Sorry I just can't let "poor Bill" get past everyone. Once again, he used the word "Poor" to describe "Bill". Where "Poor" does have many meanings, I feel that he is so overwhelmingly not "Poor" in one definition as to completely knock out all others from the ballpark.
That being said the best gifts are the anonymous ones. When it's not anonymous, sure, he's giving $20 million and that's great, but he's it at least partly for his name. Still, I'm not complaining that he's doing it.
As I hinted at in another post, the problem would be seen by a CNN/Gallup poll after the respondents say:
"Which web browser do you use?"
The Internet 50%
The Web 15%
Explorer 10%
Internet Explorer 10%
Mozilla/FireFox: 12%
Other 3% (Including 1.2% who stated 'www')
I have my parents using Firefox (they are quite happy for the change). I see my roommates are using Firefox. I see my professors are using Firefox. I use Firefox.
I don't know who this mystery 86% is. I haven't actually seen anyone pick IE given the choice.
Nah it can be a tiny dog. Unless you've been specifically targeted what the thief is looking at is a house with a dog, versus a host of houses without a dog.
Well don't forget that at least half the people who consider themselves left wing in this country are still conservative. The atmosphere is so full of anti-soviet propaganda many are afraid to admit to being anything other than capitalist. This is rather a big issue. Example: Star Trek (duh), an apparent socialist paradise created with technology (we don't get to see the kinks).
I personally put my left-wing/right-wing dividing line straight on the socialism/capitalism line. If you are capitalist, I consider you to be economically and probably politically conservative (perhaps socially liberal, more people are liberal there). The same goes for sci-fi authors.
As for democracy vs republic vs fascism, etc, that's a completely different scale.
Any significant amount of smoke can cause a cloud people would declare a mushroom cloud. It forms like that for a reason- none of said reason being the nuclear portion.
"Money" is not some stack bills in your wallet. It represents some tangible effort that had value, and that value is now stored in a convenient form, ready to be exchanged for something else of value.
Yes, but the basic and obvious argument is whoever has this money isn't necessarily the person who did the effort you speak of. Inheritance is a basic example of something you don't earn however for some strange reason you get. Congrats, your parents were rich. Whatever.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2970503.stm When a weapon with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through before erupting in a burning cloud of vapour. This settles as chemically poisonous and radioactive dust.
Now from http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm When fired, or after "cooking off" in fires or explosions, the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body. Taken into the body via metal fragments or dust-like particles, depleted uranium may pose a long-term health hazard to personnel if the amount is large.
Let's see what WHO has to say http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/ Levels of DU may exceed background levels of uranium close to DU contaminating events. Over the days and years following such an event, the contamination normally becomes dispersed into the wider natural environment by wind and rain. People living or working in affected areas may inhale contaminated dusts or consume contaminated food and drinking water.
Let's stitch these things together. A tank fires, hits a tank. Dust goes into the air, eventually settles. Multiply this by a thousand over the course of several days. It rains. People drink it. Pregnant mothers drink it.
Look this isn't a complicated concept. It's not something you can simply toss out. The real question (which you don't seem to care about) is whether the dosage is high enough to do harm. A full grown adult should not ingest over 0.5 ug per kg per year. I can't find how much depleted uranium is in one round, but you can rest assured that if just a fraction of that amount after a firefight got into the drinking water (which remember can be as small as a puddle), things are not going to be good.
My reply to this is make everything that can possibly be an extension, an extension, and then make them all default installed extensions. Users can then subtract either at install or runtime. I'd personally prefer runtime since the browser is already very lightweight and we don't want to scare people off.
Male / Female orientation is a real no no. It's extremely hard to do and let's say you're even 90% accurate. 10% of the population with absolutely loath you.
Private citizens don't get search warrants. They can't sentence you jail. They aren't allowed to drive a tank down the streets. The can't order people to show up to court. (etc, etc, etc)
I want to know what you possibly mean by double standard? You're asking why it's ok for police to watch a person closely when investigating a crime, possibly with a warrant, but it's not ok for private citizens to do it?
Also do not forget that surveillance cameras are (primary) not for tracking people moving around-- they are to see what is happening where they are watching. If a crime is spotted in an old camera log it's only evidence, not big brother. Do you think if any given city installs X thousand cameras they will actively be watching each one following people? Cops would use this instead of GPS on the car, why?
Unless you can conclusively show me that police are allowed to follow someone for their own private agenda in such a way that a private citizen is not, I do not understand what you are talking about.
I would welcome rather than fear more cameras on the streets in the UK
I agree. I happen to live in the US but if I were in the UK I'd agree. I wouldn't agree if that said US, however, because I find our country hasn't the mature society to handle it.
I would say that the only saving grace in this whole mess is that we are all so interconnected anymore, that imports/exports don't matter. If we could just see that and have enough sense to end tariffs altogether we would all come out in the wash.
This I agree with. The problem is that people try to hang on to things, such as US Steel. Why do we want to have this? People want it. Do we suck at it? Yes we do. We can't survive in steel without cheating the market through subsidies. It's against economic policy to do something locally when someone remotely can do it more efficiently and you can trade for the goods (with goods that we can make more efficiently).
The one iffy point I see is farming, food, produce. The way this country works we can experience both surplus and shortfall in the same crop at nearly the same time. If we rely too much and imports and it goes dry, people like to blame other people for it. My best response to this is to make a (presumably UN) branch in charge of ALL food markets. The waste that goes out of the supermarkets in this country could feed almost another United States. It's quite pathetic. I for one would welcome a tighter supply chain with food, even if it means being inconvenienced every so often with a lack of a specific food, all around you have fresher food and more variety year round.
Very close. The Indian market will soon be able to compensate although it won't be so idiotically "spend spend spend!" as here, they will still have high demand for hi-tech goods and such. Once Russia and eastern Europe get their economies in full swing (again?) they'll be ready too.
All I'm saying is that I believe the rest of the world is almost self-sustaining (give them a couple more decades). Yes, right now the US is a money pit and everyone is grabbing (our fault). I believe they can be weaned off our teat (Florida looks kinda like a teat).
So how do I think it should work? I believe there is no profitably without price fixing in any utility, and should be no profit in any utility. What's the incentive? We want it. Thusly the federal government gives money to states from taxes to set up their infrastructure, be it phone, power, water, highways / roads, or internet access. You want investors? They donate money to the federal fund (or at the state level, perhaps) which in turn raises business prospects. Sure there are a lot of things that can go wrong, but it's a whole hell of a lot better than the shit we have now. Utilities in the public market are forced to attempt to make a profit while being yelled at by "investors" who want the stock to go up. Have you looked at your cable/power bill lately? Welcome to the world of capitalism where breaking even is losing.
Your missing a bit there. There is X amount in prize money. SOME of it goes to the top few coders. The rest goes to the top coders who did NOT make it to the final, some $23,000 split up or something.
Is it? Whatever happened to IE being a vital part of the operating system? What about the close connection between explorer.exe and iexplorer.exe (either can do the work of the other), which controls the windowing environment (as oppose to say, astonshell).
Oh sorry then I completely misread. Well then you need to still ask yourself the same question. Think about comparing the footprint of Firefox and Internet Explorer. Much of Internet Explorer's footprint is inside the operating system unseen. While this does mean it is practically taking less memory, it also means it is using more memory so the swapping is happening much more often (please, someone think of the poor cache). I am willing to bet it is the same way with Word. It'd be interesting to compare more technical aspects such as frequency of cache misses, etc, although I guess that's not what we're looking at.
The smaller memory footprint which is ~6MB instead of what they claim is ~30MB for Word but which I claim is only ~17MB according to my tasklist).
It's not so easy as that. The best way would be to delete everything and just install word. Actually that still wouldn't do it and I'll tell you while: Your common directory has much of what word depends on. My common (Microsoft shared) directory is 120 megs. How much of that does Word depend on? 10? 100? True, it is shared between other programs, so to get the impact that you feel divide the size of your common directory by the number of programs that use it. For me, only Excel and Word are installed so that's 60 megs each, just for the common directory. Now there might be a microsoft shared with no applications installed but I'm not in a position to check it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry I just can't let "poor Bill" get past everyone. Once again, he used the word "Poor" to describe "Bill". Where "Poor" does have many meanings, I feel that he is so overwhelmingly not "Poor" in one definition as to completely knock out all others from the ballpark.
That being said the best gifts are the anonymous ones. When it's not anonymous, sure, he's giving $20 million and that's great, but he's it at least partly for his name. Still, I'm not complaining that he's doing it.
As the saying goes, mother nature knows best.
Not to set up a patriarchy but perhaps father time knows better. Nature has a few billion years of work we need to catch up on.
As I hinted at in another post, the problem would be seen by a CNN/Gallup poll after the respondents say:
"Which web browser do you use?"
The Internet 50%
The Web 15%
Explorer 10%
Internet Explorer 10%
Mozilla/FireFox: 12%
Other 3% (Including 1.2% who stated 'www')
I have my parents using Firefox (they are quite happy for the change). I see my roommates are using Firefox. I see my professors are using Firefox. I use Firefox.
I don't know who this mystery 86% is. I haven't actually seen anyone pick IE given the choice.
are just afraid of law-abiding citizens having guns
You're damn straight I am. If you live on my street and you own a gun, my life expectancy drops. Thanks asshole.
Nah it can be a tiny dog. Unless you've been specifically targeted what the thief is looking at is a house with a dog, versus a host of houses without a dog.
Well don't forget that at least half the people who consider themselves left wing in this country are still conservative. The atmosphere is so full of anti-soviet propaganda many are afraid to admit to being anything other than capitalist. This is rather a big issue. Example: Star Trek (duh), an apparent socialist paradise created with technology (we don't get to see the kinks).
I personally put my left-wing/right-wing dividing line straight on the socialism/capitalism line. If you are capitalist, I consider you to be economically and probably politically conservative (perhaps socially liberal, more people are liberal there). The same goes for sci-fi authors.
As for democracy vs republic vs fascism, etc, that's a completely different scale.
Any significant amount of smoke can cause a cloud people would declare a mushroom cloud. It forms like that for a reason- none of said reason being the nuclear portion.
"Money" is not some stack bills in your wallet. It represents some tangible effort that had value, and that value is now stored in a convenient form, ready to be exchanged for something else of value.
Yes, but the basic and obvious argument is whoever has this money isn't necessarily the person who did the effort you speak of. Inheritance is a basic example of something you don't earn however for some strange reason you get. Congrats, your parents were rich. Whatever.
Nice FUD. Let's pick a source. Let's see... BBC.
n /
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2970503.stm
When a weapon with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through before erupting in a burning cloud of vapour. This settles as chemically poisonous and radioactive dust.
Now from http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm
When fired, or after "cooking off" in fires or explosions, the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body. Taken into the body via metal fragments or dust-like particles, depleted uranium may pose a long-term health hazard to personnel if the amount is large.
Let's see what WHO has to say http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/e
Levels of DU may exceed background levels of uranium close to DU contaminating events. Over the days and years following such an event, the contamination normally becomes dispersed into the wider natural environment by wind and rain. People living or working in affected areas may inhale contaminated dusts or consume contaminated food and drinking water.
Let's stitch these things together. A tank fires, hits a tank. Dust goes into the air, eventually settles. Multiply this by a thousand over the course of several days. It rains. People drink it. Pregnant mothers drink it.
Look this isn't a complicated concept. It's not something you can simply toss out. The real question (which you don't seem to care about) is whether the dosage is high enough to do harm. A full grown adult should not ingest over 0.5 ug per kg per year. I can't find how much depleted uranium is in one round, but you can rest assured that if just a fraction of that amount after a firefight got into the drinking water (which remember can be as small as a puddle), things are not going to be good.
Where depleted uranium shells have been used there have been high increases birth defects and young children haven't been developing correctly.
My reply to this is make everything that can possibly be an extension, an extension, and then make them all default installed extensions. Users can then subtract either at install or runtime. I'd personally prefer runtime since the browser is already very lightweight and we don't want to scare people off.
Male / Female orientation is a real no no. It's extremely hard to do and let's say you're even 90% accurate. 10% of the population with absolutely loath you.
Double standard? Wha wha waa???
Private citizens don't get search warrants. They can't sentence you jail. They aren't allowed to drive a tank down the streets. The can't order people to show up to court. (etc, etc, etc)
I want to know what you possibly mean by double standard? You're asking why it's ok for police to watch a person closely when investigating a crime, possibly with a warrant, but it's not ok for private citizens to do it?
Also do not forget that surveillance cameras are (primary) not for tracking people moving around-- they are to see what is happening where they are watching. If a crime is spotted in an old camera log it's only evidence, not big brother. Do you think if any given city installs X thousand cameras they will actively be watching each one following people? Cops would use this instead of GPS on the car, why?
Unless you can conclusively show me that police are allowed to follow someone for their own private agenda in such a way that a private citizen is not, I do not understand what you are talking about.
Except under the directory fake_downloads_to_catch_bots, etc.
I would welcome rather than fear more cameras on the streets in the UK
I agree. I happen to live in the US but if I were in the UK I'd agree. I wouldn't agree if that said US, however, because I find our country hasn't the mature society to handle it.
I would say that the only saving grace in this whole mess is that we are all so interconnected anymore, that imports/exports don't matter. If we could just see that and have enough sense to end tariffs altogether we would all come out in the wash.
This I agree with. The problem is that people try to hang on to things, such as US Steel. Why do we want to have this? People want it. Do we suck at it? Yes we do. We can't survive in steel without cheating the market through subsidies. It's against economic policy to do something locally when someone remotely can do it more efficiently and you can trade for the goods (with goods that we can make more efficiently).
The one iffy point I see is farming, food, produce. The way this country works we can experience both surplus and shortfall in the same crop at nearly the same time. If we rely too much and imports and it goes dry, people like to blame other people for it. My best response to this is to make a (presumably UN) branch in charge of ALL food markets. The waste that goes out of the supermarkets in this country could feed almost another United States. It's quite pathetic. I for one would welcome a tighter supply chain with food, even if it means being inconvenienced every so often with a lack of a specific food, all around you have fresher food and more variety year round.
Very close. The Indian market will soon be able to compensate although it won't be so idiotically "spend spend spend!" as here, they will still have high demand for hi-tech goods and such. Once Russia and eastern Europe get their economies in full swing (again?) they'll be ready too.
All I'm saying is that I believe the rest of the world is almost self-sustaining (give them a couple more decades). Yes, right now the US is a money pit and everyone is grabbing (our fault). I believe they can be weaned off our teat (Florida looks kinda like a teat).
Responding to this and to the one before it:
So how do I think it should work? I believe there is no profitably without price fixing in any utility, and should be no profit in any utility. What's the incentive? We want it. Thusly the federal government gives money to states from taxes to set up their infrastructure, be it phone, power, water, highways / roads, or internet access. You want investors? They donate money to the federal fund (or at the state level, perhaps) which in turn raises business prospects. Sure there are a lot of things that can go wrong, but it's a whole hell of a lot better than the shit we have now. Utilities in the public market are forced to attempt to make a profit while being yelled at by "investors" who want the stock to go up. Have you looked at your cable/power bill lately? Welcome to the world of capitalism where breaking even is losing.
When I see uppercase letters, my reading voice DOES yell it. I could train myself not to have this done but I shouldn't have to.
Incidentally bold to me sounds like some great leader talking and italic sounds like a sexy Italian.
"Evidence from the last 20 years of work in cognitive psychology indicates that we use the letters within a word to recognize a word."
Very strange because if y_u r____r we d__'t n__d a_l those l_____s.
Your missing a bit there. There is X amount in prize money. SOME of it goes to the top few coders. The rest goes to the top coders who did NOT make it to the final, some $23,000 split up or something.
Is it? Whatever happened to IE being a vital part of the operating system? What about the close connection between explorer.exe and iexplorer.exe (either can do the work of the other), which controls the windowing environment (as oppose to say, astonshell).
Oh sorry then I completely misread. Well then you need to still ask yourself the same question. Think about comparing the footprint of Firefox and Internet Explorer. Much of Internet Explorer's footprint is inside the operating system unseen. While this does mean it is practically taking less memory, it also means it is using more memory so the swapping is happening much more often (please, someone think of the poor cache). I am willing to bet it is the same way with Word. It'd be interesting to compare more technical aspects such as frequency of cache misses, etc, although I guess that's not what we're looking at.
The smaller memory footprint which is ~6MB instead of what they claim is ~30MB for Word but which I claim is only ~17MB according to my tasklist).
It's not so easy as that. The best way would be to delete everything and just install word. Actually that still wouldn't do it and I'll tell you while: Your common directory has much of what word depends on. My common (Microsoft shared) directory is 120 megs. How much of that does Word depend on? 10? 100? True, it is shared between other programs, so to get the impact that you feel divide the size of your common directory by the number of programs that use it. For me, only Excel and Word are installed so that's 60 megs each, just for the common directory. Now there might be a microsoft shared with no applications installed but I'm not in a position to check it out.