FTA: It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.
The UN can build consensus all they want to, but we don't _have_ to give up control. Are they going to invade the US over the issue of the Internet? Highly unlikely. I think the EU is was off base in thinking that they have the right to do this. ICANN owns the Internet. DoC gave it to them. What else can the UN decide should be donated to the international community. Our American tax dollars and private investments paid for it. I'm sorry, but requiring that ICANN give up control of the Internet is akin to requiring Lilly to give up its patent on its latest cancer drug, because it is not in the best interest of the EU to have a drug controlled by the US.
Stop trying to flex your muscles for the sake of flexing them. My favorite part of the article is:
Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection - the question of who has control has become critical.
How would having control of the Internet in international hands help Brazil at all? Presumably there are high level DNS servers that would get every Brazillian to the Brazillian govt without ever hitting the Root DNS. If something happened to the Root DNS there would be 0 impact on the Brazillian Infrastructure to a well known host.
Can we please get back to fighting terrorism or something more important than this.
Unfortunately, unlike that suit, you can't get a "lower grade" version of the music for a price that suits.
Umm...have you never been to a used CD store? Or the "discount rack" at Wal-Mart? Both CDs and DVDs are available used for a lower price and the crappy ones are available new for $5.00 (It costs 4 to rent a movie at Blockbuster)
How is this different from buying a used Armani or buying the "low budget" new suit?
I would respond to the rest of your comment, but that statement sets up the rest of your argument, and it is a fallacy.
I don't bother running Virex, nor do most people I know. But I know one of these days I'm gonna pay for it.
The problem with Virex, as with all Virus scanners is that in the nightmare scenario you describe Virex isn't gonna know about it until you already have the virus. And if someone does do all that stuff, and does screw your Mac...they will likely also find a way to disable your recovery and virus downloads anyway. Against a fast moving virus, yesterday's definitions are useless. So if the virus protection can't help you, why bother paying for it? Most of the major problems on windows are worms now anyway. Following the guidelines of someone like securemac.com should be plenty.
I'd say it scales pretty well. Lets take the example of the chinese peasant. He gets a job in China's budding automobile industry. He in turn makes more money than he used to and creates a demand for goods. Maybe even some American goods like iPods, Viagra (or some actually useful drug), an Americn DESIGNED car. He has helped to employ several designers. Sure, we can't create more high end jobs/low end jobs, but we can create more high end jobs by creating more low end jobs. China gains more low end jobs (which are better than no jobs), and we gain more high end jobs. We leave the ratio (the scaling part) the same, but we grow the size of the economy. No where all of this falls apart is that earth has a finite amount of resources, so when we grow the pool of eligible consumers, we shrink the piece of the pie that each consumer can get, or at least we increase the price until we price some of the low end consumers out of the market, which is what we are starting to see with Oil right now. Which (assuming we have a market not dominated by monopolistic oil companies) actually creates (yes increases the ratio) of good jobs by creating a market for people who can suupply viable forms of alternative energy. that was a mouthful. I think I need to get back to work.
I'm confused. How is buying something on the Internet (when the company is in another state no less) not INTERstate commerce? And since when did the constitution stop explicitly forbidding states from taxing interstate commerce? Now maybe it is arguable that the spirit of that law was that Nevada could not put a tax on goods passing from California to Utah, but I don't think the artlcie spells it out in those terms. I am pretty sure that no state is allowed to tax goods that pass across a border. Of course IANAL so I can't say for sure.
I'm not sure how that is relavent to this discussion at all. You are right though it is a concious decision. For the record though I don't think it is an issue at all that we are losing those jobs. Take 'em. You can have 'em. We will replace that machinists job with a much higher paying industrial engineering position. We will replace that programmers job with a much higher paying project managers job, and we will replace that auto workers job with a much higher paying mechanical engineering job. We will do that because we have improved the amount of information that can flow to our citizens and increased the speed with which we can do that. We call it the Internet, and it is how we are foraging the way towards the 21st century economy. So you will forgive us if we think we should be able to keep it.
Maybe someone can shed some light as to why USA should have the control?
Um...cause we invented it (Well Al Gore invented it, "we" didn't) and we paid for the infrastructure. I think that means we can do whatever we want with it.
Since the Internt is not USANet
Ok, we have established that the US owns the Internet, so I think we can call it USANet if we want to.
I'm sure that if the shoe was on the other foot, i.e some other country had control over DNS, USA would be the loudest kid in the class, screaming for international control.
Yeah, but it isn't on the other foot.
<puts on arrogant american hat> We made the investment to create the technology, just like we invest in pharmacuticals, chemicals, and other technologies to offset the fact that all the other countries are taking our jobs. Our innovations are the only way we can compete in a global marketplace (the one made possible by OUR invention of the Internet I might add) and we have every right to have complete control over those innovations</puts on arrogant american hat>
USA want exclusive control? Fine, make a new network that is owned and operated exsclusively by USA and you can keep all control you want, just don't try to hook it up internationally.
Uh...Wha? We did make the network. We do own and operate it exclusively. And we didn't try to hook it up internationally you did. You bought the kool-aid, now you have to drink it. If you didn't want to be locked into the US as a vendor you should have gotten your fiber optics from somewhere else. For now we have a Monopoly on Internet. It isn't our fault really; We built it first and now we get to take advantage of it.:-P
I appreciate your view that I should die for what I have said. Your desire to return our society to the 1400's where people are put to death for their beleifs/statements is very reassuring that you have a firm grasp on the ideals a civilized nation should be striving to uphold. In fact your statement that people who do not agree with you should die reeks of irony as you cry foul that a man was "treated injustly" by his government as it buckled to the popular opinion of the day and snatched away personal freedoms in exchange for the safety of the herd.
Now back to the real world. If you are going to reply and tell me that I am an idiot could you at least offer some structured argument to support your claims? I mean if I should die you should at least tell me why. I'm pretty sure the constitution affords me the right to know the charges being brought against me.
I don't know about that. I think it gave him 10,000 little reasons. Seriously. He is in college and just got $10,000 He can use that money to help pay off loans, credit cards, and a million (well 10,000) other things. That decreased debt will certainly give him mobility when he gets out of college. Not being tied to impending bills leaving college allows you to be more selective when choosing a job, which increases chances of success. But that is most certianly not what you meant.
Yeah, but there are 2 things that determine price. There is a very limited supply of VW rabbits out there, but they don't cost near as much as a new Honda Civic (even though there are more Civics). How come? Utility! For the purpose of this discussion (and many economic studies) utility = hapiness. Yes the supply of Brittany Spears MP3s is the same as the supply of David Hasselhoff Sings the Christmas Classics, but there is presumably more utility in the Brittany Spears album than the Christmas album. Now I wouldn't listen ot either one of those albums, but there are plenty of people who would (well maybe not DHSTCC) and so depending on how happy it makes them, people will be willing to pay more for something.
You know I just noticed that my computer monitor looks an awful lot like an aquarium. The monitor has glass on the side...my monitor has glass on the side. The aquarium has black strips on the border, my monitor has black strips on the border. Do you think Dell ripped off the design for my monitor from the aquarium manufacturer? Come on people, this is not news. There is no connection, and we just wasted thousands of Slashdot advertising dollars piping this worthless chunk of bits across the Internet to millions of readers across the world. And yes, we will waste several more thousands pumping my worthless complaint across the Internet as the giddy mindless slashdotters click to read all the comments. Unless of course I get modded down to -1, then we will only send out my subject:-)
No, that's not what he was doing. He was acting as though anything short of being "debilitated" by the police is just fine, and due process or even common sense are not things we ought to demand from our police. Which is stupid nonsense.
Actually it was exactly what I was doing. I am not at all saying that it is ok, they didn't break his arm. I am saying it is ok because they did what police do. They arrested him, processed him, and let him go. They didn't beat him up and coerce a confession out of him, they didn't lock him up in a cell on an island and deny him a lawyer. They arested, questioned, investigated, and released a suspect who fit the profile of a suicide bomber. That profile was determined not by race but by the actions he took.
due process or even common sense are not things we ought to demand from our police. Which is stupid nonsense.
How can you not call what he got "due process". See wikipedia for due process. He was notified of why he was being detained. He was not deprived of life or liberty(he was released), and (maybe not in you opinion but in mine) was detained with just cause. Common sense is exactly what was used, along with a healthy does of good judgement.
It is unfair for you to have a knee jerk reaction to the situation that "oh, some innocent guy was arrested, bad police. You should only be arresting the guilty people." It is NOT the job of a police officer to decide who is guilty and who is innocent. It is up to a police officer to use probable cause (not the word probable) to determine if something is a threat and to neutralize that threat in the most conservative way possible. It is up to the Prosecuting Attorney and the Judge to determine if a crime was committed and to prosecute, and convict criminals. I am sorry, but harping on the police for doing their duty is disrespectful and shows an ignorance of the way a justice system should and does operate. Despite being called an idiot and told I should die (because of my beliefs and faith in my government no less) I stand by what the officers in this situation decided to do, and I extend my deepest sympathies for the guy who was arrested. I feel bad for him, but I would have felt even worse for the officer who was crying saying he thought he should have arrested the guy with the bomb in his backapck, but he couldn't becasue he knew he would be put in jail for detaining a guy who might be innocent.
What is Excell and what does this mean. I have never heard of it, but aparrently I should have it, because otherwise programs won't run on my PC.
My favorite comment though was the PDF- a document that can be read on any PC. Oh yeah? Can it be read on the PC that doesn't have a PDF reader on it? Hmm!
Were this mans rights violated? I did not see anything in the article that he wrote that would have violated American law. I do not know British Law. I also did not see anything that would have violated his basic human rights. Everything he owned was returned to him. He was not physically or mentally harmed or tortured. He underwent a little (in his mind a great deal of ) hassle, but he was not debilitated in any way. This comes down to the fact that he was acting suspiciously (at least under the given circumstances) and the police had a responsibility in the heightened state of awareness to follow up on that suspicion. They also have a right, and responsibility, to maintain records of their actions. The statements of the officers, as long as they are accurate and not purposely altered, are absolutely necessary to maintain an auditable account of the situation. He may be arrested again for something and find that those records insturmental in proving he has no prior record of wrongdoing. If they were maintained in his possession he would have a much harder time validating they are genuine. I think this case is a model of what should be done. Note he was not whisked away to some unknown location and denied legal counsel...in fact the article makes no mention of legal counsel being offered, requested, or denied. This is a fully acceptable and encouraging account of how a terrorist prevention system should work. The investigation was thorough, quick, and ultimately vindicating. He was let go in a reasonable time frame and the investigation was concluded.
I am sorry for his inconvenience, but I think the officers were justified in their actions and were respectful of his rights.
In a startling coup by computer manufacturer Apple, Intel has announced its new architecture, and the architecture implements same instruction set as the IBM Power PC.;-)
Ajax is using Javascript to fetch only part of a web page and then updating the page with DHTML and JavaScript, reducing round trip time and server load and making the application "feel " more native.
You can read a curiously familiar Slashdot story from a month ago too.
Its not bad enough that the editors "accidentally" post dupes, they have to go looking through the archives to make sure it is a dupe first? What the hell is going on here? I've stumbled into a world where meat is grown in my kitchen and slashdot editors purposely post dupes.
Will someone tell me what I have to do to get my made up BS story posted on the front page of Slashdot? Somebody should tell this guy's advertizers that all the Slashdot readers that are viewing his ads use some form of adblock. I think the real proof is in the pudding. Apple's stock is only down marginally today. Not the panicked 30% that it would have been if this had been true.
iTunes/iPod? .Mac?
Apple has been hugely successful at selling apple branded subscriptions and devices that are dependent and locked into their software/hardware. They would love for every PC owner to start using iTunes and a $399 iPod, or.Mac on a pirated x86 Mac. It costs $99/year and stores your contacts, your data, your homepage...they have you for life at that point. Plus, when you get frustrated by the crashing that you will inivetably experience from an unsupported OSX, you will come crying home to momma (or Apple as it were)
and fork over the premium for the hardware to run your favorite os in a stable manor.
NO! Not because they wouldn't sell more copies of OSX, they would...not because they wouldn't ultimately sell more Macs, because they would...but because if they don't sell a version for the PC then they invite (yes invite) piracy. The same way Windows did in the 90's. Imagine if windows was impossible to copy, but every PC in Asia could get a copy of OSX running on it for free. Don't you think Apple would take over 90% of the market at that point? And here in the US, if people could get a pirated copy of OSX, they might like it and just go out and buy a Mac. Who knows. I think piracy is exactly what apple needs.
No one was even close to the ease of use that Windows offered. Sure, Mac OS was a lot prettier but then it cost the moon and the stars along with both your arms and legs.
In other words, Windows was the easiest OS in the world to use. And Mac OS doesn't count in my little competition because it was expensive.
I'm not saying Apple is better, but it is a piss poor argument to say Windows was the best OS as long as you only count, well, Windows. I mean come on. If you are going to only count the OS that cost as much as Windows, which for most people was $0 since it was pirated, then you aren't really doing a comparison.
And really it wasn't that much more expensive. I don't get it. If you had bought a PC, plus DOS, plus Windows, would you really have had a cheaper PC? I actually don't know the answer to this question as in 1985 I bought neither a Windows Computer or a Mac computer, but I know now that if you were to buy a Mac Mini or a Bargain Basement PC (With an OEM windows), you would find yourself only saving maybe $200. (I challenge you to find a computer with WindowsXP for 300, even without a monitor and keyboard/mouse) Now $200 is a lot, but when you consider that most Macs have a life of 4-5 years and a bargain PC has a life of 18 months, I would say you can justify it. Also that bargain PC will sell for $50 in 2 years while the Mac Mini may sell for $250 easily.
Think of it as the chance is.0000000000001% * X, if X->inf, then we get, eventually, 1.
But that is NOT true. Even if the Universe is infinite in every dimension you are never guaranteed to get your event. Even if the probability of event X is 99.99999999999% you are NEVER guaranteed that it will happen. That is why it is a PROBABILity. It will probably happen that often. there is a chance that if you flip a coin an infinite number of times you will always land on heads. It is not guaranteed that it will EVER land on tails. Now the reality of it is that it WILL happen, but it doesn't HAVE to happen. So in an infinite universe we WILL exist, but we do not HAVE to exist.
Now in my own mind ID is true, but I don't believe it is my place to use a school to force that belief on people when there is no strong evidence to back it up. I do however believe that we are doing our children a disservice to not explain to them the beliefs of probably 95% of the English speaking world, and probably some 75% of the entire world, that there is a higher being that had some hand in their creation. Telling them what the world believes and teaching them to respect it is very important. Telling them it is true is another story.
Slashdot Mirror
FTA:
It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.
The UN can build consensus all they want to, but we don't _have_ to give up control. Are they going to invade the US over the issue of the Internet? Highly unlikely. I think the EU is was off base in thinking that they have the right to do this. ICANN owns the Internet. DoC gave it to them. What else can the UN decide should be donated to the international community. Our American tax dollars and private investments paid for it. I'm sorry, but requiring that ICANN give up control of the Internet is akin to requiring Lilly to give up its patent on its latest cancer drug, because it is not in the best interest of the EU to have a drug controlled by the US.
Stop trying to flex your muscles for the sake of flexing them. My favorite part of the article is:
Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection - the question of who has control has become critical.
How would having control of the Internet in international hands help Brazil at all? Presumably there are high level DNS servers that would get every Brazillian to the Brazillian govt without ever hitting the Root DNS. If something happened to the Root DNS there would be 0 impact on the Brazillian Infrastructure to a well known host.
Can we please get back to fighting terrorism or something more important than this.
Unfortunately, unlike that suit, you can't get a "lower grade" version of the music for a price that suits.
Umm...have you never been to a used CD store? Or the "discount rack" at Wal-Mart? Both CDs and DVDs are available used for a lower price and the crappy ones are available new for $5.00 (It costs 4 to rent a movie at Blockbuster)
How is this different from buying a used Armani or buying the "low budget" new suit?
I would respond to the rest of your comment, but that statement sets up the rest of your argument, and it is a fallacy.
I don't bother running Virex, nor do most people I know. But I know one of these days I'm gonna pay for it. The problem with Virex, as with all Virus scanners is that in the nightmare scenario you describe Virex isn't gonna know about it until you already have the virus. And if someone does do all that stuff, and does screw your Mac...they will likely also find a way to disable your recovery and virus downloads anyway. Against a fast moving virus, yesterday's definitions are useless. So if the virus protection can't help you, why bother paying for it? Most of the major problems on windows are worms now anyway. Following the guidelines of someone like securemac.com should be plenty.
This game made me want to stick my member into a blender :(
Sticking YOUR member into a blender. Now that could provide for some fun gaming.
And I'm and Amerikan.
Who doesn't know how to spell Amerika.
I'd say it scales pretty well. Lets take the example of the chinese peasant. He gets a job in China's budding automobile industry. He in turn makes more money than he used to and creates a demand for goods. Maybe even some American goods like iPods, Viagra (or some actually useful drug), an Americn DESIGNED car. He has helped to employ several designers. Sure, we can't create more high end jobs/low end jobs, but we can create more high end jobs by creating more low end jobs. China gains more low end jobs (which are better than no jobs), and we gain more high end jobs. We leave the ratio (the scaling part) the same, but we grow the size of the economy. No where all of this falls apart is that earth has a finite amount of resources, so when we grow the pool of eligible consumers, we shrink the piece of the pie that each consumer can get, or at least we increase the price until we price some of the low end consumers out of the market, which is what we are starting to see with Oil right now. Which (assuming we have a market not dominated by monopolistic oil companies) actually creates (yes increases the ratio) of good jobs by creating a market for people who can suupply viable forms of alternative energy. that was a mouthful. I think I need to get back to work.
I'm confused. How is buying something on the Internet (when the company is in another state no less) not INTERstate commerce? And since when did the constitution stop explicitly forbidding states from taxing interstate commerce? Now maybe it is arguable that the spirit of that law was that Nevada could not put a tax on goods passing from California to Utah, but I don't think the artlcie spells it out in those terms. I am pretty sure that no state is allowed to tax goods that pass across a border. Of course IANAL so I can't say for sure.
I'm not sure how that is relavent to this discussion at all. You are right though it is a concious decision. For the record though I don't think it is an issue at all that we are losing those jobs. Take 'em. You can have 'em. We will replace that machinists job with a much higher paying industrial engineering position. We will replace that programmers job with a much higher paying project managers job, and we will replace that auto workers job with a much higher paying mechanical engineering job. We will do that because we have improved the amount of information that can flow to our citizens and increased the speed with which we can do that. We call it the Internet, and it is how we are foraging the way towards the 21st century economy. So you will forgive us if we think we should be able to keep it.
Um...cause we invented it (Well Al Gore invented it, "we" didn't) and we paid for the infrastructure. I think that means we can do whatever we want with it.
Since the Internt is not USANet
Ok, we have established that the US owns the Internet, so I think we can call it USANet if we want to.
I'm sure that if the shoe was on the other foot, i.e some other country had control over DNS, USA would be the loudest kid in the class, screaming for international control.
Yeah, but it isn't on the other foot.
USA want exclusive control? Fine, make a new network that is owned and operated exsclusively by USA and you can keep all control you want, just don't try to hook it up internationally.
Uh...Wha? We did make the network. We do own and operate it exclusively. And we didn't try to hook it up internationally you did. You bought the kool-aid, now you have to drink it. If you didn't want to be locked into the US as a vendor you should have gotten your fiber optics from somewhere else. For now we have a Monopoly on Internet. It isn't our fault really; We built it first and now we get to take advantage of it.
I appreciate your view that I should die for what I have said. Your desire to return our society to the 1400's where people are put to death for their beleifs/statements is very reassuring that you have a firm grasp on the ideals a civilized nation should be striving to uphold. In fact your statement that people who do not agree with you should die reeks of irony as you cry foul that a man was "treated injustly" by his government as it buckled to the popular opinion of the day and snatched away personal freedoms in exchange for the safety of the herd.
Now back to the real world. If you are going to reply and tell me that I am an idiot could you at least offer some structured argument to support your claims? I mean if I should die you should at least tell me why. I'm pretty sure the constitution affords me the right to know the charges being brought against me.
I don't know about that. I think it gave him 10,000 little reasons. Seriously. He is in college and just got $10,000 He can use that money to help pay off loans, credit cards, and a million (well 10,000) other things. That decreased debt will certainly give him mobility when he gets out of college. Not being tied to impending bills leaving college allows you to be more selective when choosing a job, which increases chances of success. But that is most certianly not what you meant.
Yeah, but there are 2 things that determine price. There is a very limited supply of VW rabbits out there, but they don't cost near as much as a new Honda Civic (even though there are more Civics). How come? Utility! For the purpose of this discussion (and many economic studies) utility = hapiness. Yes the supply of Brittany Spears MP3s is the same as the supply of David Hasselhoff Sings the Christmas Classics, but there is presumably more utility in the Brittany Spears album than the Christmas album. Now I wouldn't listen ot either one of those albums, but there are plenty of people who would (well maybe not DHSTCC) and so depending on how happy it makes them, people will be willing to pay more for something.
You know I just noticed that my computer monitor looks an awful lot like an aquarium. The monitor has glass on the side...my monitor has glass on the side. The aquarium has black strips on the border, my monitor has black strips on the border. Do you think Dell ripped off the design for my monitor from the aquarium manufacturer? Come on people, this is not news. There is no connection, and we just wasted thousands of Slashdot advertising dollars piping this worthless chunk of bits across the Internet to millions of readers across the world. And yes, we will waste several more thousands pumping my worthless complaint across the Internet as the giddy mindless slashdotters click to read all the comments. Unless of course I get modded down to -1, then we will only send out my subject :-)
No, that's not what he was doing. He was acting as though anything short of being "debilitated" by the police is just fine, and due process or even common sense are not things we ought to demand from our police. Which is stupid nonsense.
Actually it was exactly what I was doing. I am not at all saying that it is ok, they didn't break his arm. I am saying it is ok because they did what police do. They arrested him, processed him, and let him go. They didn't beat him up and coerce a confession out of him, they didn't lock him up in a cell on an island and deny him a lawyer. They arested, questioned, investigated, and released a suspect who fit the profile of a suicide bomber. That profile was determined not by race but by the actions he took.
due process or even common sense are not things we ought to demand from our police. Which is stupid nonsense.
How can you not call what he got "due process". See wikipedia for due process. He was notified of why he was being detained. He was not deprived of life or liberty(he was released), and (maybe not in you opinion but in mine) was detained with just cause. Common sense is exactly what was used, along with a healthy does of good judgement.
It is unfair for you to have a knee jerk reaction to the situation that "oh, some innocent guy was arrested, bad police. You should only be arresting the guilty people." It is NOT the job of a police officer to decide who is guilty and who is innocent. It is up to a police officer to use probable cause (not the word probable) to determine if something is a threat and to neutralize that threat in the most conservative way possible. It is up to the Prosecuting Attorney and the Judge to determine if a crime was committed and to prosecute, and convict criminals. I am sorry, but harping on the police for doing their duty is disrespectful and shows an ignorance of the way a justice system should and does operate. Despite being called an idiot and told I should die (because of my beliefs and faith in my government no less) I stand by what the officers in this situation decided to do, and I extend my deepest sympathies for the guy who was arrested. I feel bad for him, but I would have felt even worse for the officer who was crying saying he thought he should have arrested the guy with the bomb in his backapck, but he couldn't becasue he knew he would be put in jail for detaining a guy who might be innocent.
Excell - this helps to run programs on your PC
What is Excell and what does this mean. I have never heard of it, but aparrently I should have it, because otherwise programs won't run on my PC.
My favorite comment though was the PDF- a document that can be read on any PC. Oh yeah? Can it be read on the PC that doesn't have a PDF reader on it? Hmm!
Were this mans rights violated? I did not see anything in the article that he wrote that would have violated American law. I do not know British Law. I also did not see anything that would have violated his basic human rights. Everything he owned was returned to him. He was not physically or mentally harmed or tortured. He underwent a little (in his mind a great deal of ) hassle, but he was not debilitated in any way. This comes down to the fact that he was acting suspiciously (at least under the given circumstances) and the police had a responsibility in the heightened state of awareness to follow up on that suspicion. They also have a right, and responsibility, to maintain records of their actions. The statements of the officers, as long as they are accurate and not purposely altered, are absolutely necessary to maintain an auditable account of the situation. He may be arrested again for something and find that those records insturmental in proving he has no prior record of wrongdoing. If they were maintained in his possession he would have a much harder time validating they are genuine. I think this case is a model of what should be done. Note he was not whisked away to some unknown location and denied legal counsel...in fact the article makes no mention of legal counsel being offered, requested, or denied. This is a fully acceptable and encouraging account of how a terrorist prevention system should work. The investigation was thorough, quick, and ultimately vindicating. He was let go in a reasonable time frame and the investigation was concluded. I am sorry for his inconvenience, but I think the officers were justified in their actions and were respectful of his rights.
In a startling coup by computer manufacturer Apple, Intel has announced its new architecture, and the architecture implements same instruction set as the IBM Power PC. ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX
Ajax is using Javascript to fetch only part of a web page and then updating the page with DHTML and JavaScript, reducing round trip time and server load and making the application "feel " more native.
You can read a curiously familiar Slashdot story from a month ago too.
Its not bad enough that the editors "accidentally" post dupes, they have to go looking through the archives to make sure it is a dupe first? What the hell is going on here? I've stumbled into a world where meat is grown in my kitchen and slashdot editors purposely post dupes.
Will someone tell me what I have to do to get my made up BS story posted on the front page of Slashdot? Somebody should tell this guy's advertizers that all the Slashdot readers that are viewing his ads use some form of adblock. I think the real proof is in the pudding. Apple's stock is only down marginally today. Not the panicked 30% that it would have been if this had been true.
Firefox lost 0.64% of the users, while Microsoft IE gained the same amount
;-)
OK...I admit it...I was on vacation, and they only had IE at the resort I was at.
0.64% of the web browser market? WTF?
iTunes/iPod?
.Mac? .Mac on a pirated x86 Mac. It costs $99/year and stores your contacts, your data, your homepage...they have you for life at that point. Plus, when you get frustrated by the crashing that you will inivetably experience from an unsupported OSX, you will come crying home to momma (or Apple as it were)
and fork over the premium for the hardware to run your favorite os in a stable manor.
Apple has been hugely successful at selling apple branded subscriptions and devices that are dependent and locked into their software/hardware. They would love for every PC owner to start using iTunes and a $399 iPod, or
NO! Not because they wouldn't sell more copies of OSX, they would...not because they wouldn't ultimately sell more Macs, because they would...but because if they don't sell a version for the PC then they invite (yes invite) piracy. The same way Windows did in the 90's. Imagine if windows was impossible to copy, but every PC in Asia could get a copy of OSX running on it for free. Don't you think Apple would take over 90% of the market at that point? And here in the US, if people could get a pirated copy of OSX, they might like it and just go out and buy a Mac. Who knows. I think piracy is exactly what apple needs.
From the summary:
No one was even close to the ease of use that Windows offered. Sure, Mac OS was a lot prettier but then it cost the moon and the stars along with both your arms and legs.
In other words, Windows was the easiest OS in the world to use. And Mac OS doesn't count in my little competition because it was expensive.
I'm not saying Apple is better, but it is a piss poor argument to say Windows was the best OS as long as you only count, well, Windows. I mean come on. If you are going to only count the OS that cost as much as Windows, which for most people was $0 since it was pirated, then you aren't really doing a comparison.
And really it wasn't that much more expensive. I don't get it. If you had bought a PC, plus DOS, plus Windows, would you really have had a cheaper PC? I actually don't know the answer to this question as in 1985 I bought neither a Windows Computer or a Mac computer, but I know now that if you were to buy a Mac Mini or a Bargain Basement PC (With an OEM windows), you would find yourself only saving maybe $200. (I challenge you to find a computer with WindowsXP for 300, even without a monitor and keyboard/mouse) Now $200 is a lot, but when you consider that most Macs have a life of 4-5 years and a bargain PC has a life of 18 months, I would say you can justify it. Also that bargain PC will sell for $50 in 2 years while the Mac Mini may sell for $250 easily.
Think of it as the chance is .0000000000001% * X, if X->inf, then we get, eventually, 1.
But that is NOT true. Even if the Universe is infinite in every dimension you are never guaranteed to get your event. Even if the probability of event X is 99.99999999999% you are NEVER guaranteed that it will happen. That is why it is a PROBABILity. It will probably happen that often. there is a chance that if you flip a coin an infinite number of times you will always land on heads. It is not guaranteed that it will EVER land on tails. Now the reality of it is that it WILL happen, but it doesn't HAVE to happen. So in an infinite universe we WILL exist, but we do not HAVE to exist.
Now in my own mind ID is true, but I don't believe it is my place to use a school to force that belief on people when there is no strong evidence to back it up. I do however believe that we are doing our children a disservice to not explain to them the beliefs of probably 95% of the English speaking world, and probably some 75% of the entire world, that there is a higher being that had some hand in their creation. Telling them what the world believes and teaching them to respect it is very important. Telling them it is true is another story.