Sir, you are so uninformed... Allow me to help you.
(1)Saddam has been proven to have a nuclear weapons program. No, no, no, NO! No one has proved that. The UN inspection teams, expatriots, and all available intelligence indicates the ABSENCE of a nuclear weapons program.
In 1991, UN inspection teams found (only by a mistake made by an Iraqi General) massive magnets used to enrich uranium to become weapons grade. These magnets were on trucks exiting the back gate of an Iraqi base as UN inspections presented themselves at the front for a surprise inspection. They later found piles of documents indicating a nuclear weapons program FAR more extensive that we ever imagined, involving BILLIONS of dollars. It's also a fact that Saddam has been trying to achieve nuclear capability since he came to power in 1979. Do you really think he just decided to give up because we said "please"? Have some sense man. Another point on the UN inspection teams both past and present: The responsibility is not on the inspectors to prove that Saddam has WoMD - The responsibility is Saddam's to prove that he doesn't. And he is VERY uncooperative, and it has been proven that he's deceived inspectors in the past.
(2) Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other nation in history. Huh? The UN embargos have a lot to do with those deaths. Back up your statement with facts.
From this link "According to the lowest estimates, over ten per cent of the Iraqi population has been killed by Saddam Hussein and his regime over the three decades of its rule."
http://jimball.com.au/Yasser.htm
Search google. It's a fact that Saddam has actively kills entire towns of people because of suspected anti-saddam sentiment. Also, a defected Iraqi General recently appeared on US TV and gave a figure of 8% of the Iraqi population, or around 1.3 million people have been killed by Saddam.
(3)This is not a preemptive strike. Saddam's forces have fired on US planes in the no fly zones on numerous occasions.
Okay:
(a) This is a premptive strike. The Adminstration admits as much.
(b) Iraq has TARGETED US figter planes, but never fired.
I am disagreeing with the administration and saying that it is not preemptive. Here's some evidence:
http://www.ngwrc.org/news/content/TueNov0914000019 99.asp
"ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - U.S. warplanes attacked an Iraqi air defense system Monday after coming under fire during routine patrols of the northern Iraq no-fly zone, the U.S. military said."
(4) Saddam's regime funds and harbors Al Queda and other terrorise groups.
The Administration tried and failed to prove a link. There is NO LINK.
The CIA declared that they had sufficient evidence to make a statement to that effect. I suppose you have more information than the CIA?
(5) It is illegal, punishable by death, to belong to any other political party than the Bath (sp?) party which is that of Saddam.
Prove it.
http://www.nzz.ch/english/background/background199 8/background9810/bg981029irak.html
"The Baath party rose to power through purges, where thousands of people were killed, with thousands more imprisoned. Later, backed by the Revolutionary Command Council, Saddam took and kept power. He did this by imprisoning his relative, al-Bakar, the leader of the Baath party. Those who might oppose him were executed. "
http://www.byfaith.co.uk/pauliraq.htm
(6) Children as young as 3 years old are bombarded with Pro-Saddam propaganda in their schools.
As opposed to other contries that use propoganda?
The words the iraqi children are taught are "We love Saddam, He is our Father" and other things to this effect. This is flagrant brainwashing to try and raise the children to support him, rather than forming their own conclusions based on saddams actions.
(7)Anyone who doesn't agree that Saddam needs to be removed from power is either a communi
Re:Get your facts straight.
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
There is no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Show me this evidence if you can find it. Recently it was revealed that the documents that insisted upon the program's existence were indeed faked.
Dead wrong. A surprise inspection by the UN at an Iraqi military base in 1991 caught them trying to sneak a massive ferrous magnet out the back gates. The magnet was one which was designed to enrich uranium to become weapons grade. In addition, iraqi papers were confiscated detailing a VAST nuclear program involving BILLIONS of dollars - far larger than we had expected. Do a search on google for these facts. Do you really think Saddam has since abandoned such a large and costly program just because the UN said "please"? Use some sense man.
Show me the evidence of a connection between Al Queda and Iraq. Again, this is something that has been spoon-fed to us by the present administration. How many times did Bush use the term "Al Queda-type organizations" in his press conference two weeks ago? This administration will always play to our 9/11 sympathies to point at targets.
The CIA has indicated that they had sufficient information to conclude that Hussein was funding terrorist groups and activities. period. Perhaps not Al Queda, but other terrorist groups. I suppose you are more informed than the CIA on the situation?
Finally, tell me whether Suddam poses an immediate threat to the United States, and how by removing him the United States will be a safer place--all of Bush's intelligence authorities tell a post-Suddam Iraq increases our chance of being attacked. Tell me how we can deal with the cultural conflict that has been quelled beneath Suddam's iron fist. Tell me that under such intense scrutiny from the U.S. and the U.N. that Suddam could have gotten away with exterminating masses of his people in the future.
Yes he does. He is developing weapons of mass destruction. And dont give me the typical left wing bullshit about how the inspectors haven't found anything. The impetus was not on the inspectors to find weapons - It was on Saddam to prove that he had none. And he was most evasive and uncooperative in this matter. In fact, it was a mistake made by an Iraqi General in the gulf war that allowed the UN inspectors to spot the escaping trucks carrying uranium enriching magnets, when Hussein and this general denied such a program. Your wrong about "increasing our chance of being attacked". This was is decreasing our chance by removing a tyrant known to fund and harbor terrorists, and known to be developing WoMD. Perhaps Saddam could not have gotten away in the future from exterminating masses of his people, but he is weak right now. Why wait until he becomed stronger and risk him attacking masses of our people. Ever heard the phrase "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? I didnt think so.
Suddam is, as you say, as mad man. He is an abominable human being. He should not be in power. I can't offer you alternatives to war besides waiting--but you should not choose the most dangerous solution because you think you have no others.
The most dangerous solution in this case is to sit and do nothing. You can't have it both ways. You can't sit there and say "Yes Saddam is evil" "Yes he's a tyrant" "Yes he's dangerous"...but... "No, it's wrong to attack him". You can't have it both ways.
Today, I'm ashamed...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 0, Informative
Today I'm ashamed to call myself a Geek.
I'm disgusted at the sheer quantity of ignorant liberal drivel that's being spouted by the/. community today.
This war is one of justice and necessity, and those who think otherwise are as blind as Saddam.
It's about time.
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
This day has been long over due.
Fun facts to know and tell:
Although it is unclear how far their development has progressed, Saddam has been proven to have a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other nation in history. Over 1.2 Million Iraqi civilians (more than EIGHT percent of the population of Iraq) has been killed at the hands of Iraq. There is no family in Iraq that hasn't lost a friend or relative to Saddam's murderous behavior.
This is not a preemptive strike. Saddam's forces have fired on US planes in the no fly zones on numerous occasions. In addition, Saddam's regime funds and harbors Al Queda and other terrorise groups.
It is illegal, punishable by death, to belong to any other political party than the Bath (sp?) party which is that of Saddam.
Children as young as 3 years old are bombarded with Pro-Saddam propaganda in their schools. Their first words of English which they learn are words of love and praise for Saddam.
This war is long overdue. Anyone who doesn't agree that Saddam needs to be removed from power is either a communist, a terrorist, or just plain stupid. The leaders of the US have been trying to resolve this peacefully for many years. Saddam is obviously a mad man who can not be reasoned with; he must be eliminated by force.
God be with our Troops and with the non-agressive civilians of Iraq.
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1, Troll
In addition to being just plain wrong on all your points, you sir, are a Troll. May you be modded down as such until the end of time.
most of the problems that people have with their computers are because of how complex PCs have become.
I don't subscribe to this theory. A game console, DVD player or modern cell phone is a comparable device in terms of technological complexity. The difference is in the user interface.
A modern car with computer controlled fuel injection is a very complicated machine both mechanically and electronically, yet a complete moron can operate it (as is frequently the case).
The MS Windows OS is simply an awful interface for people who are new to computers. All it takes is one click on "yes" when a junk-ware pop-up rears its ugly face and things can get screwed up. Linux, on the other hand, is a much more robust model. As a "regular" user on a Linux system, one does not have the power to damage system files, alter the system startup, infect the system with a virus, or install software (other than in ones own home directory). This makes Linux an ideal home PC OS, as each member of the family can have their own username (with blank passwords even, to make it more simple) which will allow Mom to be productive even if Dad screws up his home directory. With Windows, if Dad screws something up, no one else can use the machine since he has "permission" to overwrite the kernel, screw up the boot process, install junk software, etc.
My thought is, the conventional web browser will eventually be replaced by something I like to refer to as a "metabrowser"... In other words, we don't really actively *surf* anymore, but rather, we swim through a series of content-rich pages generated by the browser itself, based on information transparently gathered from actual sources behind the scenes
Sounds like a dot com sales pitch to a venture capitalist in 1999.
1) If Microsoft did something like this, everyone would be screaming and calling the Justice Dept. It isn't right for someone else to do the same thing.
They already do. Microsoft "owns" several college campuses in the US. Perhaps it just isn't a well known fact.
Take a look at your present school (if you are a student). Are all the school's internal web pages written using broken HTML, for IE? Are.DOC and.XLS files the only acceptable file formats for turning in class work? Are all your Computer Science classes taught using Visual Basic? and Windows Server? Does the school have proprietary applications that only run under MS Windows? Does the school store sell any computers besides Wintel?
Ask yourself these questions and you'll see that MS "owns" more schools than you think.
2) Taking all MS products off the campus would be a dis-service to the students. Do some of us like non-MS products? Sure. But when those students graduate and go to work, are they going to see a lot of MS in the workplace? You bet. To hide them from MS products for 4 years would be harming their education.
I agree. A good approach would be to allow students to work with MS products, but encourage them to use Linux. Make sure all the school's web pages and web apps run 100% under Linux. Teach a balanced CS and EE curriculum consisting of UNIX, Linux and MS. Make sure all the school's electronic services, and all the students coursework is compatible with Linux. Have teachers use Linux on their computers - teach by example.
Personally, I find it odd that it would be stamped that, since beef is graded as follows:
Prime, Choice, Select, Standard, Commercial, Utility, Cutter, and Canner.
Eggs and Poultry are graded with letters, but hey. Poultry only goes to C, of course.
You even provide a definition of Grade D beef! That's so nice of you! Really impressive, too, since it doesn't exist.
Educate yourself. [usda.gov]
And stop pretending, and spreading your bullshit, okay?
The grading you mention is only for the Marbling of the beef. There are many other scores to take into consideration. If you pulled your head out of your ass, you'd realize this.
http://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading.html
The USDA officially rates beef according to the scale Prime, Choice, Good/Select, Standard and Commercial, although many been vendors may use the letter grades as "shorthand".
http://www.restorationfarms.com/image9.gif
Please see the above.GIF chart. It Clearly illustrates that Grade D beef does exist, and that it is formed from Utility, Commercial and Cutter beef.
There's just something about the sound of "utility beef" that just isn't appetizing. So enjoy your next big mac...
If McDonalds food wasn't so horribly disgusting (I haven't eaten there since 1997), I might have been excited about this announcement.
Just an FYI to all you "Mickey-Dee's" fans out there... I had a buddy who used to work there. (This was before they microwaved all the burgers to cook them) I went to visit him one day and he let me in the back where the "cooks" are. There was a big pack of burger meat patties sitting on a table. They were stamped in large purple letters on the top: "USDA GRADE D, BUT EDIBLE".
I'm sure most fast food places use the same beef. BTW, "Grade D" means it contains all the parts you don't want to know about. Hooves, brains, kidneys, genitals, elbows and knees, snouts, etc. That is fucking disgusting.
After seeing that sign, I never ate there again. Think about that next time you're scarfing down that next big mac.
If the apartment complex was nice enough that I wanted to live there, I'd change the code myself.
You and I both would, but you know there's always some lazy and/or ignorant slob who would not. That's why we have laws - To protect people from themselves; Things that are obvious to one person may not be so obvious to another.
And I certainly would not compare Microsoft Windows to an "apartment complex; nice enough that I wanted to live there".;-)
To save themselves from stupid users and even stupider administrators?
No... to save themselves from hordes of eager new MCSE's!
If you run a network and you don't have those rules in place, who's fault is it? Microsoft's?
No it really isn't MS's "fault", it's the foolish server admin's.
But on the same note... When someone breaks into your apartment building, because the manager assigns all new tenants a default building access code of "1234" or "1111", who's fault is it? I would consider that to be lack of judgement on the manager's part for not forcing new tenants to select their own unique code, and preventing people from selecting easily guessed codes.
Try changing your Linux user password from the command line (hint: type passwd)
Pick something easy, like a dictionary word, or something really short.
You'll see:
[nimmerge@costanza nimmerge]$ passwd
Changing password for user george.
Changing password for george
(current) UNIX password:
New password:
BAD PASSWORD: it is too short
New password:
BAD PASSWORD: it is based on a dictionary word
New password:
Now give me a valid reason why Microsoft can't require strong passwords by default?
Sure they don't make much on the desktop models anymore and they NEED that money (or some of it) but unfortunately it is artificially inflated, the costs of making those drives / interfaces is leaps and bounds lower than what they charge.
I'm sure this is a true statement however the cost of research and development must be factored in. After all, a Ferrari is made of aluminum, steel, glass and rubber just like most other cars are, but a significant portion of the Ferrari's retail price goes to pay for huge Research, Development, and testing costs. The same goes for enterprise class data storage. I used to work for a large enterprise data storage manufacturer, and they spend huge amounts of time and money just on testing and qualifying hardware, and certifying it to interoperate with products from other vendors.
I for one will never touch SCSI again, I have no qualms with the technology, I have qualms with the un-necessary pricing.
Unfortunately all the nifty cool shit that SCSI has to offer for the desktop will never make it here affordably.
Amen brother. As nice as SCSI is, I agree that it's priced waaay above an acceptable consumer level. Not to "stick up for" the drive manufacturers, but SCSI drives are considered "high end", but many companies make all their profits from the high end sales. I'm sure Maxtor wouldn't make much money if they just sold $69 40GB ide drives.
Fortunately for me (being in the high-end data storage business) my home PC (a dual athlon) has a 64-bit PCI SCSI raid controller with a mirrored pair of 15k rpm SCSI disks.;-) Those were gratis; I would never consider such a setup if I had to spend my own money. That stuff is just too over priced.
Isn't FireWire a serial interface derivated from SCSI?
It does have many similarities with the SCSI protocol and is much better suited for hard drive data transfer. I'm not sure why USB2 external drives are so popular as USB is not nearly as approperiate for disk drives as Firewire is.
so this seemingly good idea could just be another good idea that won't pan out for most users.
"Most users" is not the target audience here. The data center is, especially high performance technical computing.
Standard, run of the mill IDE hard drives are about a dollar per Gig. Regular SCSI is a few times higher, especially as drives grow in size. This will be a great advantage if the price range is in the middle of the range, but I doubt that.
And neither of these is the current high end. Dual Ported 2Gb/s Fibre Channel hard drives are the current high end. I know. I sell them for a living. And they are not cheap. Think ~$3800 for a single 72 GB drive. And these are typically sold in arrays as large as 168 drives.
Serial SCSI is not targeted at the "l33t g4m3r" crowd. It's targed at the enterprise data center crowd.
If the article meant to say 3GBytes, then how in the world will the PCI *at 64bits and 133MHz, it's 1 GB/sec transfer) bus keep up? Or even RAMBUS memory, which, here [kingston.com] says it has a bandwidth of 4.2GB/sec. (So, kinda means you couldn't have more than one SCSI system at a time and get full bandwidth from both.) Now, if you may have to have memory banks for each SCSI component... ick.
Why does it need to "keep up"? Think of it as planning for the future.
Accusing 3GB/s of being "too fast" is like saying "640k ought to be enough for everyone!".
In addition, there are architectures (think AlphaServer Wildfire) that could *easily* gobble up 3GB/s of SCSI data and then some. As ubiquitous as the i386 platform is, it isn't the only platform, and it certainly isn't the leading platform in the high performance space - which just happens to be the target audience of high performance storage like Serial SCSI.
I've always wondered about that. If you had your business on the net, and/. linked to it, causing it to go down, would/. be liabel? Assume the following before replying:
*/. did NOT warn the page
*The page in question NEVER receives the amount of traffic necessary to bring it down.
*Let's assume it happened on a Saturday, when they had minimal support
*The company can PROVE they lost revenue./. can't really play dumb, they HAVE TO know the/. effect is going to be too much for a page. It can almost be called a DoS attack at this point.
No,/. would not be liable. That's like saying:
"If an advertising agency put out an ad for restaurant X, and everyone went to restaurant X as a result of the ad, that the advertising agency should be liable is restaurant X runs out of food."
Yes, it is that silly. If the restaurant runs out of food, that's no one's fault but the restaurant manager's. The fact that there was a 2-for-1 dinner coupon in today's paper is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Sir, you are so uninformed... Allow me to help you.
(1)Saddam has been proven to have a nuclear weapons program. No, no, no, NO! No one has proved that. The UN inspection teams, expatriots, and all available intelligence indicates the ABSENCE of a nuclear weapons program.
In 1991, UN inspection teams found (only by a mistake made by an Iraqi General) massive magnets used to enrich uranium to become weapons grade. These magnets were on trucks exiting the back gate of an Iraqi base as UN inspections presented themselves at the front for a surprise inspection. They later found piles of documents indicating a nuclear weapons program FAR more extensive that we ever imagined, involving BILLIONS of dollars. It's also a fact that Saddam has been trying to achieve nuclear capability since he came to power in 1979. Do you really think he just decided to give up because we said "please"? Have some sense man. Another point on the UN inspection teams both past and present: The responsibility is not on the inspectors to prove that Saddam has WoMD - The responsibility is Saddam's to prove that he doesn't. And he is VERY uncooperative, and it has been proven that he's deceived inspectors in the past.
(2) Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other nation in history. Huh? The UN embargos have a lot to do with those deaths. Back up your statement with facts.
From this link "According to the lowest estimates, over ten per cent of the Iraqi population has been killed by Saddam Hussein and his regime over the three decades of its rule."
http://jimball.com.au/Yasser.htm
Search google. It's a fact that Saddam has actively kills entire towns of people because of suspected anti-saddam sentiment. Also, a defected Iraqi General recently appeared on US TV and gave a figure of 8% of the Iraqi population, or around 1.3 million people have been killed by Saddam.
(3)This is not a preemptive strike. Saddam's forces have fired on US planes in the no fly zones on numerous occasions. Okay: (a) This is a premptive strike. The Adminstration admits as much. (b) Iraq has TARGETED US figter planes, but never fired.
I am disagreeing with the administration and saying that it is not preemptive. Here's some evidence:
http://www.ngwrc.org/news/content/TueNov0914000019 99.asp
"ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - U.S. warplanes attacked an Iraqi air defense system Monday after coming under fire during routine patrols of the northern Iraq no-fly zone, the U.S. military said."
(4) Saddam's regime funds and harbors Al Queda and other terrorise groups. The Administration tried and failed to prove a link. There is NO LINK.
The CIA declared that they had sufficient evidence to make a statement to that effect. I suppose you have more information than the CIA?
(5) It is illegal, punishable by death, to belong to any other political party than the Bath (sp?) party which is that of Saddam. Prove it.
http://www.nzz.ch/english/background/background199 8/background9810/bg981029irak.html
"The Baath party rose to power through purges, where thousands of people were killed, with thousands more imprisoned. Later, backed by the Revolutionary Command Council, Saddam took and kept power. He did this by imprisoning his relative, al-Bakar, the leader of the Baath party. Those who might oppose him were executed. "
http://www.byfaith.co.uk/pauliraq.htm
(6) Children as young as 3 years old are bombarded with Pro-Saddam propaganda in their schools. As opposed to other contries that use propoganda?
The words the iraqi children are taught are "We love Saddam, He is our Father" and other things to this effect. This is flagrant brainwashing to try and raise the children to support him, rather than forming their own conclusions based on saddams actions.
(7)Anyone who doesn't agree that Saddam needs to be removed from power is either a communi
There is no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Show me this evidence if you can find it. Recently it was revealed that the documents that insisted upon the program's existence were indeed faked.
...but... "No, it's wrong to attack him". You can't have it both ways.
Dead wrong. A surprise inspection by the UN at an Iraqi military base in 1991 caught them trying to sneak a massive ferrous magnet out the back gates. The magnet was one which was designed to enrich uranium to become weapons grade. In addition, iraqi papers were confiscated detailing a VAST nuclear program involving BILLIONS of dollars - far larger than we had expected. Do a search on google for these facts. Do you really think Saddam has since abandoned such a large and costly program just because the UN said "please"? Use some sense man.
Show me the evidence of a connection between Al Queda and Iraq. Again, this is something that has been spoon-fed to us by the present administration. How many times did Bush use the term "Al Queda-type organizations" in his press conference two weeks ago? This administration will always play to our 9/11 sympathies to point at targets.
The CIA has indicated that they had sufficient information to conclude that Hussein was funding terrorist groups and activities. period. Perhaps not Al Queda, but other terrorist groups. I suppose you are more informed than the CIA on the situation?
Finally, tell me whether Suddam poses an immediate threat to the United States, and how by removing him the United States will be a safer place--all of Bush's intelligence authorities tell a post-Suddam Iraq increases our chance of being attacked. Tell me how we can deal with the cultural conflict that has been quelled beneath Suddam's iron fist. Tell me that under such intense scrutiny from the U.S. and the U.N. that Suddam could have gotten away with exterminating masses of his people in the future.
Yes he does. He is developing weapons of mass destruction. And dont give me the typical left wing bullshit about how the inspectors haven't found anything. The impetus was not on the inspectors to find weapons - It was on Saddam to prove that he had none. And he was most evasive and uncooperative in this matter. In fact, it was a mistake made by an Iraqi General in the gulf war that allowed the UN inspectors to spot the escaping trucks carrying uranium enriching magnets, when Hussein and this general denied such a program. Your wrong about "increasing our chance of being attacked". This was is decreasing our chance by removing a tyrant known to fund and harbor terrorists, and known to be developing WoMD. Perhaps Saddam could not have gotten away in the future from exterminating masses of his people, but he is weak right now. Why wait until he becomed stronger and risk him attacking masses of our people. Ever heard the phrase "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? I didnt think so.
Suddam is, as you say, as mad man. He is an abominable human being. He should not be in power. I can't offer you alternatives to war besides waiting--but you should not choose the most dangerous solution because you think you have no others.
The most dangerous solution in this case is to sit and do nothing. You can't have it both ways. You can't sit there and say "Yes Saddam is evil" "Yes he's a tyrant" "Yes he's dangerous"
why not study the *LAW*
Advice from yet another IANAL slashdotter.
Oh and fuck off too.
Typical schoolyard antics from the left.
Today I'm ashamed to call myself a Geek.
/. community today.
I'm disgusted at the sheer quantity of ignorant liberal drivel that's being spouted by the
This war is one of justice and necessity, and those who think otherwise are as blind as Saddam.
This day has been long over due.
Fun facts to know and tell:
Although it is unclear how far their development has progressed, Saddam has been proven to have a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other nation in history. Over 1.2 Million Iraqi civilians (more than EIGHT percent of the population of Iraq) has been killed at the hands of Iraq. There is no family in Iraq that hasn't lost a friend or relative to Saddam's murderous behavior.
This is not a preemptive strike. Saddam's forces have fired on US planes in the no fly zones on numerous occasions. In addition, Saddam's regime funds and harbors Al Queda and other terrorise groups.
It is illegal, punishable by death, to belong to any other political party than the Bath (sp?) party which is that of Saddam.
Children as young as 3 years old are bombarded with Pro-Saddam propaganda in their schools. Their first words of English which they learn are words of love and praise for Saddam.
This war is long overdue. Anyone who doesn't agree that Saddam needs to be removed from power is either a communist, a terrorist, or just plain stupid. The leaders of the US have been trying to resolve this peacefully for many years. Saddam is obviously a mad man who can not be reasoned with; he must be eliminated by force.
God be with our Troops and with the non-agressive civilians of Iraq.
In addition to being just plain wrong on all your points, you sir, are a Troll. May you be modded down as such until the end of time.
There's been waaaay to much in the way of "talks" and "negotiations" prior to this war.
It's about damn time that things got underway.
The world will be a better place once Saddam Hussein and his thugs are out of the picture.
God Bless our Troops.
most of the problems that people have with their computers are because of how complex PCs have become.
I don't subscribe to this theory. A game console, DVD player or modern cell phone is a comparable device in terms of technological complexity. The difference is in the user interface.
A modern car with computer controlled fuel injection is a very complicated machine both mechanically and electronically, yet a complete moron can operate it (as is frequently the case).
The MS Windows OS is simply an awful interface for people who are new to computers. All it takes is one click on "yes" when a junk-ware pop-up rears its ugly face and things can get screwed up. Linux, on the other hand, is a much more robust model. As a "regular" user on a Linux system, one does not have the power to damage system files, alter the system startup, infect the system with a virus, or install software (other than in ones own home directory). This makes Linux an ideal home PC OS, as each member of the family can have their own username (with blank passwords even, to make it more simple) which will allow Mom to be productive even if Dad screws up his home directory. With Windows, if Dad screws something up, no one else can use the machine since he has "permission" to overwrite the kernel, screw up the boot process, install junk software, etc.
A college without Microsoft is like a fish without a Bicycle.
My thought is, the conventional web browser will eventually be replaced by something I like to refer to as a "metabrowser"... In other words, we don't really actively *surf* anymore, but rather, we swim through a series of content-rich pages generated by the browser itself, based on information transparently gathered from actual sources behind the scenes
Sounds like a dot com sales pitch to a venture capitalist in 1999.
information-access-over-electronic-networks? I'm not sure what that is, but I should probably patent it now just in case it takes off.
Nah... Amazon.com already owns it.
So, all you folks who think you have a real handle on technological progress: what will information-access-over-electronic-networks look like in 2013?
It will look like CowboyNeal!!
1) If Microsoft did something like this, everyone would be screaming and calling the Justice Dept. It isn't right for someone else to do the same thing.
.DOC and .XLS files the only acceptable file formats for turning in class work? Are all your Computer Science classes taught using Visual Basic? and Windows Server? Does the school have proprietary applications that only run under MS Windows? Does the school store sell any computers besides Wintel?
They already do. Microsoft "owns" several college campuses in the US. Perhaps it just isn't a well known fact.
Take a look at your present school (if you are a student). Are all the school's internal web pages written using broken HTML, for IE? Are
Ask yourself these questions and you'll see that MS "owns" more schools than you think.
2) Taking all MS products off the campus would be a dis-service to the students. Do some of us like non-MS products? Sure. But when those students graduate and go to work, are they going to see a lot of MS in the workplace? You bet. To hide them from MS products for 4 years would be harming their education.
I agree. A good approach would be to allow students to work with MS products, but encourage them to use Linux. Make sure all the school's web pages and web apps run 100% under Linux. Teach a balanced CS and EE curriculum consisting of UNIX, Linux and MS. Make sure all the school's electronic services, and all the students coursework is compatible with Linux. Have teachers use Linux on their computers - teach by example.
Just my 2 cents.
Personally, I find it odd that it would be stamped that, since beef is graded as follows: Prime, Choice, Select, Standard, Commercial, Utility, Cutter, and Canner. Eggs and Poultry are graded with letters, but hey. Poultry only goes to C, of course. You even provide a definition of Grade D beef! That's so nice of you! Really impressive, too, since it doesn't exist. Educate yourself. [usda.gov] And stop pretending, and spreading your bullshit, okay?
.GIF chart. It Clearly illustrates that Grade D beef does exist, and that it is formed from Utility, Commercial and Cutter beef.
The grading you mention is only for the Marbling of the beef. There are many other scores to take into consideration. If you pulled your head out of your ass, you'd realize this.
http://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading.html
The USDA officially rates beef according to the scale Prime, Choice, Good/Select, Standard and Commercial, although many been vendors may use the letter grades as "shorthand".
http://www.restorationfarms.com/image9.gif
Please see the above
There's just something about the sound of "utility beef" that just isn't appetizing. So enjoy your next big mac...
Ignorance is bliss, isnt it?
If McDonalds food wasn't so horribly disgusting (I haven't eaten there since 1997), I might have been excited about this announcement.
Just an FYI to all you "Mickey-Dee's" fans out there... I had a buddy who used to work there. (This was before they microwaved all the burgers to cook them) I went to visit him one day and he let me in the back where the "cooks" are. There was a big pack of burger meat patties sitting on a table. They were stamped in large purple letters on the top: "USDA GRADE D, BUT EDIBLE".
I'm sure most fast food places use the same beef. BTW, "Grade D" means it contains all the parts you don't want to know about. Hooves, brains, kidneys, genitals, elbows and knees, snouts, etc. That is fucking disgusting.
After seeing that sign, I never ate there again. Think about that next time you're scarfing down that next big mac.
If the apartment complex was nice enough that I wanted to live there, I'd change the code myself.
;-)
You and I both would, but you know there's always some lazy and/or ignorant slob who would not. That's why we have laws - To protect people from themselves; Things that are obvious to one person may not be so obvious to another.
And I certainly would not compare Microsoft Windows to an "apartment complex; nice enough that I wanted to live there".
To save themselves from stupid users and even stupider administrators?
No... to save themselves from hordes of eager new MCSE's!
If you run a network and you don't have those rules in place, who's fault is it? Microsoft's?
No it really isn't MS's "fault", it's the foolish server admin's.
But on the same note... When someone breaks into your apartment building, because the manager assigns all new tenants a default building access code of "1234" or "1111", who's fault is it? I would consider that to be lack of judgement on the manager's part for not forcing new tenants to select their own unique code, and preventing people from selecting easily guessed codes.
Try changing your Linux user password from the command line (hint: type passwd)
Pick something easy, like a dictionary word, or something really short.
You'll see:
[nimmerge@costanza nimmerge]$ passwd
Changing password for user george.
Changing password for george
(current) UNIX password:
New password:
BAD PASSWORD: it is too short
New password:
BAD PASSWORD: it is based on a dictionary word
New password:
Now give me a valid reason why Microsoft can't require strong passwords by default?
Sure they don't make much on the desktop models anymore and they NEED that money (or some of it) but unfortunately it is artificially inflated, the costs of making those drives / interfaces is leaps and bounds lower than what they charge.
;-) Those were gratis; I would never consider such a setup if I had to spend my own money. That stuff is just too over priced.
I'm sure this is a true statement however the cost of research and development must be factored in. After all, a Ferrari is made of aluminum, steel, glass and rubber just like most other cars are, but a significant portion of the Ferrari's retail price goes to pay for huge Research, Development, and testing costs. The same goes for enterprise class data storage. I used to work for a large enterprise data storage manufacturer, and they spend huge amounts of time and money just on testing and qualifying hardware, and certifying it to interoperate with products from other vendors.
I for one will never touch SCSI again, I have no qualms with the technology, I have qualms with the un-necessary pricing. Unfortunately all the nifty cool shit that SCSI has to offer for the desktop will never make it here affordably.
Amen brother. As nice as SCSI is, I agree that it's priced waaay above an acceptable consumer level. Not to "stick up for" the drive manufacturers, but SCSI drives are considered "high end", but many companies make all their profits from the high end sales. I'm sure Maxtor wouldn't make much money if they just sold $69 40GB ide drives.
Fortunately for me (being in the high-end data storage business) my home PC (a dual athlon) has a 64-bit PCI SCSI raid controller with a mirrored pair of 15k rpm SCSI disks.
Isn't FireWire a serial interface derivated from SCSI?
It does have many similarities with the SCSI protocol and is much better suited for hard drive data transfer. I'm not sure why USB2 external drives are so popular as USB is not nearly as approperiate for disk drives as Firewire is.
so this seemingly good idea could just be another good idea that won't pan out for most users.
"Most users" is not the target audience here. The data center is, especially high performance technical computing.
Standard, run of the mill IDE hard drives are about a dollar per Gig. Regular SCSI is a few times higher, especially as drives grow in size. This will be a great advantage if the price range is in the middle of the range, but I doubt that.
And neither of these is the current high end. Dual Ported 2Gb/s Fibre Channel hard drives are the current high end. I know. I sell them for a living. And they are not cheap. Think ~$3800 for a single 72 GB drive. And these are typically sold in arrays as large as 168 drives.
Serial SCSI is not targeted at the "l33t g4m3r" crowd. It's targed at the enterprise data center crowd.
If the article meant to say 3GBytes, then how in the world will the PCI *at 64bits and 133MHz, it's 1 GB/sec transfer) bus keep up? Or even RAMBUS memory, which, here [kingston.com] says it has a bandwidth of 4.2GB/sec. (So, kinda means you couldn't have more than one SCSI system at a time and get full bandwidth from both.) Now, if you may have to have memory banks for each SCSI component... ick.
Why does it need to "keep up"? Think of it as planning for the future.
Accusing 3GB/s of being "too fast" is like saying "640k ought to be enough for everyone!".
In addition, there are architectures (think AlphaServer Wildfire) that could *easily* gobble up 3GB/s of SCSI data and then some. As ubiquitous as the i386 platform is, it isn't the only platform, and it certainly isn't the leading platform in the high performance space - which just happens to be the target audience of high performance storage like Serial SCSI.
Just my 2 cents.
and from there on out it's just like pure profit.
So... let me get this straight:
1. Buy very inexpensive cable modems.
2. ?
3. Profit!
/. can't really play dumb, they HAVE TO know the /. effect is going to be too much for a page.
/. effect would not bring down ibm.com or cnn.com
Why do they have to know? I'm sure that the
Is it really a site owner's responsibility to assess the bandwidth capabilities of any linked-to site? I don't think so.
I've always wondered about that. If you had your business on the net, and /. linked to it, causing it to go down, would /. be liabel? Assume the following before replying:
*/. did NOT warn the page
*The page in question NEVER receives the amount of traffic necessary to bring it down.
*Let's assume it happened on a Saturday, when they had minimal support
*The company can PROVE they lost revenue. /. can't really play dumb, they HAVE TO know the /. effect is going to be too much for a page. It can almost be called a DoS attack at this point.
/. would not be liable. That's like saying:
No,
"If an advertising agency put out an ad for restaurant X, and everyone went to restaurant X as a result of the ad, that the advertising agency should be liable is restaurant X runs out of food."
Yes, it is that silly. If the restaurant runs out of food, that's no one's fault but the restaurant manager's. The fact that there was a 2-for-1 dinner coupon in today's paper is irrelevant.