If binary makes so much sense for representing information and doing useful work with it, why is it that the fundamental building block in our body uses four base pairs?
Actually, according to information theory, the most efficient way to represent data would be ternary system (I won't go into details, and would probably not get them the altogether right). Computers use binary for the most practical reason - it was way easier to implement it than any other. Current - no current. Charge - no charge. Voltage - no voltage.
My guess is that nature had similar reasons for choosing A, C, T & G.
If you don't like the way the NYT's runs their web site, you're more than welcome to start you own f_in newspaper and you can put it online and NOT require registration.
Exactly. They give us the opportunity to read one of the world's largest daily newspapers for free but sure, that's not enough. Bastards want to know our e-mail address. Outrageous. I bet they run Windows as well. They should burn in hell. Twice.
On a more serious note, I happily provided them with my e-mail address, so I could get the headlines (tailored to my preferences) delivered to my inbox every morning. Saves a lot of browsing-for-articles time. NYT is, in my book, right up there with Slashdot as one of the best online resources of info.
Too bad kiddies and loonies can't identify value even when it's given to them free of charge.
Why would learning german be a prerequisite (or even something helpful) for becoming a supervillain?
Because, obviously, french wouldn't do. I mean, yeah, being French gives you a certain notoriety nowadays, but honestly, can you picture a supervillain ordering a 'croissant' and a copy of 'Le Monde' for breakfast? On the other hand, ordering 'bratwurst' and reading 'Allgemeine Zeitung' does give you some crediblity.
howing the patch counts between Windows 2K and Redhat 7.x. If I recall correctly those numbers came out to rougly ~1050 patches versus ~350 patches for roughly the same time period
This kind of statistic interested me also. So, for a while I started collecting advisories mailed on the Croatian CERT mailing list. These are the results for the period since 12th of March through today:
I'm not going to fork over 300 euros for Win XP Pro only so I can have one huge piece of bloat slow down my computer while MS monkeys/lawyers are constantly...
You want stable, secure & fast Windows without the bloat and evil licensing? Dude, it's already there. It's called Win2k. Look it up, it's been out for a while.
It would have to be nearly infinately fast to simulate all the 10000000000000000000000000000000000's of atoms i can see right now, and even put an electron microscope up to and see formations of.
Who says such simulations have to be done in real-time? Maybe what you percieve to be one second takes 5 years to compute in the simulators' machines. Any maybe they can dedicate a planet-sized computer to simulating one person's life.
A fact is that any Turing-complete system can _perfectly_ emulate the whole universe that we see. Look it up.
This is the same line of thinking that many people have followed for the last century. Every new technology has been heralded with predictions of doom and gloom.
Unfortunately, the simple facts work in favour if doom-sayers. The probability of the extinction of human race is growing exponentially.
In the past, we simply had no way of destroying the whole human race. The only cause of extinction could be the natural phenomena, such as an asteriod collision, super-virus or somehting like that. We had a very small, near-zero chance of extinction.
Then, some 50-60 years ago, things changed. The human invented the atom bomb. Our chances of extinction shot up. Them a few years later, we invented the hydrogen bomb. Again, the probability of our extinction raised.
As technology advances, the human race aquires new and exciting ways of annihilating itself. Rogue engineered viruses. Nanotechnology. Genetic engineering. All of this adds up. Pretty soon, we'll have hundreds of ways of ending our existance. And the rate of inventing new ways and means is accelerating.
Everyone with a high-school knowledge of math knows what an exponential curve looks like. Well, we're climbing one. Still, one should not lose sleep worrying about human extinction.
Up to the point when the technology to wipe out the entire race gets so advanced so that it becomes accessible to a single determined person. And, basically, that's the point when the probability of our extinciton becomes so great that I would not recommended betting against it.
Nota bene, with great probability, I don't mean 80%-90%. 1% is quite enough. Because, if the probability of human extinction withing this year is 1%, it implies that within the next hundred years, the human race will be no more.
Maybe that's the reason we haven't made any contacts with other advanced civilisations in space. Maybe they all destroy themselves.
why is it that the governments of the world are still able to move in the directions outlined in those works?
Fear. Plain and simple. Here's an explanation from a man who knows what he's talking about:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
With as little formal education in genetics as I have (none, that is:-)), I'm compelled to ask:
Would cloned animals really have a chance of prolonging the life of the species?
As far as I know, species need genetic diversity to survive. It is proven that a herd/flock/community that is mostly inbred has a much higher chance of developing illnesses, being susceptible to hereditary disesases and genetic deformations.
From that I extrapolate that a species based on a _single_ copy of DNA is highly unlikely to be able to sustain itself over a longer period of time.
Basically, cloning from DNA is good for producing individual animals (for zoos and such), but isn't really a tool to prolong the life a species.
a completely dominant military force does everything better than a weaker military force: - wins wars faster - takes less casualties - causes less civilian casualties - inflicts less enemy casualties since they surrender faster
Which was/is clearly demonstrated in Israeli-Palestinian conflict, right?
Everyone is always riding America's ass and is so cynical about their motives, but I have to wonder what they are smoking. Most of the world outside of your comfy chair is a shithole, and I for one am glad that there is a force working to lift some of the world out of "shithole" status.
Yeah, sure. If the US was really about helping the world, consider this: The money spent on this war could be, instead of killing of thousands of innocents, used to pay of the foreign debt of most of the third world. Debt which ensures that those countries will _never_ recover and be prosperous, simply because they need to service the debt, instead of making the lives of their people better. And we're talking dozens of countries here, not jst one or a few.
But, since that wouldn't be remotely as good for bussiness as is 'freeing' iraqi oil, don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Dude, wake up and smell the coffee. There are absolutley no altruistic motives behind government actions. Not in the US, but not in the French or German actions either. Every and all altruistic and moral justifications are merely an after-thought designed to justify the actions and positions.
Pacifists and their wishful thinking will never cause the end of war, but the spread of democracy will.
I feel the US administration is about to get a really unpleasant reality check regarding the illusion that you can forcibly bring democracy to a country.
Democracy building is a very slow and time-consuming process. A process that needs to begin with the people getting the idea of democracy. I don't believe the iraqi people have the slightest notion of what democracy is. The culture there simply doesn't recognise it. It will take years and years before any Iraqi government will strive to be anything but Saddam-by-other-means.
Trust me, I have some first-hand witness experience in democracy-building processes, living in ex-communist European country. Democracy was brought about by the people wanting democracy and people fighting for it. But, still, people mostly didn't get it. Unfortunately, especially those in charge. It took some 10 years to really bring democracy about, with some serious 'whip and carrot'-ing by the international community.
I must say that I really don't believe the US has the will and/or staying power to really bring democracy to Iraq.
You thing the businesses are more to blame than religion?
IMHO, definitely. Saddam's is the only secular (non-religious) regime in the Middle East. Yet, the US is there, waging war. As a consequence, that will bring in religious zealots to Iraq, but the cause-and-effect is clear. Al Qaida considered Iraq's regime to be one of it's enemies, up until Bush decided to give them an early Christmas present in the form of this war.
And the US is definitely not in Iraq because of religion.
Mobile phones will be critically important for everyone from Red Cross workers to those distributing food aid to Doctors Without Borders to the firefighters who are already trying to cap the burning oil wells.
If this is insightful, then I must be blind.
That is your point for building a cellular phone network in Iraq? Are you on drugs?
Cellular network is a consumer infrastructure that takes months to build, needs thousands of base stations (to get a decent coverage) and costs millions of dollars. You'd need more base stations than there would be emergency personell using the network.
Wouldn't you think that maybe relief and similar emergency organizations would use satellite phones and radios which need no infrastructure, can be operated _now_, and have 100% coverage of the country?
I do think tho, that if the coalition handles the rebuilding of iraq properly, much of that anger will dissapear.
True, but I think the chances for this administration to do it proprely are rather slim. Blair and Bush meeting was supposed to the first step in bringing that about. Bush, according to reports I read outright rejected the possibility of UN-led rebuilding and administrating of Iraq (as proposed by Blair), opting instead for US-only military command.
Furthermore, the US also announced that exclusively US companies will have access to rebuilding contracts, at least initially, citing that only US companies have the 'security clearance' needed to win the contracts. We're talking 100s of billions of dollars here. Again, principal among those rewarded is Halliburton, the company in which Dick Cheney was CEO/board member up until he became the vice-president (the same company that built X-Ray detention camp in Cuba). Very convenient for them.:-)
With all of this, I simply don't see how the international comunity will stand beside and support the US in the aftermath of the conflict.
The hardcore protesters are also the antiglobalization forces, who will hate the us no matter what.
Antiglobalization forces don't hate _you_, unless you represent a big corporation. They don't hate the US either. They do hate, the money-greedy, self-serving multinational corporations and the structures that serve them (for example, the current US administration).
And, in that, I agree with them because I do believe that those corporations and their interests are the principal, if not the only, reason that the world is in such a sorry state right now.
Re:A short history of how the U.S. got into this m
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
This war is no more than a smokescreen to evade attention on the great failure ni finding the real responsibles for the 9/11 attack.
And in other news, Al Qaida announced that it is temporarily closing down their recruiting centers. Apparently they can't handle the influx of applicants that came forth in the last few weeks. In fact, they are running out of bombs to strap onto people. Normal terrorist operations will continue as soon as possible.
Seriously, I think if Bin Laden was in charge of the US he would hardly be more successfull in furthering the terrorist cause. The Bush administration simply excells in that field.
If they think that the current operations in Iraq will diminsh the threat from terrorism and make the world safer for the US, they must be smoking something really really bad...
>The US has effectively thrown away most of the compassion it gained on 9/11.
I don't buy this. Most of the countries whose populations and gov'ts had any REAL sympathy were already our friends.
You really, really should. Do you count Italy and Spain, to name only a few, as countries where the population had real sympathy for te US? Well, _overwhelming_ majority of the people in those nations is against the war in Iraq, and against the current US administration!
I don't think the people in the US fully appreciate the massive amount of damage your president has inflicted upon US's image in the rest of the world. I'm not talking Middle East or Asia here. I'm talking worldwide. For example, polls show that majority of the people in Europe consider Mr.Bush a greater threat to world peace than Saddam (no joke).
Nowadays the US is largely percieved as a bully with no regard for differing views (either you're with us, or you're against us - Pres.Bush) of anyone, even it's closest allies. Furthermore, US actions appear totally devoid of any foresight and planning beyond the immediate short-term agenda.
I think the Onion put it best in naming the current US campaign 'Operation: Piss off the planet'.
The saddest thing is that the situation really didn't have to play out this way.
We will also be spending billions on rebuilding any infustructure we do destroy.
Spending? Surely you mean 'earning'? Or you missed the part where US said that only US companies will be awarded $100+ billion worth or contracts to rebuild Iraq (apparently, only they have the 'security clearance')? Principal among them Haliburton, a company where Dick Cheney was a CEO until he became the vice-president. How very convenient...
Guess where those billions will come from? Yup, Iraq's oil.
Remember folks - M$ drones sitting in their cubbies can read/post to/.. Read this thread with extreme discretion.
Yes! And I heard it from a proper authority that they have a 'Slashdot task-force' with a sole mission of posting pro-M$ comments. And believe me, those people pull 55+ hour weeks.
While the user may be the slowest part I will be damn happy when the current incarnation of the PCI bus goes away.
And why, pray tell, is that? Besides the video cards, I'm hard pressed to find anything that goes into PCI slots that has a PCI bus as a bottleneck. Even standard 32b@33MHz PCI with 133MB/s is a definite overkill in vast majority of the cases.
Slashdot Mirror
If binary makes so much sense for representing information and doing useful work with it, why is it that the fundamental building block in our body uses four base pairs?
Actually, according to information theory, the most efficient way to represent data would be ternary system (I won't go into details, and would probably not get them the altogether right). Computers use binary for the most practical reason - it was way easier to implement it than any other. Current - no current. Charge - no charge. Voltage - no voltage.
My guess is that nature had similar reasons for choosing A, C, T & G.
If you don't like the way the NYT's runs their web site, you're more than welcome to start you own f_in newspaper and you can put it online and NOT require registration.
Exactly. They give us the opportunity to read one of the world's largest daily newspapers for free but sure, that's not enough. Bastards want to know our e-mail address. Outrageous. I bet they run Windows as well. They should burn in hell. Twice.
On a more serious note, I happily provided them with my e-mail address, so I could get the headlines (tailored to my preferences) delivered to my inbox every morning. Saves a lot of browsing-for-articles time. NYT is, in my book, right up there with Slashdot as one of the best online resources of info.
Too bad kiddies and loonies can't identify value even when it's given to them free of charge.
What about the Merovingian?
My point exactly.
Why would learning german be a prerequisite (or even something helpful) for becoming a supervillain?
Because, obviously, french wouldn't do. I mean, yeah, being French gives you a certain notoriety nowadays, but honestly, can you picture a supervillain ordering a 'croissant' and a copy of 'Le Monde' for breakfast? On the other hand, ordering 'bratwurst' and reading 'Allgemeine Zeitung' does give you some crediblity.
howing the patch counts between Windows 2K and Redhat 7.x. If I recall correctly those numbers came out to rougly ~1050 patches versus ~350 patches for roughly the same time period
:-)
This kind of statistic interested me also. So, for a while I started collecting advisories mailed on the Croatian CERT mailing list. These are the results for the period since 12th of March through today:
Debian: 28
RH: 26
MS: 21
Mand: 20
Sun: 16
SGI: 12
Cisco: 10
HP: 10
Turbo: 7
SCO: 6
SuSe: 2
Oracle: 2
In conclusion, I'm inclined not to believe your numbers.
I'm not going to fork over 300 euros for Win XP Pro only so I can have one huge piece of bloat slow down my computer while MS monkeys/lawyers are constantly...
You want stable, secure & fast Windows without the bloat and evil licensing? Dude, it's already there. It's called Win2k. Look it up, it's been out for a while.
It would have to be nearly infinately fast to simulate all the 10000000000000000000000000000000000's of atoms i can see right now, and even put an electron microscope up to and see formations of.
Who says such simulations have to be done in real-time? Maybe what you percieve to be one second takes 5 years to compute in the simulators' machines. Any maybe they can dedicate a planet-sized computer to simulating one person's life.
A fact is that any Turing-complete system can _perfectly_ emulate the whole universe that we see. Look it up.
This is the same line of thinking that many people have followed
for the last century. Every new technology has been heralded
with predictions of doom and gloom.
Unfortunately, the simple facts work in favour if doom-sayers. The probability of the extinction of human race is growing exponentially.
In the past, we simply had no way of destroying the whole human race. The only cause of extinction could be the natural phenomena, such as an asteriod collision, super-virus or somehting like that. We had a very small, near-zero chance of extinction.
Then, some 50-60 years ago, things changed. The human invented the atom bomb. Our chances of extinction shot up. Them a few years later, we invented the hydrogen bomb. Again, the probability of our extinction raised.
As technology advances, the human race aquires new and exciting ways of annihilating itself. Rogue engineered viruses. Nanotechnology. Genetic engineering. All of this adds up. Pretty soon, we'll have hundreds of ways of ending our existance. And the rate of inventing new ways and means is accelerating.
Everyone with a high-school knowledge of math knows what an exponential curve looks like. Well, we're climbing one. Still, one should not lose sleep worrying about human extinction.
Up to the point when the technology to wipe out the entire race gets so advanced so that it becomes accessible to a single determined person. And, basically, that's the point when the probability of our extinciton becomes so great that I would not recommended betting against it.
Nota bene, with great probability, I don't mean 80%-90%. 1% is quite enough. Because, if the probability of human extinction withing this year is 1%, it implies that within the next hundred years, the human race will be no more.
Maybe that's the reason we haven't made any contacts with other advanced civilisations in space. Maybe they all destroy themselves.
I know for one that South Africa was definitely not considered a democracy until the black people were finally able to vote in 1994.
Ummm... Didn't the US have a thing with black people until about the same time? Slavery and stuff? When was that, 100-150 years ago?
why is it that the governments of the world are still able to move in the directions outlined in those works?
Fear. Plain and simple. Here's an explanation from a man who knows what he's talking about:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Apparently, still works.
With as little formal education in genetics as I have (none, that is :-)), I'm compelled to ask:
Would cloned animals really have a chance of prolonging the life of the species?
As far as I know, species need genetic diversity to survive. It is proven that a herd/flock/community that is mostly inbred has a much higher chance of developing illnesses, being susceptible to hereditary disesases and genetic deformations.
From that I extrapolate that a species based on a _single_ copy of DNA is highly unlikely to be able to sustain itself over a longer period of time.
Basically, cloning from DNA is good for producing individual animals (for zoos and such), but isn't really a tool to prolong the life a species.
Anyone care to correct/confirm this?
So obvious it's not even funny...
a completely dominant military force does everything better than a weaker military force:
- wins wars faster
- takes less casualties
- causes less civilian casualties
- inflicts less enemy casualties since they surrender faster
Which was/is clearly demonstrated in Israeli-Palestinian conflict, right?
Everyone is always riding America's ass and is so cynical about their motives, but I have to wonder what they are smoking. Most of the world outside of your comfy chair is a shithole, and I for one am glad that there is a force working to lift some of the world out of "shithole" status.
Yeah, sure. If the US was really about helping the world, consider this: The money spent on this war could be, instead of killing of thousands of innocents, used to pay of the foreign debt of most of the third world. Debt which ensures that those countries will _never_ recover and be prosperous, simply because they need to service the debt, instead of making the lives of their people better. And we're talking dozens of countries here, not jst one or a few.
But, since that wouldn't be remotely as good for bussiness as is 'freeing' iraqi oil, don't expect it to happen any time soon.
Dude, wake up and smell the coffee. There are absolutley no altruistic motives behind government actions. Not in the US, but not in the French or German actions either. Every and all altruistic and moral justifications are merely an after-thought designed to justify the actions and positions.
Pacifists and their wishful thinking will never cause the end of war, but the spread of democracy will.
I feel the US administration is about to get a really unpleasant reality check regarding the illusion that you can forcibly bring democracy to a country.
Democracy building is a very slow and time-consuming process. A process that needs to begin with the people getting the idea of democracy. I don't believe the iraqi people have the slightest notion of what democracy is. The culture there simply doesn't recognise it. It will take years and years before any Iraqi government will strive to be anything but Saddam-by-other-means.
Trust me, I have some first-hand witness experience in democracy-building processes, living in ex-communist European country. Democracy was brought about by the people wanting democracy and people fighting for it. But, still, people mostly didn't get it. Unfortunately, especially those in charge. It took some 10 years to really bring democracy about, with some serious 'whip and carrot'-ing by the international community.
I must say that I really don't believe the US has the will and/or staying power to really bring democracy to Iraq.
Case in point: Afghanistan.
You thing the businesses are more to blame than religion?
IMHO, definitely. Saddam's is the only secular (non-religious) regime in the Middle East. Yet, the US is there, waging war. As a consequence, that will bring in religious zealots to Iraq, but the cause-and-effect is clear. Al Qaida considered Iraq's regime to be one of it's enemies, up until Bush decided to give them an early Christmas present in the form of this war.
And the US is definitely not in Iraq because of religion.
Mobile phones will be critically important for everyone from Red Cross workers to those distributing food aid to Doctors Without Borders to the firefighters who are already trying to cap the burning oil wells.
If this is insightful, then I must be blind.
That is your point for building a cellular phone network in Iraq? Are you on drugs?
Cellular network is a consumer infrastructure that takes months to build, needs thousands of base stations (to get a decent coverage) and costs millions of dollars. You'd need more base stations than there would be emergency personell using the network.
Wouldn't you think that maybe relief and similar emergency organizations would use satellite phones and radios which need no infrastructure, can be operated _now_, and have 100% coverage of the country?
I'd rate this -5, Clueless.
I do think tho, that if the coalition handles the rebuilding of iraq properly, much of that anger will dissapear.
:-)
True, but I think the chances for this administration to do it proprely are rather slim. Blair and Bush meeting was supposed to the first step in bringing that about. Bush, according to reports I read outright rejected the possibility of UN-led rebuilding and administrating of Iraq (as proposed by Blair), opting instead for US-only military command.
Furthermore, the US also announced that exclusively US companies will have access to rebuilding contracts, at least initially, citing that only US companies have the 'security clearance' needed to win the contracts. We're talking 100s of billions of dollars here. Again, principal among those rewarded is Halliburton, the company in which Dick Cheney was CEO/board member up until he became the vice-president (the same company that built X-Ray detention camp in Cuba). Very convenient for them.
With all of this, I simply don't see how the international comunity will stand beside and support the US in the aftermath of the conflict.
The hardcore protesters are also the antiglobalization forces, who will hate the us no matter what.
Antiglobalization forces don't hate _you_, unless you represent a big corporation. They don't hate the US either. They do hate, the money-greedy, self-serving multinational corporations and the structures that serve them (for example, the current US administration).
And, in that, I agree with them because I do believe that those corporations and their interests are the principal, if not the only, reason that the world is in such a sorry state right now.
This war is no more than a smokescreen to evade attention on the great failure ni finding the real responsibles for the 9/11 attack.
And in other news, Al Qaida announced that it is temporarily closing down their recruiting centers. Apparently they can't handle the influx of applicants that came forth in the last few weeks. In fact, they are running out of bombs to strap onto people. Normal terrorist operations will continue as soon as possible.
Seriously, I think if Bin Laden was in charge of the US he would hardly be more successfull in furthering the terrorist cause. The Bush administration simply excells in that field.
If they think that the current operations in Iraq will diminsh the threat from terrorism and make the world safer for the US, they must be smoking something really really bad...
>The US has effectively thrown away most of the compassion it gained on 9/11.
I don't buy this. Most of the countries whose populations and gov'ts had any REAL sympathy were already our friends.
You really, really should. Do you count Italy and Spain, to name only a few, as countries where the population had real sympathy for te US? Well, _overwhelming_ majority of the people in those nations is against the war in Iraq, and against the current US administration!
I don't think the people in the US fully appreciate the massive amount of damage your president has inflicted upon US's image in the rest of the world. I'm not talking Middle East or Asia here. I'm talking worldwide. For example, polls show that majority of the people in Europe consider Mr.Bush a greater threat to world peace than Saddam (no joke).
Nowadays the US is largely percieved as a bully with no regard for differing views (either you're with us, or you're against us - Pres.Bush) of anyone, even it's closest allies. Furthermore, US actions appear totally devoid of any foresight and planning beyond the immediate short-term agenda.
I think the Onion put it best in naming the current US campaign 'Operation: Piss off the planet'.
The saddest thing is that the situation really didn't have to play out this way.
I would have to think nowadays they can change the quality of the GPS signal with software dependant on region.
I can confirm that. In Croatia (south of Europe), GPS signal has degraged.
We will also be spending billions on rebuilding any infustructure we do destroy.
Spending? Surely you mean 'earning'? Or you missed the part where US said that only US companies will be awarded $100+ billion worth or contracts to rebuild Iraq (apparently, only they have the 'security clearance')? Principal among them Haliburton, a company where Dick Cheney was a CEO until he became the vice-president. How very convenient...
Guess where those billions will come from? Yup, Iraq's oil.
Nope, it's not a war for oil, no...
I never understood why Bush didn't call for a new general election after winning in such dubious circumstances.
Why on earth would he do that? He had too hard of a time stealing 2000 election, it would be moronic to call for a new one.
And although Google basically "owns" the market, I just can't see how Google could "block" somebody who would want to compete.
;-)
Simple. They would just block it from the results when looking for 'search engines'.
Remember folks - M$ drones sitting in their cubbies can read/post to /.. Read this thread with
extreme discretion.
Yes! And I heard it from a proper authority that they have a 'Slashdot task-force' with a sole mission of posting pro-M$ comments. And believe me, those people pull 55+ hour weeks.
Dang, I said too much!
While the user may be the slowest part I will be damn happy when the current incarnation of the PCI bus goes away.
And why, pray tell, is that? Besides the video cards, I'm hard pressed to find anything that goes into PCI slots that has a PCI bus as a bottleneck. Even standard 32b@33MHz PCI with 133MB/s is a definite overkill in vast majority of the cases.
Care to elaborate?
And why would we all suddenly believe that what he said in that interview in 1995 is not valid anymore?
Well, back then Bill didn't even consider Internet to be important. Should we consider that to be valid, too?
One would think that everyone realises that 8 years is a lot of time, especially in IT industry. I guess one might be wrong...