Isn't there a theory that global warming will melt loads of ice which decreases the saltiness of the ocean around the artic and this will disturbe the gulf stream leading to cooling of varies parts of the world, IIRC Europe and the east coast of the US.
Could have been warped version of that.
Specifically on the price of computers available
to people likely to benefit from the Gates initiative....
How does that relate to your question of
'Seen the percentage of a coomputer's cost the OS accounts for?'
You are now altering the question to suit your needs. Anyway just
make your point it will be easier for both of us in the long run.
You want to quibble that we don't have an EXACT price? Go ahead!
How do you get a percentage that means anything without a price?
We have a varying price for the hardware and a varying price for
the OS. Numbers coming from that are going to be a little suspect.
Your question concerning the percentage assumes we have a reasonable
reliable price from what you have subsequently said we don't, at
which point the question starts to make less sense therefore it should
have been phrased as a different question. Which was my point.
As for agreeing with George the 3rd - yes - the 4th was a damp
squid...
So you do agree.
The fact you responded with a question wasn't designed to mask
your ignorance, was it?
No it was designed to point out that you were agreeing.
And no - having a quick, desperate google (your immediate plan I assume)
doesn't really count as "knowledge..."
You are assuming things based on your own experience and expectations. We both
said the same thing in different ways checking up on it doesn't come into it. We apprently both agree.
Which is why I, and many other Brits, celebrate "thanksgiving" on July the 4th...
I have never met (or heard of) a single person from the UK who celebrates "thanksgiving".
You are the first. Everyone has things that annoy them and express that annoyance in various ways.
Feel free to tell me more about it (via email if you prefer). My sig is meant to point out that the world is not US centric and other views exist which is something that sometimes gets forgotten on slashdot.
The fact that YOU don't I just put down to ignorance.
Yours or mine? If you want to discuss issues that relate to this article
fine if you want to trade insults
find someone else.
I still haven't manage to find the point of what
you were trying to say. Make your point and the discussion can move on.
Seen the percentage of a coomputer's cost the OS accounts for?
Which depends on the price of the computer. So using a percentage is meaningless an absolute cost makes more sense even then different operating systems on different platforms even if you take Windows as the operating system you are talking about. It has been reported that each vendor pays a different price for Windows from Microsoft and they aren't allowed to disclose that price. So oddly enough no I haven't and whatever number it is it will only be right in a small number of cases.
Far too many slashdotters are impressed at the way a scoundrel disposes of his ill gotten gains.
I've already stated elsewhere that giving the money away has probably had more benefits to Bill Gates than if he had kept it. When they say you can't buy that kind of publicity they are wrong it just cost $750 million.
BTW... Nothing of importance DID happen on July the 4th. It was on the 2nd that the real action happened.
So you agree with George III then?
Which - by the by - means we Brits celebrate "thanksgiving" two days late...
Since when did we Brits celebrate thanksgiving late or otherwise and what has that got to do with the US independence day? The former being the fourth Thursday in November and the latter being the 4th of July.
As for the Linux jibe - the existance of Linux ensures that when those kids grow up they won't have to buy overpriced buggy software to generate more dodgy profits for a character like Bill G...
When those kids grow up they are probably going to have bigger problems than thier choice of operating system.
Given that there are plenty of weathly people who give nothing to charity, anything Bill gives is better than that - whatever the percentage.
This is true
Unless you live in your parents basement and own nothing, I very much doubt you are worth only $100.
He was making a point using number which were easy to calculate. I very much doubt he is worth $100 as well.
Given that he didn't have to make the donation and could have easily kept the money for himself (benefiting no-one but him), I would say you're wrong.
I doubt if he kept the money that it would have benefiting him in any way. The guy is worth around 50 billion (according to the grandpartent). After this donation he is still worth over 49 billion that is still a massive amount of money and it is unlikey that at some point in the future he will be down to his last 750 million in order to really need the money he just donated. He does get something from this donation he get publicity and good will. I think donating the money has done more for him than if he just kept it (not to belittle the donation I think it is a good thing).
Come one even people on slashdot are now saying that he isn't all bad, next there is going to be flying pigs and a large order placed from hell for central heating.
True the game isn't very complex but you don't try to teach a very young child to play chess you start with something easier such as, well rock-paper-sicssors.
That is only true if you assume that once a climate change is verifiable there is nothing that can be done to prevent the end of mankind.
I never said it was about saving mankind. I was taking a more skeptic view it is about saving myself and my peers. I doubt politians will care enough to save mankind but they will care enough to save themselves and their children.
There will always be people who disagree with global warming. So the odds of getting a consensus from everyone is very unlikely. There are already people who say that global warming has be verified. So does that constitute verifiable or do we wait some more. At what point has it been verified?
Moreover, if global warming *did* kill a bunch of people, wouldn't things go back to normal in a few hundred years while the rest of us moved 50 miles North to adjust for the climate change?
It becomes more of a problem if you are one of the bunch that it kills. There are all kinds of theory on how global warming will effect the planet. I've heard extremes of mass flooding to a return to snow ball earth both of which would take more than a few hundred years to fix and moving 50 miles North would not help.
Your argument also assumes that climate change is a more worthy cause for spending than say: world hunger, illiteracy, medical research, etc.
I never stated that the argument wasn't vastly over simplified although I did hint at it:-) The allocation of funds to the various projects should be done by someone that has more knowledge of the problems than me. I'm just some random bloke on slashdot (although I do not live in my parents basement) I do not have all the answers.
There's a limited amount of capital to play with, particularly when you start restricting business activities.
Are you sure it restricts business or does it just change working practices and create new ways of working and opportunities for business? Buggy whip makers were pissed off when cars came about, it doesn't mean they were right.
I'm not sure that global warming, verifiable or otherwise, makes it to the top of the priorities list.
I would say it depends on what is going to happen and how strong the evidence is that it will happen.
I read a report that stated that 90% of england had problems with pollution.. I can definitely say that 90% of the US doesn't have this problem.
Care to cite a source?
The CIA fact book on the UK
and the US seem to disagree with you, to me they indicate that the US has more of a problem than the UK which is currently reducing much of its polution., while the US has 'water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers; limited natural fresh water resources in much of the western part of the country require careful management'.
I didn't learn that this was all junk science from oil industry propaganda. I saw this on the O'Reilly Factor and it had SCIENTISTS and EXPERTS on it saying that this was all bunk.
And we all know that scientists and experts all live of thin air and don't need to eat. How do you know they were scientists and experts did you programme makers say so? That isn't proof, I watch Enterprise and get told we can travel faster than light it doesn't mean I should believe it. How do you know that the programme maker don't have an agenda and therefore chose scientists and experts that happen to agree with them. How do you know that those scientists and experts are not the only experts that believe global warming is junk while the other 99.99999% believe it is true. There is always disagrements concerning differing viewpoints in science. You _cannot_ make an informed decision about something from a television programme since they cannot present you with all the information that you need in order to make a decision. Considering that the people who are the most qualified to make that decision are the people who have PhDs in the field perhaps we should believe what the majority of them say. That doesn't mean that they are always right, both Newton and Einstein were wrong about certain aspects of their work. In fact Einstein spent about 30 years of his life being wrong because he could reconsile his religious views with the direction that physics had taken based on his earlier work.
So maybe YOU just need to do a little research, my friend.
And perhaps you need to think a little more about what you see on television nothing is presented without bias (including this post). People are inclined to believe what supports their view and dismiss information that doesn't even if that information is the overwhelming majority* . You have to learn to be objective.
Maybe the view to take is if we take action against global warming and it was true we have saved ourselves but if global warming isn't true we haven't doom outselves just spent some more money and made the air a little cleaner (not a bad thing in my opion). On the other hand if we do nothing and there isn't such a thing as global warming then we are fine, but if global warming is true and we do nothing then we are screwed. Doing something about it seems to have a better outcome to me.
I always had problems with that statement since it is meaningless since evil is undefined. They may think nothing they do is evil but other will disagree. For example I eat meat so to some people I'm an evil cow killer. To me isn't wasn't a bad thing it was just lunch. It is all just a matter of your viewpoint.
I seriously doubt that a 3Ms Jitter buffer is possible.
Of course it is. The way to deal with jitter is to buffer the incoming packets and play them back at a uniformed rate. As long as you can keep the end-to-end delay below about 150 ms it won't be noticed by people, below 250 ms there is a slight delay and over 250 ms is classed as unaccetpable. Unfortunetly in VoIP delay times at routers can eat up a lot of this time. There are lots of papers on how to deal with jitter but if your jitter is only 3 ms there is no point in doing anything about it.
If it's by ear then please remember it is impossible to measure 3Ms.
If you are talking by ear upto 40 ms jitter is not noticiable by people, between 40 and 75 is classed as good quality but with occasional delays while over 75 ms be unacceptable. This is according to the ITU.
The work I do with VoIP we struggle to get 15 Ms.
Megaseconds? Sounds like a pretty duff system to me. But 15 ms jitter should be fine for the human perception system and shouldn't be noticed.
What exactly is it about Word which gives you a better platform?
It isn't really Word that is the better platform, it is the addins for Word that I have which make it a better platform. Things like reading back what I have written helps (but is also available for other word processors) but there is also enhanced spell and grammar checkers which I use. They mostly manage to catch my spelling and grammar mistakes but I still like to have someone local read what I've written just in case. Oh and I'm probably a lot more careful with what I write than most these days.
Ah interesting. I was going to suggest Latex, but I (rightly, I suppose) thought you would had tried it.
I have submitted papers in latex format but I write the text in Word and then convert it to latex when I'm happy with it. I suppose in that case I use Word as a rather complicated text editor and use latex for the formatting, I find that works quite well since getting the formating right in Word can be a real pain but in latex it is much easier.
I concur, backward and forwards compatibility is good in Microsoft Word
I find that it is terrible for all but the simplest of documents. I normally use it when writing papers. When I'm writing with others maintaining the required formatting, with diagrams in the right places becomes a task in and of itself. Even when I'm just writing by myself Word can do some very odd things to the document.
A lot, if not most of the people I work with are motivated by their curiosity (or perhaps ego:-)). Almost all of them could get better paid jobs elsewhere if they wanted. Then again I work in a university.
No, this [michaelmoore.com] is the truth about Bowling for Columbine.
I quite like Micheal Moores films but some of the things he says on that page he doesn't back up in any real way such pointing to transcripts of interviews/speeches on his own site, that is meaningless.
I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true.
I also liked that statement since it is meaningless, if he presents things that aren't true they aren't facts. I don't think the way he has written that page does him any favours.
From his post how can you tell that there isn't twice as many problems with the children and half the time the fathers sort it and half the time the mothers sort it.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't there a theory that global warming will melt loads of ice which decreases the saltiness of the ocean around the artic and this will disturbe the gulf stream leading to cooling of varies parts of the world, IIRC Europe and the east coast of the US. Could have been warped version of that.
He did say that is was casual friday.
Scientists have performed successful teleportation on atoms for the first time, the journal Nature reports.
Although it is not teleportation in the Star Trek sense it is a tranfering of quantam states between atoms.
How does that relate to your question of 'Seen the percentage of a coomputer's cost the OS accounts for?' You are now altering the question to suit your needs. Anyway just make your point it will be easier for both of us in the long run.
You want to quibble that we don't have an EXACT price? Go ahead!
How do you get a percentage that means anything without a price? We have a varying price for the hardware and a varying price for the OS. Numbers coming from that are going to be a little suspect. Your question concerning the percentage assumes we have a reasonable reliable price from what you have subsequently said we don't, at which point the question starts to make less sense therefore it should have been phrased as a different question. Which was my point.
As for agreeing with George the 3rd - yes - the 4th was a damp squid...
So you do agree.
The fact you responded with a question wasn't designed to mask your ignorance, was it?
No it was designed to point out that you were agreeing.
And no - having a quick, desperate google (your immediate plan I assume) doesn't really count as "knowledge..."
You are assuming things based on your own experience and expectations. We both said the same thing in different ways checking up on it doesn't come into it. We apprently both agree.
Which is why I, and many other Brits, celebrate "thanksgiving" on July the 4th...
I have never met (or heard of) a single person from the UK who celebrates "thanksgiving". You are the first. Everyone has things that annoy them and express that annoyance in various ways. Feel free to tell me more about it (via email if you prefer). My sig is meant to point out that the world is not US centric and other views exist which is something that sometimes gets forgotten on slashdot.
The fact that YOU don't I just put down to ignorance.
Yours or mine? If you want to discuss issues that relate to this article fine if you want to trade insults find someone else.
I still haven't manage to find the point of what you were trying to say. Make your point and the discussion can move on.
Which depends on the price of the computer. So using a percentage is meaningless an absolute cost makes more sense even then different operating systems on different platforms even if you take Windows as the operating system you are talking about. It has been reported that each vendor pays a different price for Windows from Microsoft and they aren't allowed to disclose that price. So oddly enough no I haven't and whatever number it is it will only be right in a small number of cases.
Far too many slashdotters are impressed at the way a scoundrel disposes of his ill gotten gains.
I've already stated elsewhere that giving the money away has probably had more benefits to Bill Gates than if he had kept it. When they say you can't buy that kind of publicity they are wrong it just cost $750 million.
BTW... Nothing of importance DID happen on July the 4th. It was on the 2nd that the real action happened.
So you agree with George III then?
Which - by the by - means we Brits celebrate "thanksgiving" two days late...
Since when did we Brits celebrate thanksgiving late or otherwise and what has that got to do with the US independence day? The former being the fourth Thursday in November and the latter being the 4th of July.
When those kids grow up they are probably going to have bigger problems than thier choice of operating system.
This is true
Unless you live in your parents basement and own nothing, I very much doubt you are worth only $100.
He was making a point using number which were easy to calculate. I very much doubt he is worth $100 as well.
Given that he didn't have to make the donation and could have easily kept the money for himself (benefiting no-one but him), I would say you're wrong.
I doubt if he kept the money that it would have benefiting him in any way. The guy is worth around 50 billion (according to the grandpartent). After this donation he is still worth over 49 billion that is still a massive amount of money and it is unlikey that at some point in the future he will be down to his last 750 million in order to really need the money he just donated. He does get something from this donation he get publicity and good will. I think donating the money has done more for him than if he just kept it (not to belittle the donation I think it is a good thing). Come one even people on slashdot are now saying that he isn't all bad, next there is going to be flying pigs and a large order placed from hell for central heating.
True the game isn't very complex but you don't try to teach a very young child to play chess you start with something easier such as, well rock-paper-sicssors.
Lighting a grill with liquid oxygen would probably count.
I never said it was about saving mankind. I was taking a more skeptic view it is about saving myself and my peers. I doubt politians will care enough to save mankind but they will care enough to save themselves and their children. There will always be people who disagree with global warming. So the odds of getting a consensus from everyone is very unlikely. There are already people who say that global warming has be verified. So does that constitute verifiable or do we wait some more. At what point has it been verified?
Moreover, if global warming *did* kill a bunch of people, wouldn't things go back to normal in a few hundred years while the rest of us moved 50 miles North to adjust for the climate change?
It becomes more of a problem if you are one of the bunch that it kills. There are all kinds of theory on how global warming will effect the planet. I've heard extremes of mass flooding to a return to snow ball earth both of which would take more than a few hundred years to fix and moving 50 miles North would not help.
Your argument also assumes that climate change is a more worthy cause for spending than say: world hunger, illiteracy, medical research, etc.
I never stated that the argument wasn't vastly over simplified although I did hint at it :-) The allocation of funds to the various projects should be done by someone that has more knowledge of the problems than me. I'm just some random bloke on slashdot (although I do not live in my parents basement) I do not have all the answers.
There's a limited amount of capital to play with, particularly when you start restricting business activities.
Are you sure it restricts business or does it just change working practices and create new ways of working and opportunities for business? Buggy whip makers were pissed off when cars came about, it doesn't mean they were right.
I'm not sure that global warming, verifiable or otherwise, makes it to the top of the priorities list.
I would say it depends on what is going to happen and how strong the evidence is that it will happen.
Care to cite a source? The CIA fact book on the UK and the US seem to disagree with you, to me they indicate that the US has more of a problem than the UK which is currently reducing much of its polution., while the US has 'water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers; limited natural fresh water resources in much of the western part of the country require careful management'.
And we all know that scientists and experts all live of thin air and don't need to eat. How do you know they were scientists and experts did you programme makers say so? That isn't proof, I watch Enterprise and get told we can travel faster than light it doesn't mean I should believe it. How do you know that the programme maker don't have an agenda and therefore chose scientists and experts that happen to agree with them. How do you know that those scientists and experts are not the only experts that believe global warming is junk while the other 99.99999% believe it is true. There is always disagrements concerning differing viewpoints in science. You _cannot_ make an informed decision about something from a television programme since they cannot present you with all the information that you need in order to make a decision. Considering that the people who are the most qualified to make that decision are the people who have PhDs in the field perhaps we should believe what the majority of them say. That doesn't mean that they are always right, both Newton and Einstein were wrong about certain aspects of their work. In fact Einstein spent about 30 years of his life being wrong because he could reconsile his religious views with the direction that physics had taken based on his earlier work.
So maybe YOU just need to do a little research, my friend.
And perhaps you need to think a little more about what you see on television nothing is presented without bias (including this post). People are inclined to believe what supports their view and dismiss information that doesn't even if that information is the overwhelming majority* . You have to learn to be objective.
Maybe the view to take is if we take action against global warming and it was true we have saved ourselves but if global warming isn't true we haven't doom outselves just spent some more money and made the air a little cleaner (not a bad thing in my opion). On the other hand if we do nothing and there isn't such a thing as global warming then we are fine, but if global warming is true and we do nothing then we are screwed. Doing something about it seems to have a better outcome to me.
* See Slashdot moderation for an example.
I haven't had any problems on either of my systems; AMD 1500 laptop and an intel 2.8Ghz P4.
I always had problems with that statement since it is meaningless since evil is undefined. They may think nothing they do is evil but other will disagree. For example I eat meat so to some people I'm an evil cow killer. To me isn't wasn't a bad thing it was just lunch. It is all just a matter of your viewpoint.
Of course it is. The way to deal with jitter is to buffer the incoming packets and play them back at a uniformed rate. As long as you can keep the end-to-end delay below about 150 ms it won't be noticed by people, below 250 ms there is a slight delay and over 250 ms is classed as unaccetpable. Unfortunetly in VoIP delay times at routers can eat up a lot of this time. There are lots of papers on how to deal with jitter but if your jitter is only 3 ms there is no point in doing anything about it.
If it's by ear then please remember it is impossible to measure 3Ms.
If you are talking by ear upto 40 ms jitter is not noticiable by people, between 40 and 75 is classed as good quality but with occasional delays while over 75 ms be unacceptable. This is according to the ITU.
The work I do with VoIP we struggle to get 15 Ms.
Megaseconds? Sounds like a pretty duff system to me. But 15 ms jitter should be fine for the human perception system and shouldn't be noticed.
It isn't really Word that is the better platform, it is the addins for Word that I have which make it a better platform. Things like reading back what I have written helps (but is also available for other word processors) but there is also enhanced spell and grammar checkers which I use. They mostly manage to catch my spelling and grammar mistakes but I still like to have someone local read what I've written just in case. Oh and I'm probably a lot more careful with what I write than most these days.
Ah interesting. I was going to suggest Latex, but I (rightly, I suppose) thought you would had tried it.
I have submitted papers in latex format but I write the text in Word and then convert it to latex when I'm happy with it. I suppose in that case I use Word as a rather complicated text editor and use latex for the formatting, I find that works quite well since getting the formating right in Word can be a real pain but in latex it is much easier.
Something like latex is better suited to writing papers but I'm dyslexic and Word (plus suitable addins) provides better platform for me to use.
It was terrible. I saw two of them and they were both out of focus, then I was physically sick and in the morning I had a terrible headache. :-)
I find that it is terrible for all but the simplest of documents. I normally use it when writing papers. When I'm writing with others maintaining the required formatting, with diagrams in the right places becomes a task in and of itself. Even when I'm just writing by myself Word can do some very odd things to the document.
That is probably harder than you make it seem.
They do exist, my wife has an undergraduate level Masters (MPhys = Master in Physics) although it is a UK degree and not a US one as in this case.
A lot, if not most of the people I work with are motivated by their curiosity (or perhaps ego :-)). Almost all of them could get better paid jobs elsewhere if they wanted. Then again I work in a university.
I quite like Micheal Moores films but some of the things he says on that page he doesn't back up in any real way such pointing to transcripts of interviews/speeches on his own site, that is meaningless.
I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true.
I also liked that statement since it is meaningless, if he presents things that aren't true they aren't facts. I don't think the way he has written that page does him any favours.
I've just got to say I love the idea of allotted sick time.
From his post how can you tell that there isn't twice as many problems with the children and half the time the fathers sort it and half the time the mothers sort it.