Dinosaurs die out about about 85 million years ago, right? And at that time mammals were represented by a creature about the size of a small dog - is that right? So in 85 million years we got from one small species to many species of various sizes - but it took a quarter of that time to get from chimp to human? This doesn't sound right to me.
There's a fair chance that more business processing still happens on COBOL programs than any other language. (Any other single language? - I don't know). This was certainly true until recently.
It was a wonderful and innovative attempt to reduce the madness of assembly language to a Business Oriented language.
It was horrible to write. (ALL IN UPPER CASE - and with full stops. None of this semicolon nonsense) It was immensely successful. It was developed by a truly brilliant woman, the late Admiral Grace Hopper. We need more such women. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper It was amazing how you could overlay data structures on top of each other. So neat - back in the days when bytes were really, really precious. And I confess I still like the formating used for description 999(X) etc (ok, maybe I don't still use it given that I've forgotton how it goes). So there.
Well that's all I can think of. Let the sledging begin!
You have to hand it to the NASA folks. When they get things to work (and they don't always, Mars was somewhat troublesome) they do give good value.
Those little rovers are STILL going. There were supposed to last about 3 months and they are still plugging along. And one with a limp - so valiant! And as for the Voyagers, I gulp. SO cool.
Yes, they have some horrible bureaucratic problems. Yes, they have some sever political challenges. But credit where credit is due.
>> There are some excellent musicians who can create a dozen tracks covering 45 or more minutes which form a cohesive message or story.
Hm, let me think. Pink Floyd. The Moody Blues. Alan Parsons Project. Emerson Lake and Palmer. Ok, so I'm showing my age.
But BoberFett has a point.
Mind you,
>> Invest some of the income from their hit single instead of blowing the whole thing on drugs and hookers
is a bit rich. Most bands seem to actually lose money from making albums after the music companies have their claws into them. It puzzles me, I admit, why start-up bands - the pub circuit - don't simply publish their songs online as MP3s and let their fans do the markets. If they become success, they could either start charging for concerts (and offer MP3s of those to concert attendees). And never get nailed by the music companies. (Damn, they must have a good line of chat. "Hey, sign here. We will take possession of everything you ever create, we will sell it, make a fortune and charge you for the privilege. If you become a top 10 band you might start to make some money in about 3-4 years if you nearly kill yourselves and get very very lucky. Otherwise we will drive you broke" - "Sure, where do I sign?").
"Actually if you lived a stones throw away from the exchange you would be getting 24mbps with ADSL2"
And indeed I do - and I do. Or at least that's what the modem pretty much says - 20mbps. In fact I live about 500m away (let's say 500 yards for metrically deficient people - no idea about how many rods that is, sorry).
The restriction seems to be from there on, though. I can certainly measure an 8mbps connection to a test site in Canberra, but many sites are still pretty slow.
Australia is the most urbanised country on the planet. Thus most of us live in fairly densely populated areas (Sydney, Gold Coast, Melbourne, etc). The idea of all these vast numbers of folk living in "the bush" is, in fact, a myth. There are some, but not many and they are really, really sparse - a satellite service to cover them sounds great to me. Probably them too - a heck of a lot better than a struggling land line. There are of course a fair number of folk living in country towns (like the wonderfully named Orange) where service is pretty poor. For the townsfolk wimax sounds good, and the more suburban would do well with satellite. What's the problem with that?
Gosh this all sounds pretty sensible doesn't it? Well, yes it does. It's not often I support anything from Mr John (slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan) Howard, but this seems pretty reasonable. (I still won't vote for him though).
I don't think it would be a good idea to try to connect every station, township and run down cattle farm in Australia with fibre. Don't they live in the bush to get away from it all?
I'm sorry to hear this. It is just the sort of selfish approach to the world a cynical person might expect from an American.
>> It's also foolish to claim that we should change because some people in the world disapprove of how we run things Well gosh, there goes diplomacy. Are you seriously suggesting that world opinion is of no import? You certainly do say that. Repeatedly.
>> Stern disapproval from some parts of the world is not going to change anything Hmm. So you don't think much of the UN, then?
Maybe I am too optimistic to presume any vestige of altruism. (I wonder what you think of "Medicin san Frontier" mob (from France, no less), who truck about the place - including war zones, trying to save lives. AH, of course. They must - simply - be nuts. Along with all charities. Tell me, do you help old ladies across the road - or just run them over in your SUV?).
Altruism - doing good things for other people just for the sake of it - is a good thing. One much encouraged by Christianity - a religion I consider, with all other, to be pretty daft, but at least its heart is in the right place. I have heard some Americans do claim to be Christians.
>> Americans don't give a shit what the world thinks Gosh. Stay there then. Don't talk to the rest of the world. Don't import or export anything. Especially, keep your pollution, your politics and your guns to yourself. Oh, you don't want to do that? Play nice then...
I really, really hope you are not as unpleasant a person - or people - as you paint yourself, I really do. Certainly the many Americans I have known through my much travelled life have almost all been well educated, pleasant people. Even with vestiges of altruism. (I do know one who actually gave up her US citizenship, though).
Been to Washington DC lately? There are homeless, mostly black, itinerents sleeping on the street practiacally in view of the White House.
Try Chicago - oh, careful, you might get shot. New York's improved, though.
Or maybe you'd like to try the deep south. The rise of religiouos fundementalism (well, at least they teach people to read, though mostly if they are white, and really, they only get to read one book) is scary. Must we have monkey trials again - oh, we already have. I weep.
Literacy rate for the USA as a whole is claimed at 98%, thus giving you about 5 million illerates. As for functional literacy (and do you remember, during a fairly informal survey a while back, 2% of Americans could not find America on a world map, let alone the countries they were having wars with? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.. mind you, can you find Iraq on a world map without looking carefully? Afghanistan? Probably you can - but try it on a random selection of folk. Perhaps school kids - and weep. Mind you don't get knifed)
Come on America - make the world proud! And go metric, for gods sake!
(These days I live in Australia, a country that has turned sadly hard right over the last few years. We joined you in a pointless and stupid war, and are embarrasing in our govenrment-level approach to global greenhouse problems. Our management of our Aborigines is a source for further embarrasment. I blush. But the schools are pretty good, we haven't ever started any wars, we are hated by few. And we beat most countries - including USA - on the Human Development Index. Come and visit - see if you like it. We speak English (not German, a common question for American tourists, apparently) though we do drive on the other side of the road [I think the Americans started driving on the opposite side of the road to the Brits just to be annoying, but I could be wrong. That is certainly why the French did it - or maybe it was due to Napoleon, who was left handed. Sorry, I digress]).
The US medical system is definitely sick. US citizens spend drastically more on medical care than other countries. If you are poor you cannot get decent medical help. If you are a visiting tourist and you get sick then you are in for bills that will make your eyes water. If you are in a job it HAS to pay medical insurance. People are terrified, not so much of losing their jobs, but losing their medical cover. (Yes, I do know that ruling a frightened people is much, much easier).
Why? It isn't true in the UK, or Australia, or Europe. So it doesn't HAVE to be so.
But then the USA is one of the most unbalanced countries on Earth. By unbalanced, I mean the rich-poor gap is horrendous. Here we have the richest country in the world, and yet it has large numbers of poor illiterates, sick and dying. It is very, very sad.
I think it is amazing how the USA has gone from being perhaps the most admired country on the planet - say after the 2nd world war, to one of the least admired - say now - in barely a single generation. Quite an achievement.
I think it's time the USA started doing things that the world could admire, instead of steadfastly serving its own interests. In the medium to long term, being greedy and acting like a spoilt, petulant child tends to result in nobody liking you.
What could they (you) do? * clean up your own backyard
* Institute a decent national medical system. Increase taxes to pay for it. Kill off the medical insurance companies, push back the tide of wealth in the medical profession
* Fix the schools. Put money into the system (gosh, there's tax again) especially in the poor areas. You NEED those scientists and business folk who drive you economy - and if they don't get a decent education because they were born poor, black, Hispanic, Muslim, female (or any of the other sins of America), you won't get them * stop messing up the world. Stop starting wars (USA has started more than any other country since the 2nd world war ended). Try to do some good - but not with soldiers * start doing thing that need to be done. How about really, really investing in sensible power generation (and stop giving tax breaks to oil and coal companies - maybe that would save you some of the tax). Do some decent research. Put some people on the moon. Make the world proud! You've done it before - do it again
Mind you, a good start would be just stop driving those horrible little trucks (called truck so they can break their own rules on fuel consumption - I mean really, guys).
Sweden is a far easier country to admire. Finland... The list is far too long, guys - you come below Ireland in the Human Development Index. It's about time to pull your socks up America.
And getting a fair and equitable medical industry would be a good start.
.. Because it's an investment that's been returned three times over in the course of the first weekend the movie comes out.
Indeed. Some movies do that. But most don't. Back to the problem of the business model. Movie making is a risky business. Lots and lots of money upfront, then a possible bonanza. Or not. ("Snakes on a plane", anyone? Please?)
The only known way to make risky businesses pay is to have a high payoff for success.
Let's look at the alternative - I recall reading a book with this theme once, nobody made movies any more - sorry, concentrate, Simon, concentrate.
Let us assume that all movies get pirated the instant they are released Some people will go to see movies at a cinema - some income there for sucessful movies Many people will watch DVDs - but they'll commonly be pirated, so not much income there In some countries, even the movies at the cinemas will be pirated, so no income there TV rights - nah, everybody will simply get the pirate version from the internet. No income there
So - minimal income. And bingo, no movie business. Is that what we want? We desperately need some sort of balance here. I don't see any hope of an "open source movie business", do you?
I'm not trying to support the really obscene RIAA practices. But I am seeking an alternative. We do need ways to pay for high risk endeavours. There are many of these (space exploration, scientific reseach, business risks of all kinds, mining exploration, most innovation) and we need them all. Movie making is a notable one.
So how do we pay for it? Government support doesn't work, that's for sure.
This is where >>>> Hollywood can give me movies in a format I'll accept or they can e2fsck off.
"give"... it costs maybe 150 million bucks to make a Hollywood movie. I see no reason why Hollywood should "give" the movie to anyone. It is, after all, a business. How would *you* make a crust if you could not charge for your services?
(Oddly, I see music as somewhat different. It doesn't actually cost an enourmous amount to make an album. A fair bit, yes - but these days AFAIK (IANAM) the music companies spend more on the video than actually paying the band. So I reckon giving away music and selling concert tickets might work very well for a band. But not a music company, EMI's experiment (good on them) not withstanding. But this can't work for movies, can it?).
But I digress. Yes, he *was* implying piracy, albeit weakly.
>>> liters per 100km is like 'gallons for 100 miles', not 'miles per gallon'. The figures are inversed. Curious how Australians use that.
Don't call us upside down, you insensitive clod!
I beleive the whole of Europe uses lt/100km. And Canada, Australia, New Zealand, much of Africa. Not sure where lt/km is used, though clearly Korea, maybe Singapore (where can they even find 100km?). Life is strange.
Texans, I beleive, generally use leagues per hogshead.
Sorry to mention this, oh strange American folk (I'm in Australia), but generally, fuel consumption is expressed in lt/100km. So that's 2.3lt/100km.
You know, my eight year old Hyundai Excel, four doors + hatch, air conditoning, carries my 4 person family about quite effectively, gets 5.5lt/100km (43mpg). I measured it for some years (it varied from 4.5 to 6.5). I don't even try that hard. And it's half way there.
I am stunned to learn the average American vehicle gets 21mpg, or 8.9 lt/100km. Gosh. Do they have special oil burning jets out the back or something?
How will they run around their little wheels without oxygen? Windows will stop working, Unix will grind to a halt... has anybody really, really thought this through?
Indeed. I recall not so long ago building a system which was, indeed, creative. My financial masters liked the idea, but would not let me build it. Instead they hired a vast team of Microsoft and IBM consultants that eventualy built it at twenty times the cost I was planning for. I quit in disgust.
It wokred well though.
I don't think it's innovation they oppose, but risk. Society is becoing distressingly risk averse.
I seem to recall, just a few years ago, Microsoft was declared in court as being a monopolist. Now as I understand it, that's not illegal as such. It is, however, to use a monopoly to manipulate other markets.
So, ever so quietly, Microsoft is supporting Linux in general up to the point where Microsoft can no longer be seen as a monopoly.
Then it can go back to its previous predatory practices, maniulate other markets merrily, and nobody can say a word.
Have I got that right?
(I mean, it wouldn't do to see this as good news, surely?)
>> I cannot even conceive of using 500 minutes in a single month.
Hmm, so you don't have teenage daughters, then?
(Sorry, this is Slashdot. Slashdotter's are not supposed to have girlfriends or wives, therefore children [at least living with them] are relatively unlikly. Silly me)
Yes, advertising is decreasing the quality of life. How does it do this? It does it by assaulting our eyeballs all the time - we seem unable to have, for example, a transport service without it being plastered with ads. So tacky (we have a spectacularly useless monorail in Sydney, goes from nowhere to nowhere, and it's plastered with ads. Oh joy). I seem to recall some jerk wanting to stick an advert on the moon. Spare me, skywriting is bad enough. Leave my sky alone!
But hey, here's a way out - ban all real world ads in favour of game ads. Love it!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this puzzles me.
It's the timeline.
Dinosaurs die out about about 85 million years ago, right?
And at that time mammals were represented by a creature about the size of a small dog - is that right?
So in 85 million years we got from one small species to many species of various sizes - but it took a quarter of that time to get from chimp to human? This doesn't sound right to me.
What am I missing here?
Oh no, it's Arnie's arm ... must be destroyed in molten metal ...
Well someone had better defend COBOL.
There's a fair chance that more business processing still happens on COBOL programs than any other language. (Any other single language? - I don't know). This was certainly true until recently.
It was a wonderful and innovative attempt to reduce the madness of assembly language to a Business Oriented language.
It was horrible to write. (ALL IN UPPER CASE - and with full stops. None of this semicolon nonsense)
It was immensely successful.
It was developed by a truly brilliant woman, the late Admiral Grace Hopper. We need more such women. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper
It was amazing how you could overlay data structures on top of each other. So neat - back in the days when bytes were really, really precious.
And I confess I still like the formating used for description 999(X) etc (ok, maybe I don't still use it given that I've forgotton how it goes). So there.
Well that's all I can think of. Let the sledging begin!
And Citroen is French for what - oh yes, lemon!
You have to hand it to the NASA folks. When they get things to work (and they don't always, Mars was somewhat troublesome) they do give good value.
Those little rovers are STILL going. There were supposed to last about 3 months and they are still plugging along. And one with a limp - so valiant! And as for the Voyagers, I gulp. SO cool.
Yes, they have some horrible bureaucratic problems. Yes, they have some sever political challenges. But credit where credit is due.
Well done chaps.
>> There are some excellent musicians who can create a dozen tracks covering 45 or more minutes which form a cohesive message or story.
Hm, let me think. Pink Floyd. The Moody Blues. Alan Parsons Project. Emerson Lake and Palmer.
Ok, so I'm showing my age.
But BoberFett has a point.
Mind you,
>> Invest some of the income from their hit single instead of blowing the whole thing on drugs and hookers
is a bit rich. Most bands seem to actually lose money from making albums after the music companies have their claws into them.
It puzzles me, I admit, why start-up bands - the pub circuit - don't simply publish their songs online as MP3s and let their fans do the markets. If they become success, they could either start charging for concerts (and offer MP3s of those to concert attendees). And never get nailed by the music companies. (Damn, they must have a good line of chat. "Hey, sign here. We will take possession of everything you ever create, we will sell it, make a fortune and charge you for the privilege. If you become a top 10 band you might start to make some money in about 3-4 years if you nearly kill yourselves and get very very lucky. Otherwise we will drive you broke" - "Sure, where do I sign?").
"Actually if you lived a stones throw away from the exchange you would be getting 24mbps with ADSL2"
And indeed I do - and I do. Or at least that's what the modem pretty much says - 20mbps. In fact I live about 500m away (let's say 500 yards for metrically deficient people - no idea about how many rods that is, sorry).
The restriction seems to be from there on, though. I can certainly measure an 8mbps connection to a test site in Canberra, but many sites are still pretty slow.
Australia is the most urbanised country on the planet. Thus most of us live in fairly densely populated areas (Sydney, Gold Coast, Melbourne, etc). The idea of all these vast numbers of folk living in "the bush" is, in fact, a myth. There are some, but not many and they are really, really sparse - a satellite service to cover them sounds great to me. Probably them too - a heck of a lot better than a struggling land line.
There are of course a fair number of folk living in country towns (like the wonderfully named Orange) where service is pretty poor. For the townsfolk wimax sounds good, and the more suburban would do well with satellite. What's the problem with that?
Gosh this all sounds pretty sensible doesn't it? Well, yes it does. It's not often I support anything from Mr John (slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan) Howard, but this seems pretty reasonable. (I still won't vote for him though).
I don't think it would be a good idea to try to connect every station, township and run down cattle farm in Australia with fibre. Don't they live in the bush to get away from it all?
This page will need a beowolf cluster of web servers! It has a single huge image as the front page.
....
Ah well, it won't stay up for long
I'm sorry to hear this. It is just the sort of selfish approach to the world a cynical person might expect from an American.
...
>> It's also foolish to claim that we should change because some people in the world disapprove of how we run things
Well gosh, there goes diplomacy. Are you seriously suggesting that world opinion is of no import? You certainly do say that. Repeatedly.
>> Stern disapproval from some parts of the world is not going to change anything
Hmm. So you don't think much of the UN, then?
Maybe I am too optimistic to presume any vestige of altruism. (I wonder what you think of "Medicin san Frontier" mob (from France, no less), who truck about the place - including war zones, trying to save lives. AH, of course. They must - simply - be nuts. Along with all charities. Tell me, do you help old ladies across the road - or just run them over in your SUV?).
Altruism - doing good things for other people just for the sake of it - is a good thing. One much encouraged by Christianity - a religion I consider, with all other, to be pretty daft, but at least its heart is in the right place. I have heard some Americans do claim to be Christians.
>> Americans don't give a shit what the world thinks
Gosh. Stay there then. Don't talk to the rest of the world. Don't import or export anything. Especially, keep your pollution, your politics and your guns to yourself. Oh, you don't want to do that? Play nice then
I really, really hope you are not as unpleasant a person - or people - as you paint yourself, I really do. Certainly the many Americans I have known through my much travelled life have almost all been well educated, pleasant people. Even with vestiges of altruism. (I do know one who actually gave up her US citizenship, though).
Been to Washington DC lately? There are homeless, mostly black, itinerents sleeping on the street practiacally in view of the White House.
.. mind you, can you find Iraq on a world map without looking carefully? Afghanistan? Probably you can - but try it on a random selection of folk. Perhaps school kids - and weep. Mind you don't get knifed)
Try Chicago - oh, careful, you might get shot. New York's improved, though.
Or maybe you'd like to try the deep south. The rise of religiouos fundementalism (well, at least they teach people to read, though mostly if they are white, and really, they only get to read one book) is scary. Must we have monkey trials again - oh, we already have. I weep.
Literacy rate for the USA as a whole is claimed at 98%, thus giving you about 5 million illerates. As for functional literacy (and do you remember, during a fairly informal survey a while back, 2% of Americans could not find America on a world map, let alone the countries they were having wars with? I don't know whether to laugh or cry
Come on America - make the world proud! And go metric, for gods sake!
(These days I live in Australia, a country that has turned sadly hard right over the last few years. We joined you in a pointless and stupid war, and are embarrasing in our govenrment-level approach to global greenhouse problems. Our management of our Aborigines is a source for further embarrasment. I blush. But the schools are pretty good, we haven't ever started any wars, we are hated by few. And we beat most countries - including USA - on the Human Development Index. Come and visit - see if you like it. We speak English (not German, a common question for American tourists, apparently) though we do drive on the other side of the road [I think the Americans started driving on the opposite side of the road to the Brits just to be annoying, but I could be wrong. That is certainly why the French did it - or maybe it was due to Napoleon, who was left handed. Sorry, I digress]).
Good.
What do you plan to do?
The US medical system is definitely sick. US citizens spend drastically more on medical care than other countries. If you are poor you cannot get decent medical help. If you are a visiting tourist and you get sick then you are in for bills that will make your eyes water.
... The list is far too long, guys - you come below Ireland in the Human Development Index. It's about time to pull your socks up America.
If you are in a job it HAS to pay medical insurance. People are terrified, not so much of losing their jobs, but losing their medical cover. (Yes, I do know that ruling a frightened people is much, much easier).
Why?
It isn't true in the UK, or Australia, or Europe. So it doesn't HAVE to be so.
But then the USA is one of the most unbalanced countries on Earth. By unbalanced, I mean the rich-poor gap is horrendous. Here we have the richest country in the world, and yet it has large numbers of poor illiterates, sick and dying. It is very, very sad.
I think it is amazing how the USA has gone from being perhaps the most admired country on the planet - say after the 2nd world war, to one of the least admired - say now - in barely a single generation. Quite an achievement.
I think it's time the USA started doing things that the world could admire, instead of steadfastly serving its own interests. In the medium to long term, being greedy and acting like a spoilt, petulant child tends to result in nobody liking you.
What could they (you) do?
* clean up your own backyard
* Institute a decent national medical system. Increase taxes to pay for it. Kill off the medical insurance companies, push back the tide of wealth in the medical profession
* Fix the schools. Put money into the system (gosh, there's tax again) especially in the poor areas. You NEED those scientists and business folk who drive you economy - and if they don't get a decent education because they were born poor, black, Hispanic, Muslim, female (or any of the other sins of America), you won't get them
* stop messing up the world. Stop starting wars (USA has started more than any other country since the 2nd world war ended). Try to do some good - but not with soldiers
* start doing thing that need to be done. How about really, really investing in sensible power generation (and stop giving tax breaks to oil and coal companies - maybe that would save you some of the tax). Do some decent research. Put some people on the moon. Make the world proud! You've done it before - do it again
Mind you, a good start would be just stop driving those horrible little trucks (called truck so they can break their own rules on fuel consumption - I mean really, guys).
Sweden is a far easier country to admire. Finland
And getting a fair and equitable medical industry would be a good start.
Oh, a HAMMER. I thought it said a HUMMER. Locking up all Hummer owners for antisocial behaviour sounds like a really, really sensible idea to me.
No, Franco, I said concrete BOOTS, not concrete BOOKS.
.. Because it's an investment that's been returned three times over in the course of the first weekend the movie comes out.
Indeed. Some movies do that. But most don't.
Back to the problem of the business model. Movie making is a risky business. Lots and lots of money upfront, then a possible bonanza. Or not. ("Snakes on a plane", anyone? Please?)
The only known way to make risky businesses pay is to have a high payoff for success.
Let's look at the alternative - I recall reading a book with this theme once, nobody made movies any more - sorry, concentrate, Simon, concentrate.
Let us assume that all movies get pirated the instant they are released
Some people will go to see movies at a cinema - some income there for sucessful movies
Many people will watch DVDs - but they'll commonly be pirated, so not much income there
In some countries, even the movies at the cinemas will be pirated, so no income there
TV rights - nah, everybody will simply get the pirate version from the internet. No income there
So - minimal income. And bingo, no movie business. Is that what we want? We desperately need some sort of balance here. I don't see any hope of an "open source movie business", do you?
I'm not trying to support the really obscene RIAA practices. But I am seeking an alternative.
We do need ways to pay for high risk endeavours. There are many of these (space exploration, scientific reseach, business risks of all kinds, mining exploration, most innovation) and we need them all. Movie making is a notable one.
So how do we pay for it? Government support doesn't work, that's for sure.
Any ideas?
>> Where did he say he was going to pirate them?
... it costs maybe 150 million bucks to make a Hollywood movie. I see no reason why Hollywood should "give" the movie to anyone. It is, after all, a business. How would *you* make a crust if you could not charge for your services?
This is where
>>>> Hollywood can give me movies in a format I'll accept or they can e2fsck off.
"give"
(Oddly, I see music as somewhat different. It doesn't actually cost an enourmous amount to make an album. A fair bit, yes - but these days AFAIK (IANAM) the music companies spend more on the video than actually paying the band. So I reckon giving away music and selling concert tickets might work very well for a band. But not a music company, EMI's experiment (good on them) not withstanding. But this can't work for movies, can it?).
But I digress. Yes, he *was* implying piracy, albeit weakly.
>>> liters per 100km is like 'gallons for 100 miles', not 'miles per gallon'. The figures are inversed. Curious how Australians use that.
Don't call us upside down, you insensitive clod!
I beleive the whole of Europe uses lt/100km. And Canada, Australia, New Zealand, much of Africa. Not sure where lt/km is used, though clearly Korea, maybe Singapore (where can they even find 100km?). Life is strange.
Texans, I beleive, generally use leagues per hogshead.
Sorry to mention this, oh strange American folk (I'm in Australia), but generally, fuel consumption is expressed in lt/100km.
So that's 2.3lt/100km.
You know, my eight year old Hyundai Excel, four doors + hatch, air conditoning, carries my 4 person family about quite effectively, gets 5.5lt/100km (43mpg). I measured it for some years (it varied from 4.5 to 6.5). I don't even try that hard. And it's half way there.
I am stunned to learn the average American vehicle gets 21mpg, or 8.9 lt/100km. Gosh. Do they have special oil burning jets out the back or something?
Ah come on, you're shitting me here?
How will they run around their little wheels without oxygen? Windows will stop working, Unix will grind to a halt ... has anybody really, really thought this through?
Indeed. I recall not so long ago building a system which was, indeed, creative. My financial masters liked the idea, but would not let me build it. Instead they hired a vast team of Microsoft and IBM consultants that eventualy built it at twenty times the cost I was planning for. I quit in disgust.
It wokred well though.
I don't think it's innovation they oppose, but risk. Society is becoing distressingly risk averse.
Maybe, if they're really successful at miniaturisation, they can move into a smaller factory.
I seem to recall, just a few years ago, Microsoft was declared in court as being a monopolist.
Now as I understand it, that's not illegal as such. It is, however, to use a monopoly to manipulate other markets.
So, ever so quietly, Microsoft is supporting Linux in general up to the point where Microsoft can no longer be seen as a monopoly.
Then it can go back to its previous predatory practices, maniulate other markets merrily, and nobody can say a word.
Have I got that right?
(I mean, it wouldn't do to see this as good news, surely?)
>> I cannot even conceive of using 500 minutes in a single month.
Hmm, so you don't have teenage daughters, then?
(Sorry, this is Slashdot. Slashdotter's are not supposed to have girlfriends or wives, therefore children [at least living with them] are relatively unlikly. Silly me)
Yes, advertising is decreasing the quality of life.
How does it do this? It does it by assaulting our eyeballs all the time - we seem unable to have, for example, a transport service without it being plastered with ads. So tacky (we have a spectacularly useless monorail in Sydney, goes from nowhere to nowhere, and it's plastered with ads. Oh joy). I seem to recall some jerk wanting to stick an advert on the moon. Spare me, skywriting is bad enough. Leave my sky alone!
But hey, here's a way out - ban all real world ads in favour of game ads. Love it!