goes though (well, I have some idea).
Problem is many developers just don't care, because they are ok. Only the ones making great additions and no money are the ones complaining, specifically, in the end user apps arena.
From http://www.php.net/license/
A. GPL enforces many restrictions on what can and cannot be done with the licensed code. The PHP developers decided to release PHP under a much more loose license (Apache-style), to help PHP become as popular as possible.
It may be based on what you want, but it's more free than the GPL.
http://www.php.net/license/3_0.txt
The PHP want widespread use in comercial enviroments, and the myths of the GPL are dispelled by their license. They can profit because they sell courses and specialized products, and because they have an edge, as they control newer version and have them readily available before others. And no other can beat them at enhancing PHP, in fact, that value for them.
Also, PHO proves you can't blame de GPL for anythig. They moved out of that license without a hassle and no fork is known to match the original PHP.
If the project is about bringing a SUPERCHEAR alternative to routers, for free, you can't expect big bucks coming to your side. In these cases a sponsorship is posible, asking money from the people that are traing to save money by reusing a 386 por they local school is difficult.
In the end, the GPL makes sense to a lot of corporations that do not want to depend on a single OS for ALL their business needs. The users should also share this concern, but they haven been forced to eat the MS pill of disgust, and don't regard Windows AND Office as "the computer", not an extra cost imposed to them.
Also, a lot of GPL isn't right for every project of course, but it makes a lot of sense if you are developing an application for your company use and do not plan to distribute it. Basically, everything comes for free, and you'll only want to contribute back if you feel moraly obligued or if you want to offload the cost of maintaining the application if it will be helpfull to many other people/companies.
GPL != miracle, it's just a license.
I belive in god, but at no point do I put that belief above my fellow man.
That's the key. Don't try to impose your point of view by force, and don't think you know it all. It's a firm belief. Now, when they try to ban your religion, is it ok?
In any case, religion can be good or bad for society, as well as atheism. I don't know about Nazism much, so I couldn't really tell. Only thing that I can say is that it was really sad and unforgibable. Let's not forget also how the modern Israel was born. History is plagued by mistakes, yet, germans and jeus are get people when not in berserk mode.
Has nothing to do with religion. If you read the evangelium, you will not find what you think it's writen there. ItÂs just an example.
... whatever. That doesn't change th reality: there might be god, and as long as it doesn't fuck up your right to do whatver you want, you can't blame them. Hipocrats are another thing also, and they are found everywhere. Don't confuse the "in the name of god" from "god" itself, whoever/whatver he/He is.
What some stupid dudes, including some popes, did in the name of religion, has absolutelly nothing to do with what religion is supposed to be. Granted, stupid people do dumb thing thing in the name of religion, as well as some atheist do in the name of
I am an agnostic, and as such, I wouldn't go evangelizing about societies needs to be atheists. That is just plain sad, not because we can't bear reality, and we must invent god, but because God has a very high degree of probabilities of existing, however he is.
You are right in the point, yet most investors are gamblers. I'd do the same than you would, but it's noteworthy how irrational everyintg can be, for sustained periods of time.
Yes, they would survive. There are plenty of proofs. You don't need to be superior in any other sense than in the survival fitteness one.
Exactly what I say, I thank you for that. I am not talking about biologists, I am talking about some friends of mine, and some slashdot folks, and some other guys arround earth. Natural selection ins mistquen to regularly for another entrirely different beast.
Well, so does a belief in a god
Religious people do a lot more for society than you probably do. They are not a burden in general and you can't generalize.
People have to do something for a living, or be maintained. So the solutions are obvious, keep giving them work, or pay them to survive.
If you have robots farming efficiently, and doing mostly everything, why would you need capitalism? You'll only need markets, so that robots produce what is wanted, but only as a "what to produce" guide.
Now, of course, people will always desire to control others, so the end result, and how it works, that is, the important details, can vary to a great degree. You may found yourself expoited to death in one or another way, or a happy society where everyone can participate of the wealth.
You could start theorizing. What if I could replace lawers with smart (?) computers? They must do something else. Now carry on, and there will be no more work. Now the problem becomes this: who owns these replacements? The society or some folks? That leads to your answer.
I'd say, if everyone was smart, we'd be living in paradise. Look at the education levels in different societies and judge for yourself.
Goal of life is not to be successful, it's to be happy and have your answers. Now, if YOUR goal in life is to be successful, then you will obviously judge other by your rule. You will also judge yourself by that rule, and maybe one day, you will realize this "successfull" was imposed to you, and it's not your goal in life.
Personally, I don't regard poor people that live how they like without complaning much, as stupid. I'd say I'd admire them in some way. On the other hand, the poor ones that are always complain, talking about how everything done is unfair, and that do nothing, well, that's something that has to me _cured_.
What you have to understand is that nobody selects. I mean, an insect is really less evolved than a human, not to say an amoeba, and they are not marked for extintion per se.
This "selection" thingy is becomeing to be regarded as a misterious secret-hand that drives things to perfection, driving to extintion less evolved species. Like a nature-god, and it really (sorry) pisses me of. They praise natural selection, and neglect God, and in fact, they believe in a directed or guided selection.
Sorry, that is not the case. There is no natural selection, there is only fit for condition, or survival. For example, we like Elephants Teeth (marfil?), and thus we depleted this animals to near extintion. Do you see some natural selection there? Are they in any way inferior?
There's no other criteria than beign able to survive, whatever the circunstances, to natural selection. So humans with big heads would not disapear just because you think the extra brain is unneeded.
As a side note, I do not believe in stochastic life and inteligence. This DNA stuff is much to elegant to have been caused by chance.
They are only beneficial to the investor, however, when they undervalue a stock.
What does undervalued mean? Value, in stock markets is a perception. However, investors benefit a lot from overvalued stocks. They only have to sell before others do. The one that loses is society, because it pumps money where it should not go (companies that are not making a good use of the resources, but that have the credit due to the overprice).
Because you also teach values, like honesty and solidarity, and you must also teach with the example. Jesus, Ghandi et al. where teacher, and examples to be followed.
Knowledge can be teached, and values aside, it's also helpfull, because you become more productive and have a better welfare. That happens when the things learned are usefull.
Elephants have a tiny brain, and it's noteworthy, because they are the largest creature that stands foot on earth.
Would you pay 50 dollars for a dollar bill just because millions of fuckwits were also paying 50 dollars for a dollar bill?
No, but I would pay 49,95. And that's what people that buy / sell stocks do. They don't give a fucking shit if the dollar sells for $10000 or $1.
To make things worst, this short term illusion can kill (underpriced) or give new air to companies (overpriced).
Yes, market illusions are a part of reality, and affect the long term value of companies. They give you oportunities, or substract from them, affecting results.
The government can just print up more money if they need to pay you.
Problem is people want value, not paper. If you print a lot of these special papers, their value drops rapidly.
The key ussue here is the goverment is strustable, because they have been in the past, not because they can print paper.
But that's minor compared to the fact that my box doesn't record programs that advertisers think I want to see.
A choice has to be made. Do we want to pay for shows directly or indirectly. There is no way to produce show if there is no way for them to extract some money from you. So skipping the ads is a good way to either have less shows that apeal to the techies groups or to kickstart user funded shows. That is, each user contributes a small amount of money to they shows they like.
I see this coming and I think I like it. Why not pay for the shows I like? I can better use my extra time of not having to deal with ads for working. My time value is worth more what the adverticers value me watching them.
What I do know is not what will happen is having shows that I like and that never carry ads and that I never pay for.
Ok, my post was absurd in the sense that I greatly exagerated, but the point is was trying to make a point. Some people do not grasp the inmensity of the memory that would be required to traverse some trees. They just think of what...a "larger" tree? By abstracting better computer can beat any tree, they fail to realize not enough energy and matter exists in the universe to do such calculation, while two kilograms of grey mass that take hamburgers as power supplies can outsmart painlessly. I think this issue along brings a lot of attention of how smart the human brain is, and smartness is what AI should be.
If the bighorkinmachine ever went down, you're SOL, EVERYONE is down.
/home dir. And it doesn't gets as expensive and unscalable and messed as Citrix ad hoc solutions.
I'd say YOU are simply out of luck, because everyone with one gram of gray mass would make application servers redundant (remember, you don't even have to pay per machine instalations with Linux) and will also have redundancy of the
No, it can't. It'd never be able to evaluate, say a Go game on a board 100000000x100000000. There isn't enough matter on earth for the calculation. You NEED to abstract and have a strategy with Go. Whether you believe everything can be solved by brute force is simply irrelevant. Only AI can take shortcuts and make the imposible happen. Yes, organization and abstraction, in a word, inteligence beats brute force, at least in our finite universe.