Iraq under Saddam Hussein had basic infrastructure.
Paul Sherlock, water and sanitation coordinator for Iraq under the U.N. Children's Fund -- Unicef -- told AlertNet: "Under Saddam Hussein's regime they had security, power and water in their taps almost every day. So if they compare what they had this time last year, they think if he could keep these things running, why can't the Americans, with all their resources, do it too?
Here's another one:
Iraqis like to point out that after the 1991 war, Saddam restored the badly destroyed electric grid in only three months. Some six months after Bush declared an end to major hostilities, a much more ambitious and costly American effort has yet to get to that point.
Note that the second quote is from October 2003, but remains just as true today.
I'm not going to cite these because anyone can find them on google in 2 minutes. That's how long it took to disprove your lies.
Before I moved from Windows to Linux, I moved from MS Office and IE to OpenOffice.org and Mozilla. The guy quoted in the blurb has it wrong. When the same apps are available on both platforms, you're going to go with the cheapest one, and that's Linux. When I switched my main machine to Linux (I already had an old machine running it), it was because it did the same thing as Windows, without either having to pay a bunch of money or hassle with trojan horse infested pirated software.
The strategy of keeping FOSS of windows will just guarantee that most people continue to assume that free = crap or free = spyware infested bullshit, which accurately describes most non-OSS freeware.
Only if they're the kind of person who rides the short bus to stupid-town. Sit in front of a Mac and there's a mouse and a big blue "e" for internet explorer (at the Mac lab at my school we have firefox and safari but I never, ever see anybody else use one). You click on the "e," just like you would with Windows, and up comes internet explorer, just like with windows. There's also an MS Word icon. Between the 2 of those you have 90% of what people in the computer labs do.
I don't think people know this because they've probably never even tried the Macs. They'd rather stand in line for 10 minutes than have to learn something new.
(loop with x = 0
while (less-than x 5)
do (princ (incf x)))
--> prints "12345"
This illustrates a few things about lisp, related to points you've made:
1) It is not functional. Less functional than C, in fact, because C forces you to define at least a "main" function, whereas this is a valid program by itself. Also, it uses side-effects - incf increments its argument. That's a no-no for strict functional languages
2) Loop is in the lisp standard, but it's not lisp. It's an embedded language for iteration implemented in lisp. The difference between that and something like a compiler implemented in C is that loop is integrated with lisp and you can naturally use it from withing lisp. Most lisps are implemented in C, but you can't throw lisp code in the middle of C code and expect it to work.
Prolog and perl-style regular expressions have been embedded in lisp in the same way, and also several different OO facilities (one of which is in the ANSI standard). Macros make it pretty easy to do stuff like this.
Lisp has lots of functions that modify their arguments, and lisp programmers are not shy about using them. It supports functional programming, but it's definitely NOT functional programming through and through.
With lisp, you can do functional, imperative, OO (since before C++ was a glimmer in Stoustrop's eye), and there are extensions for declarative programming and probably any other paradigm you could think of.
When a politician claims to have taken "the initiative in creating" something, a reasonable person would assume he means he allocated funding for it. Only a fucktard or a dishonest, politically motivated liar would claim otherwise.
But if they *don't* try to update it, it will suck anyway. The Watchmen was very, very, tied to the time in which it was written. The characters are not just thirtysomethings, they're burnt out thirtysomething baby-boomers. They *have* to update it or it most of the audience, which won't be old enough to remember 1985, won't get it.
Apparently not, amazingly enough. I played this game back in the '80s too, but it's hard to believe that there are still people today paying to play a game by snail mail.
Looks like it's based in Britain now, instead of New York.
It's more than inertia. look
at what they have first year students doing at MIT -implementing interpreters and object systems and stuff like that. Scheme is the only language with which you could reasonably expect freshmen to do that, having started the semester not even knowing the language.
I tried learning Python as my first language because Eric Raymond recommended it to newbies, and it didn't work out so well for me.. the documentation I read was of the "these are the features of the language" variety and taught very little about how to program. After going throught that, I wrote some truly horrible code that would become an incomprehensible mess at around 250 lines. I had better results with two Scheme-based books, How to Design Programs and the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (both available for free on the web),
This is not a deficiency of the Python language, rather that of the tutorial material available for it, and I may have just stumbled into the wrong books.
You can write very fast code in lisp. Check out this article about Lisp beating C++ in a number crunching oriented benchmark. Sure, someone might point out that different compilers emit faster code, and benchmarks aren't always representative. But I can think of few other languages that aren't painfully low-level that could have a success story like that.
But they can't; how precisely can Microsoft remain a profitable publicly traded company while embracing open source? Their software is all they have.
They can't. At least not with profits in the same league as they have now. Christensen's advice is sort of like telling the New York Yankees to become a little league team.
MS would be better off to utilize their monopoly muscle to keep users stuck with their software. There's no guarantee that they can't be successful at it. And even if they aren't, better to hold off the inevitable fall from uber-profitibility by 5 years than to embrace the mediocrity of becoming just another player in a commodity market now.
They can always force people to upgrade by ceasing support of older versions of Windows, so that users are totally unsafe on the internet, and by making new versions of their software incompatible with old versions. Without those factors, there would really be no reason to upgrade from Windows 2K and little reason to upgrade from older versions (and yes, I know they haven't EOL'd W2k yet, but it's coming).
When I switched to Linux I was certainly glad to have something Windows-like for my wife, who wasn't especially eager to relearn how to use a computer. I let her choose which DE/WM we would use and she chose KDE over GNOME.
if it had the same trouble-free interaction with hardware that Macs have, or at least that Windows have. My wife doesn't like Linux, and I no longer have time to fuss over it every time I get a new piece of hardware. Going back to Windows would be like trading my car in for a tricycle. A Mac seems like the best option so she can have her slick GUI and I can have my unix CLI geek toys, but we can't justify spending the money, which is really tight. But we might be able to spend a little bit for an OS.
We're talking about who's going to be leader of the motherfucking free world here, not debate class. I really don't give a crap whether Kerry or Bush had notes/earpieces during the debate.
There's plenty to gain from controlling the user's browser. Already, they stopped cold Netscape's efforts to "reduce Windows to a set of buggy device drivers," they make your default webpage msn, they automatically send you to MSN search if you enter a bad URL, and some webpages require IE to work properly. If they can get more webpages to be broken in browsers other than IE, that will be the club which keeps the desktop user locked in even more effectively than they already are (it would be enough to make me switch back to Windows).
MS stopped caring because they thought they had won, not because they didn't care about their browser monopoly. Now that they're losing ground, they DO care again. Various MS bloggers have mentioned that MS is worried about firefox and new development is going into IE to try to regain (or protect) its supremacy.
With the exception of option 'c' (the ideal option for MS), there's a tension for MS between preserving their monopoly and making money now. Sure, they could cut down piracy with 'd' and 'e', but some people who would otherwise run (pirated) Windows would end up running Linux. If Linux gets a significant foothold and breaks MS's monopoly, it's all over for MS, and they know it.
Re:I think Marx would shit a brick if he could see
on
What The Bubble Got Right
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The lesson of the "rise of the nerd" is that yes, you can start outsourcing jobs eventually to "regain power over the nerds" but what happens when those you outsource to abscond with your R&D results and your domestic nerd base is so atrophied that they can't compete?
You become a second rate has-been power, and watch as centers of progress leave the US and go to other countries. That's what happened to Europe, which essentially destroyed itself (as the center of world power) with two horrific wars. We are in the process of destroying ourselves as a center of progress and innovation through lack of support for technological education, science and research. You would have to be either an idiot or a fanatic willing to ruin your life to go into science or engineering these days. A sensible, smart person would probably go to law school and learn to do something that adds no value to the economy instead. It'll take a while, but I expect to see the next big technological boom (or maybe the one after that) take place somewhere else.
Note that the kind of people who make the decision to outsource jobs have nothing to worry about. They have enough money that if the US sinks into the ocean, they'll just go somewhere else.
I'm going to wait to download it from debian's apt repositories, so I'll never be counted. And the computer labs at my school use firefox. I doubt they did a separate download for each machine.
Yeah, Herbert Hoover was responsible for the post-war boom, even though the Democrats had dominated congress and the White House for since 1932. Ridiculous. If you knew any history you'd know that massive government spending (mainly on WWII, also on various New Deal programs) is what ended the Great Depression, which is exactly what Republicans of that era were against.
(these days the Repubs spend like drunken sailors too).
Slashdot Mirror
Iraq under Saddam Hussein had basic infrastructure.
Here's another one: Note that the second quote is from October 2003, but remains just as true today.I'm not going to cite these because anyone can find them on google in 2 minutes. That's how long it took to disprove your lies.
Before I moved from Windows to Linux, I moved from MS Office and IE to OpenOffice.org and Mozilla. The guy quoted in the blurb has it wrong. When the same apps are available on both platforms, you're going to go with the cheapest one, and that's Linux. When I switched my main machine to Linux (I already had an old machine running it), it was because it did the same thing as Windows, without either having to pay a bunch of money or hassle with trojan horse infested pirated software. The strategy of keeping FOSS of windows will just guarantee that most people continue to assume that free = crap or free = spyware infested bullshit, which accurately describes most non-OSS freeware.
I don't think people know this because they've probably never even tried the Macs. They'd rather stand in line for 10 minutes than have to learn something new.
while (less-than x 5)
do (princ (incf x)))
--> prints "12345"
This illustrates a few things about lisp, related to points you've made:
1) It is not functional. Less functional than C, in fact, because C forces you to define at least a "main" function, whereas this is a valid program by itself. Also, it uses side-effects - incf increments its argument. That's a no-no for strict functional languages
2) Loop is in the lisp standard, but it's not lisp. It's an embedded language for iteration implemented in lisp. The difference between that and something like a compiler implemented in C is that loop is integrated with lisp and you can naturally use it from withing lisp. Most lisps are implemented in C, but you can't throw lisp code in the middle of C code and expect it to work.
Prolog and perl-style regular expressions have been embedded in lisp in the same way, and also several different OO facilities (one of which is in the ANSI standard). Macros make it pretty easy to do stuff like this.
With lisp, you can do functional, imperative, OO (since before C++ was a glimmer in Stoustrop's eye), and there are extensions for declarative programming and probably any other paradigm you could think of.
When a politician claims to have taken "the initiative in creating" something, a reasonable person would assume he means he allocated funding for it. Only a fucktard or a dishonest, politically motivated liar would claim otherwise.
When observed facts, based on actual experience, disagree with your theory, obviously the facts must be wrong.
But if they *don't* try to update it, it will suck anyway. The Watchmen was very, very, tied to the time in which it was written. The characters are not just thirtysomethings, they're burnt out thirtysomething baby-boomers. They *have* to update it or it most of the audience, which won't be old enough to remember 1985, won't get it.
Actually, it'll probably suck either way.
Apparently not, amazingly enough. I played this game back in the '80s too, but it's hard to believe that there are still people today paying to play a game by snail mail. Looks like it's based in Britain now, instead of New York.
It's more than inertia. look at what they have first year students doing at MIT -implementing interpreters and object systems and stuff like that. Scheme is the only language with which you could reasonably expect freshmen to do that, having started the semester not even knowing the language.
This is not a deficiency of the Python language, rather that of the tutorial material available for it, and I may have just stumbled into the wrong books.
OTOH, fast lisp code is ugly as sin.
MS would be better off to utilize their monopoly muscle to keep users stuck with their software. There's no guarantee that they can't be successful at it. And even if they aren't, better to hold off the inevitable fall from uber-profitibility by 5 years than to embrace the mediocrity of becoming just another player in a commodity market now.
They can always force people to upgrade by ceasing support of older versions of Windows, so that users are totally unsafe on the internet, and by making new versions of their software incompatible with old versions. Without those factors, there would really be no reason to upgrade from Windows 2K and little reason to upgrade from older versions (and yes, I know they haven't EOL'd W2k yet, but it's coming).
doesn't explain what hibernate is, and the server's already /.ed. Damn. I guess I'll have to die without ever knowing.
I prefer fluxbox myself.
if it had the same trouble-free interaction with hardware that Macs have, or at least that Windows have. My wife doesn't like Linux, and I no longer have time to fuss over it every time I get a new piece of hardware. Going back to Windows would be like trading my car in for a tricycle. A Mac seems like the best option so she can have her slick GUI and I can have my unix CLI geek toys, but we can't justify spending the money, which is really tight. But we might be able to spend a little bit for an OS.
We're talking about who's going to be leader of the motherfucking free world here, not debate class. I really don't give a crap whether Kerry or Bush had notes/earpieces during the debate.
MS stopped caring because they thought they had won, not because they didn't care about their browser monopoly. Now that they're losing ground, they DO care again. Various MS bloggers have mentioned that MS is worried about firefox and new development is going into IE to try to regain (or protect) its supremacy.
If I had had to either get a new mobo to try Linux, or flash my BIOS, I would never have bothered and I would still be running Windows.
With the exception of option 'c' (the ideal option for MS), there's a tension for MS between preserving their monopoly and making money now. Sure, they could cut down piracy with 'd' and 'e', but some people who would otherwise run (pirated) Windows would end up running Linux. If Linux gets a significant foothold and breaks MS's monopoly, it's all over for MS, and they know it.
Note that the kind of people who make the decision to outsource jobs have nothing to worry about. They have enough money that if the US sinks into the ocean, they'll just go somewhere else.
I'm going to wait to download it from debian's apt repositories, so I'll never be counted. And the computer labs at my school use firefox. I doubt they did a separate download for each machine.
Oh wait, that didn't happen. The boom was in private industry. You're talking out your ass.
(these days the Repubs spend like drunken sailors too).