Even within a party sometimes. The post-election political embrace between Hillary Clinton and Obama was so rapid, I'm not sure whether to congratulate them for burying the hatchet and getting on with the nation's business, or instead question all that heated rhetoric and emotion they displayed (OK, especially her) during the election? It makes it seem like political theatre rather than genuine, substantive ideological debate.
PS sending some Bush officials to jail for torture would be an effective counter-argument to the allegation of single-party rule, would it not? As it is, I am really starting to question whether the Nuremberg trials were just "victor's justice." (Oops, Godwin alert! But relevant IMHO). It's so much easier to see the mote in the other guy's eye, Jesus had that one right.
On top of that, most of the taxes you pay are social security and medicare, which are mostly just transferring wealth to yourself - that is, from the current economically viable you, to the economically non-viable you (who received public education as a child, or will receive health care and a paycheck in old age). I'll grant SS gives better returns to some than others by design, but it's not nearly 100% redistributive. Put another way, SS and Medicare are politically "hard to kill" because they benefit so many people, which is to say, they're not so bad after all. Democracy works.
Another effect is that Apple's competitors in the smartphone market will throw more money at dethroning them (either by improving their products or dumping money into advertising). But of course, success always breeds competition (well, at least ideally). In the end this should benefit us all by resulting in better smartphone services without 100% profit margins, but perhaps not since the psychology of fads is that only 1 thing can be "it."
by the time they are done spending money at the rate the Government typically spends it they could have bought a fiber to the doorstep system for every man, woman and child in the UK.
Who could have? Why haven't they? Speculating about what it seems like it ought to cost is different than doing it.
I downgraded from standard Comcast (7 Mbps) to their slowest offering of 756 kbps (0.756 Mbps) just to save money. It isn't so bad! Vonage works fine, youtube works fine, flash games (my kids play all the time) work fine. An ISO or anything larger does take some planning or patience however. I will want to upgrade when/if streaming video displaces my PVR though.
It is rare to have government-based research that does anything that starts the flame for a better, cheaper, more effective version by a few competing private firms.
That's why I'm holding off on this Internet thing... my capitalist bible says GEnie Online and CompuServe will crush it any day now.
I think it's largely the natural progression of technology. When you break into a new field, discoveries come fast and furious for a while, then they tend to become less significant. Look at medicine, for instance... you start off discovering penicillin, how to fill cavities... things that save millions of lives and drastically extend life expectancy. Now thousands of devoted professionals spend their lives looking for treatments, and there are innumerable small discoveries but few breakthroughs. Aerospace was the same way. From Kittyhawk to the moon in just 70 years. Nobody would have guessed in 1969 that commercial airliners would still look exactly the same 40 years later.
Wait a minute, you want to ban the world's most populus nation from the Internet until they get rid of botnets? No country on earth has done that. So I don't see how you can attribute the attacks to China. For that matter, we already know there are compromised computers everywhere, so why would somebody originate attacks from their own land? Or am I not giving network forensics enough credit here - can they actually tell where an attack ultimately originates? I doubt it.
First, capitalism did not implode. That's nothing more then a tired political line meant to confuse the masses so acceptance to crap we rejected years ago would happen.
Capitalism did implode. We were only hours away from the failure of the banking system. Without the govt. safety net, the largest banks and insurers would have failed, taking people's life savings with them. There is no question about that. That certainly would have caused panicked runs on all other banks as people scrambled to withdraw their savings before the money was gone, causing them to fold.
Blaming the regulators for what did happen has some validity, but there's something wrong with blaming somebody else for giving you enough rope to hang yourself, especially if you spent a fortune lobbying them to do so.
I actually agree that our economic problems, energy problems, and environmental problems may result in decreased standard of living. The fallacy, however, is the notion that it's all government imposed, that simply continuing as we were is an option. Oil is becoming more scarce. Creditors around the world are starting to see us as a risk. The air is getting polluted. Demanding solutions that solve it all without pain is just not realistic.
You never bothered to mention what it is you hate about Obama, but IMHO he is keeping the general tone and most of the specific promises he made during the campaign. I am terrified about the deficit, but then again the failure of US banks, insurers, and the auto industry would have been an even worse fate. I do think we are in for a decreased standard of living in some respects, but the deficit is more of an effect than a cause. Capitalism imploded, so one way or another there will be major fallout.
The submitter said, "targeted at notebooks, this doesn't seem like such a bad limitation." That statement is, at best, a gross overgeneralization. Moreover, I don't think there is anybody at all who "needs" to be restricted to three applications, can you think of any?
Sort of, sure. Are you under the impression that a $300BN international program can be executed exclusively by a bunch of people locked in a room for 15 years?
Because otherwise the $300BN project would be a $500BN project.
Every single technology that gives you an advantage will have some vulnerability. Being overly defensive isn't necessarily the best strategy.
Also, you have to appreciate that the pre-computer era was no golden age for information security, either. The highest secret of all time, the design of a nuclear bomb, was lost to Russia within a few years.
No, if I was going to fly a jet I certainly would have better choices,
Is anything better (except the F22)? My guess is in 30 years the early troubles of the JSF will be forgotten, and it will be the workhorse that we make thousands of, and sell thousands more abroad, like the F16. Unlike the F22, it hits the value sweet spot. (But yeah, I would imagine fighter pilots claw each others eyes out to get the F22).
So, why does the story submitter think an OS appropriate for an iPhone is appropriate for a notebook? Personally, I do a fair amount of scientific computation and software development and haven't used a desktop in years. The main issue has always been HDD performance, but now with SSD drives even that isn't true any more. I've got 4 GB RAM, a dual core 2.8 GHz CPU, and two fast SSD drives in a small package that runs all day on a charge (Thinkpad T400). On my office desk it connects to a 30", 2560x1600 external display. I never agree with all the postings I read on slashdot that "laptops are supposed to only be used for this or that." A 3 app limit would be a joke. I wouldn't even tolerate that in my Windows VM that I run on my notebook, while it is also running numerous apps on the linux side.
Ultimately what matters is how long it takes to get data into RAM where it will be processed, right? With a dedicated fiber line, maybe pre-staging the data onto hard drives in the computer isn't even that important anymore. Just store it somewhere safe, then access it over the network when and if you need it. I'm not even sure having a hard drive cache for the web browser is all that beneficial anymore.
An oldie but goodie. But the older it gets the less true it is. Compared to an ISDN line shared across an entire department? Sure. Compared to a dedicated fiber line with modern switching hardware, not so much.
Actually China is taking intentional steps towards controlling emissions as they grow - this nuke story is part of the proof that they're following through.
Don't get me wrong, the US is democratic and we shouldn't build more nuke plants if most people don't want them, even if I disagree with their reasons. But we could do something else, like offshore wind. In the long run, we can not longer equate a high living standard with burning lots of fossil fuels.
Slashdot Mirror
PS sending some Bush officials to jail for torture would be an effective counter-argument to the allegation of single-party rule, would it not? As it is, I am really starting to question whether the Nuremberg trials were just "victor's justice." (Oops, Godwin alert! But relevant IMHO). It's so much easier to see the mote in the other guy's eye, Jesus had that one right.
To what are you referring? Are you aware that the vast majority of people who pay into social security ultimately receive a payout from it as well?
On top of that, most of the taxes you pay are social security and medicare, which are mostly just transferring wealth to yourself - that is, from the current economically viable you, to the economically non-viable you (who received public education as a child, or will receive health care and a paycheck in old age). I'll grant SS gives better returns to some than others by design, but it's not nearly 100% redistributive. Put another way, SS and Medicare are politically "hard to kill" because they benefit so many people, which is to say, they're not so bad after all. Democracy works.
Another effect is that Apple's competitors in the smartphone market will throw more money at dethroning them (either by improving their products or dumping money into advertising). But of course, success always breeds competition (well, at least ideally). In the end this should benefit us all by resulting in better smartphone services without 100% profit margins, but perhaps not since the psychology of fads is that only 1 thing can be "it."
Who could have? Why haven't they? Speculating about what it seems like it ought to cost is different than doing it.
I downgraded from standard Comcast (7 Mbps) to their slowest offering of 756 kbps (0.756 Mbps) just to save money. It isn't so bad! Vonage works fine, youtube works fine, flash games (my kids play all the time) work fine. An ISO or anything larger does take some planning or patience however. I will want to upgrade when/if streaming video displaces my PVR though.
"Polish" is indeed hard to quantify. Perhaps that's why it's so often ignored. It's still hugely important.
I disagree that snappy response is unimportant. In fact, unlike "Integrates well with Apple product line," snappy response affects all users.
That's why I'm holding off on this Internet thing... my capitalist bible says GEnie Online and CompuServe will crush it any day now.
I think it's largely the natural progression of technology. When you break into a new field, discoveries come fast and furious for a while, then they tend to become less significant. Look at medicine, for instance... you start off discovering penicillin, how to fill cavities... things that save millions of lives and drastically extend life expectancy. Now thousands of devoted professionals spend their lives looking for treatments, and there are innumerable small discoveries but few breakthroughs. Aerospace was the same way. From Kittyhawk to the moon in just 70 years. Nobody would have guessed in 1969 that commercial airliners would still look exactly the same 40 years later.
Wait a minute, you want to ban the world's most populus nation from the Internet until they get rid of botnets? No country on earth has done that. So I don't see how you can attribute the attacks to China. For that matter, we already know there are compromised computers everywhere, so why would somebody originate attacks from their own land? Or am I not giving network forensics enough credit here - can they actually tell where an attack ultimately originates? I doubt it.
Start here. Then google JP Morgan, Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Royal Bank of Scotland. I am amazed this is even in dispute.
"Get in"
"I'll be bock"
"You are terminated"
Capitalism did implode. We were only hours away from the failure of the banking system. Without the govt. safety net, the largest banks and insurers would have failed, taking people's life savings with them. There is no question about that. That certainly would have caused panicked runs on all other banks as people scrambled to withdraw their savings before the money was gone, causing them to fold.
Blaming the regulators for what did happen has some validity, but there's something wrong with blaming somebody else for giving you enough rope to hang yourself, especially if you spent a fortune lobbying them to do so.
I actually agree that our economic problems, energy problems, and environmental problems may result in decreased standard of living. The fallacy, however, is the notion that it's all government imposed, that simply continuing as we were is an option. Oil is becoming more scarce. Creditors around the world are starting to see us as a risk. The air is getting polluted. Demanding solutions that solve it all without pain is just not realistic.
You never bothered to mention what it is you hate about Obama, but IMHO he is keeping the general tone and most of the specific promises he made during the campaign. I am terrified about the deficit, but then again the failure of US banks, insurers, and the auto industry would have been an even worse fate. I do think we are in for a decreased standard of living in some respects, but the deficit is more of an effect than a cause. Capitalism imploded, so one way or another there will be major fallout.
The submitter said, "targeted at notebooks, this doesn't seem like such a bad limitation." That statement is, at best, a gross overgeneralization. Moreover, I don't think there is anybody at all who "needs" to be restricted to three applications, can you think of any?
Geez if people would just RTFA you'd see this is already the case, and no classified information was stolen.
Sort of, sure. Are you under the impression that a $300BN international program can be executed exclusively by a bunch of people locked in a room for 15 years?
Every single technology that gives you an advantage will have some vulnerability. Being overly defensive isn't necessarily the best strategy.
Also, you have to appreciate that the pre-computer era was no golden age for information security, either. The highest secret of all time, the design of a nuclear bomb, was lost to Russia within a few years.
Is anything better (except the F22)? My guess is in 30 years the early troubles of the JSF will be forgotten, and it will be the workhorse that we make thousands of, and sell thousands more abroad, like the F16. Unlike the F22, it hits the value sweet spot. (But yeah, I would imagine fighter pilots claw each others eyes out to get the F22).
So, why does the story submitter think an OS appropriate for an iPhone is appropriate for a notebook? Personally, I do a fair amount of scientific computation and software development and haven't used a desktop in years. The main issue has always been HDD performance, but now with SSD drives even that isn't true any more. I've got 4 GB RAM, a dual core 2.8 GHz CPU, and two fast SSD drives in a small package that runs all day on a charge (Thinkpad T400). On my office desk it connects to a 30", 2560x1600 external display. I never agree with all the postings I read on slashdot that "laptops are supposed to only be used for this or that." A 3 app limit would be a joke. I wouldn't even tolerate that in my Windows VM that I run on my notebook, while it is also running numerous apps on the linux side.
Ultimately what matters is how long it takes to get data into RAM where it will be processed, right? With a dedicated fiber line, maybe pre-staging the data onto hard drives in the computer isn't even that important anymore. Just store it somewhere safe, then access it over the network when and if you need it. I'm not even sure having a hard drive cache for the web browser is all that beneficial anymore.
An oldie but goodie. But the older it gets the less true it is. Compared to an ISDN line shared across an entire department? Sure. Compared to a dedicated fiber line with modern switching hardware, not so much.
I thought the dotcom environment was 8-5 AND 5-1.
Don't get me wrong, the US is democratic and we shouldn't build more nuke plants if most people don't want them, even if I disagree with their reasons. But we could do something else, like offshore wind. In the long run, we can not longer equate a high living standard with burning lots of fossil fuels.