Dude...like...watch out for that Raven guy, I hear he's after your ass and that cute chick YT.
Now I don't think Raven ever much thought about Hiro except when Hiro made himself a target. Hiro chased him down in the bamboo farm, Raven didn't even bother to see if his impromtu spear hit paydirt. At the raft, Raven only showed up long enough to kill the with man with Reason, the only one Raven saw as a threat. Sure, he tried to give Hiro the virus at the Black Pyramid, but he was trying to give every hacker the virus. The point is, while Raven was a major factor to Hiro, Hiro was barely a blip on Raven's scope. The only fight that occured was the virtual one that Raven eventually fiured out he didn't need to fight to win (And Raven did win, the Virus program was kicked off. Raven hadn't been told to stop Hiro from dropping his anti-virus).
YT, well now I see why Raven has "Poor Implulse Control" tatooed on his forehead.
The industrious ones among us have already been making lots of money doing business in China, it isn't a far away promise.
BMW and Mercedes are already doing a good business there, and cell phones ARE a booming market because the country lacks the copper infrastructure of the US and Western Europe.
If we chose to ignore it the rest of the so-called Asian Tigers will be overjoyed to take the business we ignore, not to mention the Europeans.
Theft (hence, stealing) involves an unwilling zero-sum transfer of something from one entity to another.
LOL
Unwilling? Don't beleive the music industry has voluntarily allowed anyone to download their music via P2P for free.
Zero Sum? Don't believe the music industry is being paid for all those downloads
So up to this point it is stealing, yes?
Transfer of something from one entity to another? This is your sticking point. You do not recognize that the pattern of bits that translates through a well know algorithm into a song that brings you pleasure is something? You want it, so you recognize that "it" is a thing. If it is a thing, it is "something". So you've satisfied the conditions for your definition.
The he would be depriving the original owner of the Ferarri of his car, which is definitely bad.
Wheras if he returns it, all is well again? After all, he still has use of his Ferrari! Maybe Joe will give him some $$$ to compensate for the milage to drive down to the Kwik-E mart and pick up some hotties? That will surely make it All OK!
The grandparents post point was that because Joe couldn't pay for the music, it was OK for him to download them. Perhaps a better analogy would be a Ferris wheel at an unpopular fair. Its half empty, but Joe can't afford a ride. Is it OK for him to walk up and hop on? Its going around anyway, there are paying customers on the ride. Doesn't really devalue the paying customers rides, but they notice what he did, as did lots of other fairgoers. Next year, nobody pays, the wheel is going round anyway, they don't want to be the only sucker who pays. Third year, the fair doesn't bother bringing the wheel, because nobody will pay to ride it, they expect it to be free.
So, the ride operator seems to be seriously out of sync with how the public want to treat his service. He made his money back on his ferris wheel investment years ago, he should be giving out free rides by now. etc. etc.
Personally I'd give copyrights 15 years, it smore than enough time to earn fair profit (most projects earn 99% of their lifetime income in the first two years) while allowing the public access to works that have become part of the cultural identity, such as the "Happy Birthday" song, or "Old Man and the Sea".
In this country, there are kinds of brilliant music that are ILLEGAL and people get sued for.
First, lets not confuse the issues. I assume they Grey album involved the DJ combining other people's music into a new work. Its a bit different than Joe Dirt downloading content for his personal enjoyment. While it may be copyright infringement, it wasn't the subject at hand. So stick to the subject please.
And now lets see if you can spot the contradiction in your arguement...
noone is being denied any money, whatsoever. If someone wanted the cd, and could afford it, they would buy it
So, Joe's brother Bob Dirt works a good job. He'll happily pay for the Bubba's latest while his brother downloads it for free? Where exactly is the line between being able to afford music and have to pay for it and not afford it a get it for free? Can I eat lunch out 4 times a week and still qualify for free music? Can I buy a $300 MP3 player and qualify? Do I have to pass on dad buying me that new skateboard?
and noone is making money from it.
See, this is the point. While the RIAA make fools of themselves screaming how music will come to an end, and by failing to reorganize their stuctures to deal with the situation, you got your head in a bucket of sand, too.
Because copyright infringement isnt stealing. Its copying.
Get this straight, because its a pretty simple concept: Shoplifting is a form of stealing. It is a subset of stealing. It is not equivalent. Carjacking is stealing too, but you wouldn't call it shoplifting unless you carjacked a car salesman. In baseball they steal bases; yet when they are done second base is still there! When you're a kid and you bring in a bug collection for show and tell, but your freind shows his first, you thought "He stole my idea", yet mysteriously, you still have your idea, and you bug collection. See where I'm going with this?
See, you understood the concept of intellectual property in the fifth grade. Just because its inconveinent to you now doesn't make it go away. Yes, comparisons to the real world are misleading and grossly oversimplified, But then, so is your analogy. (See, this is ice, not water! Water is a liquid, Ice is a solid! Two totally different things!)
The studio made huge bucks off of it decades ago. Why is the MPAA still entitled to constantly more money?
For the record, the MPAA doesn't make money off it. The MPAA get paid by the studios to act in the general interests of the movie industry, studios contribute based on some formula that takes their size into account.
The studio that made the movie makes the money off the re-release, and depending on how the contracts were written, the actors heirs would get their cut if need be. But this is a good example. The studio likely remastered the movie for the DVD release, tracking down several copies and and putting effort into making the disc a clean copy. If they didn't have the copyright protection, why would they go through all that effort? Your kids would never see Casablanca except as a grainy TV movie with bad sound and comercial breaks. Will the studio make millions on this DVD? Doubtful, while there is a small set of buffs that will plunk down $25 for a classic like that, will it be enough to offset the quarter million spent on the remastering effort, after retail, distribution, manufacturing, etc. costs are deducted? Maybe, Maybe not. Really, what your alternative? A DVD rip of a TV broadcast? Or Tony the Toenail making money buy selling you a copy made from a local theater showing?
And exactly how do you know the "Bubba Bandits" latest album isn't the next Bethoven's 9th? If they created a great work of art, are they less entitled to earn money from their work? Is a professor who writes a book on Rome not entitled to earn a wage from his efforts? I'm not arguing for the current systems non-expiring copyrights, but against the idea that illegal copying of copyrighted works is OK because "I wasn't going to buy it".
do you not know what stealing is?
Do you not understand the concept of intellectual property? Have you never heard the expression "Stealing their ideas"? Do you have trouble with the concept of negative numbers? Perhaps even the number 0? These are things that exist in peoples heads that lack a physical counterpart, yet are key to the functioning of a modern world.
While I agree with your basic point, look at it from the other side; Joe Dirt is in posession of their "property" which they value at full price. If Joe wasn't willing to pay the $$$, he shouldn't have the benefit of listening/watching the content. If Joe stole a Ferarri he couldn't pay for, you wouldn't be pointing out that wouldn't have been able to $250,000, or that the value of the steel, aluminium, and paint is only $2,000.
Why should Joe have the privledge of enjoying music/movies/anything that he can't pay for? This isn't Food, Shelter, or Medicine here, Joe will get along just fine without access to the Bubba Bandits latest album (there's even this "free" service called the radio and TV).
The RIAA bugs me because they use price fixing to inflate the price of their goods, and haven't figured out the sliding price models that serve the software and movie industry pretty well. While these successful and growing inustries price their new material highest, slowly dropping prices over time, the music industry prices new material lowest, then raises prices. But I still don't use that as justification for stealing music.
NBC did try to keep him from taking the Top Ten list to CBS. That and viewer mail. He did change viewer mail to the CBS Mail Bag, but they got to keep Top Ten.
Personally I was sad to see "The World's Most Dangerous Band" become "The CBS Orchestra"
I understand that in the UK, for example, most cars have standard transmissions and an automatic transmission is a minor luxury feature.
Whereas here in the US, I had to hunt and wait to find my G35 6MT Sedan, then pay a premium over the standard Auto equipped car (worth every penny). Most inspired line, when talking to my salesman (who actually remembers me bitching about Infiniti delaying the stick shift cars to speed the Coupe along):
SALESMAN: You know, these six-speeds are hard to come by. They sell as soon as they hit the lot.
ME: Why don't you order more of them, then?
SALESMAN: Because nobody wants a manual transmission
Huh? Still, this beats the Lincoln dealership, who insisted I buy the LS manual sight unseen, if I didn't like the car I could "refuse delivery". Six dealerships gave me that answer, the closest I ever came to a test drive was a used one that sold within 4 hours of trade in. But I'm sure this will be used extensively to show Americans don't like manual transmission, and we need these horrific auto-shifting SMT transmissions (curse you BMW! Manuals are about more than selecting what gear you are in! Otherwise I'd be happy with those infernal auto-sticks)
It is that it would cost the consumer more if they wanted to run windows if it wasn't preloaded.
Ah! I responded to what you said and not what you meant. That of course is true. But note that its not running Windows XP Pro, its running Windows CE; and your comparison is roughly like saying "It would cost the consumer more to buy boat with a 50hp Evinrude outboard and replace it with a 50 hp Mercury outboard than if the manufacturer had just installed the Mercury in the first place". Assuming the interface was well designed, why would they rip out the stock interface to run MS's non-optimized interface? I can see several arguements that a tweaked Linux interfae would be faster than a generic Windows CE core, could be upgraded and maintained by the local populace, etc.
but the indended market is less industrialized countries
I suspect this may be a case of not knowing your mrkets. In less industrialized markets, copper phone lines are rare. Cellular phones, WiFi, and other new technologies will be the source of connectivity.
Because it costs less that way. At least, I don't suppose the $ 300 computers have $ 250 Windows installations.
Strange math there. I agree the $250 computer does not have a $249 Windows CE installation, but it likely has a $15 to $20 installation. Heck, it might even be a $5, but its most most certainly some price p, where p > $0. Thus, we are certain that by utilizing Fedora/FreeBSD/ he unit will cost $p less or there will be $p more profit for the manufacturers.
Please explain how n-p > n when p is a non-zero positive number.
umm...actually, Office 2k4 is built off the office 2k3 codebase
Yeah, I saw that 2. What I think he meant to say is that Office 2003 was based on Office X(?), they introduced a lot of new features on the Mac that they brought back to the PC. Which makes sense, each time a new product comes out it introduces new ideas.
Bigger point is that the Mac platform is really what got MS into applications, prior to that MS did OS'es and compilers; Lotus was reluctant to bring their industry leading 1-2-3 spreadsheet to the Mac, so Jobs asked Bill (notorious for taking advantage of others misteps, ie DOS when Mr CP/M didn''t care to port to IBM's new PC) to develop one. Bill jumped all over it (partially to get early access to the ground breaking UI), the rest is history.
but i can promise you that person never used SNMP for any major network management
I use it all the time with MRTG. Admitedly, I'm only scratching the surface of what SNMP can do, but it works great for what it does. The only big problem I see is a lack of error detection/correction, but considering how widespread SNMP is, I can't see it getting pushed out anytime soon.
It can take 6 to 8 hours to rebuild an image, it takes about 5 minutes to try the second key. Unless I expect to run that image about on 70 different batches (about 3 years worth), re-typing the key is a better answer. Since MS/Dell didn't put warnings anywhere that there is a difference, and we did not initially have access to a VLK editions of the OS, the problem wasn't immediately obvious. The grandparent might work for a big shop where this would be a big problem, I don't.
I've run big shops where rebuild would have been an obvious answer, but when you are imaging systems in batches of 6 or 8 every few months, you'll see its more of an annoyance than "a hell of a lot harder" You figure out on the first machine which key the image was built with, and then its not a problem on the next 7.
Clearly the poster is relying on the false sense of anonyminity that Slashdot provides. Johnny Schmuck vs "Compulawyer,/. user 8675309" might be difficult to serve.
Anyone accepting legal advice from Slashdot gets what they they deserve
According to his vendor and the local MS fortress his key was valid.. according to Windows it wasn't.:)
This was probably due to using the wrong install CD. The Key checking algorithms are keyed to the versions that are shipped with the machine, so you can't use a consumer key with the Volume License Install CD, or vice versa. Its a pain in my behind, because some of my images got built with the Dell CD, and need a Dell key, and some got built with our VL CD, and need a VL key.
Its possible a smaller vendor is distributing the wrong CD with his legitimate keys (shows horrible QA, BTW)
Of course, given the number of licensed to run Windows PC's I have that are actually running Linux, this just reinforces my thoughts that Gartner sells its soul to whomever is buying this week. "Yes sir, you want an independant study? What would you like the conclusion to say? 3 = 5? Not a problem sir!"
#1) I have had the same 19" monitor since 1997. It's about 40lbs, and I have moved no less than 5 times in those 7 years. Never once have I thought, "I need to get a lighter monitor".
The grandparent refered to a flatscreen 40" tube TV. I'm not sure what model he's refering to, but I'm sure its heavier than my brother's 32" flatscreen tube TV, which weighs about 132 lbs and is a real bitch to move, especially up and down stairs.
I'm currently thinking about a new bedroom TV, to replace my 20" 15 year old set. I want HD capable and widescreen. A 30" Tube TV version is $700 from BJ's (warehouse club), a 30" Dell LCD is about $2200. The extra money saves me 100+lbs of weight, and the narrow depth means I can put it anywhere in my room, The Tube TV needs furniture pulled out from the wall to accomadate the depth, will dominate the decor, and contribute more heat to the room than I care to deal with.
Plasmas aren't really a concideration, despite you flippant comment, they typically start at 42" and used to have bad burn in problems. They say they are better now, thanks but I'll wait till I see one that lasts 5 years in an always on environment before I drop $6k on one. They are more for the I don't care about the money crowd, or the "I'm to stupid to research the tech" crowd.
Hmm, price point of LCD's too high. The 20" LCD I want goes for $700 if I shop, a decent 21" is going for about $500. I plan to spend my time in front of the monitor enjoying a flicker free all digital image, not at a 70 degree angle too itplaying fast twitch games till my eyes burn.
#3) Those 5 moves in 7 years were all in the SF Bay Area, and never once did I think "Man, I need to get a smaller footprint monitor, so I can save on rent!"... Why? because that extra 1 square foot is not optional in a house/apartment.
Didn't say you would save on rent; what you get is an extra two feet of space between you and your TV. Which means more space for you. I would love an extra two feet of space in my apartment, if you don't care, more power to you. Next time I'm in town, I'll drop of some boxes you can store for me, since you clearlly have extra room...
Now, since that seems to be on your plans, and you seem to have a "Champale" budget, I think a CRT is a good choice for you. Just don't assume that your concerns are mine
So is what's being said here equate to 'if the applicant hadn't admitted to hacking a company to demonstrate knowledge, and instead plausibly lied about having worked in a "test" environment configured just like a real company, the debate wouldn't have happened'?
Nope. Why? Because hiding the fact means that he knows what he did was wrong. Because he admits to it in an interview, its a sign he doesn't view it as wrong. I don't care if he likes pornography, but if he brings it up in an interview, thats a sign he has trouble with determining appropriateness(is that a word?).
It not about giving him a chance to mend his ways, it about the ability to determine where the lines are. I know some of my staff might do this sort of thing, I know some have done this sort of thing. I've made some really dumb hiring decisions, allowed people who were drunk to drive for my company because I trusted my staff would say something and I didn't think it was neccessary. Now, would you allow somebody with DUI on their record to drive for you? Would you waste time administering breathalizers every 4 hours?
Cisco's last forever, even long after their technology is obsolete, their hardware is built like army tanks... but you do pay for it too.
Which explains all the dying Cisco 3524's and 2900's I have. Random dead ports, complete lockups, etc. Not that our 3com's are doing any better. For now I'm replacing them with Dell Gigabit switches, cause the price is nice, but I'm looking for something that built for the data-center (Dell's lack an effective backplane interconnect is a big strike). Just wanted to point out Cisco's fail too.
Yeah, I don't think this kid is all too bright compared to a lot of other hackers. I mean, for one, he got caught.
For another, he's clearly subject to certain moral lapses.
I've been given this opportunity before, an applicant admited to hacking into a company to demonstrate his abilities and knowledge; they hired him. While I recognized his potential to help secure our network, could I trust him not to monitor peoples mail for his own amusement, access private data like salaries, "attack" computers of folks he didn't like, or otherwise cause trouble?
It took a slam dunk "Hire him" to a long debate, we wound up not making an offer.
The thing with the ludicrously high-revving engines in F1 is that, despite their small displacement (and downright tiny per-cylinder displacement), they rev so high because they only have to last several hundred miles, not the 200k+ miles that a production engine, at the bare minimum these days, has to meet.
Sort of
The reason those engines rev so high is because of their small displacement. longer strokes mean higher piston speeds, higher piston speeds mean more force on the rods, connecting pins, etc as they accelerate and decelerate twice per revolution, more pistons mean smaller valves, which means lighter valves, which also get accelerated up and down. I had a spreadsheet a while ago that would tell me all these factors, given a certain stroke, max piston speed would be this; you can then figure out at what RPM your engine wil gernade itself. shave this much from the cylinder head and how does the compression ratio change? bore the engine and what happens to the numbers?
The other side of this is that horsepower is a function of rpm; with each fuel/air explosion, the pistons are pushed down with a certain force (torque); the more rpms you run the more explosions, and thus the more power. So the more rpm you can run, the more power, subject to all sorts of real world limits, like the ability to supply fuel and air to the engine, etc.
So all things beeing equal, an engine spinning at 15,000 rpm make more power than one spinning at 12,000 rpm. More cylinders for a given displacement means lighter components, which mean more rpms, etc. The flip side being more cylinders means more components, which means higher failure rates, more expense (12 pricey pistons instead of 10, etc), not to mention certain materials limitations (we can only move the valves so fast before they stretch/bend/etc).
That said, you are right that engine longevity is a major factor. Qualifying engines that need last only 15 laps are accepted practice, and teams are alway strategizeing wether this mode for.5% more power is worth the 3% risk that the engine wont survive the 200 laps (how many laps will be under caution? they hardly count).
Slashdot Mirror
Now I don't think Raven ever much thought about Hiro except when Hiro made himself a target. Hiro chased him down in the bamboo farm, Raven didn't even bother to see if his impromtu spear hit paydirt. At the raft, Raven only showed up long enough to kill the with man with Reason, the only one Raven saw as a threat. Sure, he tried to give Hiro the virus at the Black Pyramid, but he was trying to give every hacker the virus. The point is, while Raven was a major factor to Hiro, Hiro was barely a blip on Raven's scope. The only fight that occured was the virtual one that Raven eventually fiured out he didn't need to fight to win (And Raven did win, the Virus program was kicked off. Raven hadn't been told to stop Hiro from dropping his anti-virus).
YT, well now I see why Raven has "Poor Implulse Control" tatooed on his forehead.
BMW and Mercedes are already doing a good business there, and cell phones ARE a booming market because the country lacks the copper infrastructure of the US and Western Europe.
If we chose to ignore it the rest of the so-called Asian Tigers will be overjoyed to take the business we ignore, not to mention the Europeans.
Ok, maybe that explains the dismemberment in self defense. How did you explain the burning of the corpse in a barrel?
LOL
Unwilling? Don't beleive the music industry has voluntarily allowed anyone to download their music via P2P for free.
Zero Sum? Don't believe the music industry is being paid for all those downloads
So up to this point it is stealing, yes?
Transfer of something from one entity to another? This is your sticking point. You do not recognize that the pattern of bits that translates through a well know algorithm into a song that brings you pleasure is something? You want it, so you recognize that "it" is a thing. If it is a thing, it is "something". So you've satisfied the conditions for your definition.
Wheras if he returns it, all is well again? After all, he still has use of his Ferrari! Maybe Joe will give him some $$$ to compensate for the milage to drive down to the Kwik-E mart and pick up some hotties? That will surely make it All OK!
The grandparents post point was that because Joe couldn't pay for the music, it was OK for him to download them. Perhaps a better analogy would be a Ferris wheel at an unpopular fair. Its half empty, but Joe can't afford a ride. Is it OK for him to walk up and hop on? Its going around anyway, there are paying customers on the ride. Doesn't really devalue the paying customers rides, but they notice what he did, as did lots of other fairgoers. Next year, nobody pays, the wheel is going round anyway, they don't want to be the only sucker who pays. Third year, the fair doesn't bother bringing the wheel, because nobody will pay to ride it, they expect it to be free.
So, the ride operator seems to be seriously out of sync with how the public want to treat his service. He made his money back on his ferris wheel investment years ago, he should be giving out free rides by now. etc. etc.
Personally I'd give copyrights 15 years, it smore than enough time to earn fair profit (most projects earn 99% of their lifetime income in the first two years) while allowing the public access to works that have become part of the cultural identity, such as the "Happy Birthday" song, or "Old Man and the Sea".
First, lets not confuse the issues. I assume they Grey album involved the DJ combining other people's music into a new work. Its a bit different than Joe Dirt downloading content for his personal enjoyment. While it may be copyright infringement, it wasn't the subject at hand. So stick to the subject please.
And now lets see if you can spot the contradiction in your arguement...
noone is being denied any money, whatsoever.
If someone wanted the cd, and could afford it, they would buy it
So, Joe's brother Bob Dirt works a good job. He'll happily pay for the Bubba's latest while his brother downloads it for free? Where exactly is the line between being able to afford music and have to pay for it and not afford it a get it for free? Can I eat lunch out 4 times a week and still qualify for free music? Can I buy a $300 MP3 player and qualify? Do I have to pass on dad buying me that new skateboard?
and noone is making money from it.
See, this is the point. While the RIAA make fools of themselves screaming how music will come to an end, and by failing to reorganize their stuctures to deal with the situation, you got your head in a bucket of sand, too.
Because copyright infringement isnt stealing. Its copying.
Get this straight, because its a pretty simple concept: Shoplifting is a form of stealing. It is a subset of stealing. It is not equivalent. Carjacking is stealing too, but you wouldn't call it shoplifting unless you carjacked a car salesman. In baseball they steal bases; yet when they are done second base is still there! When you're a kid and you bring in a bug collection for show and tell, but your freind shows his first, you thought "He stole my idea", yet mysteriously, you still have your idea, and you bug collection. See where I'm going with this?
See, you understood the concept of intellectual property in the fifth grade. Just because its inconveinent to you now doesn't make it go away. Yes, comparisons to the real world are misleading and grossly oversimplified, But then, so is your analogy. (See, this is ice, not water! Water is a liquid, Ice is a solid! Two totally different things!)
For the record, the MPAA doesn't make money off it. The MPAA get paid by the studios to act in the general interests of the movie industry, studios contribute based on some formula that takes their size into account.
The studio that made the movie makes the money off the re-release, and depending on how the contracts were written, the actors heirs would get their cut if need be. But this is a good example. The studio likely remastered the movie for the DVD release, tracking down several copies and and putting effort into making the disc a clean copy. If they didn't have the copyright protection, why would they go through all that effort? Your kids would never see Casablanca except as a grainy TV movie with bad sound and comercial breaks. Will the studio make millions on this DVD? Doubtful, while there is a small set of buffs that will plunk down $25 for a classic like that, will it be enough to offset the quarter million spent on the remastering effort, after retail, distribution, manufacturing, etc. costs are deducted? Maybe, Maybe not. Really, what your alternative? A DVD rip of a TV broadcast? Or Tony the Toenail making money buy selling you a copy made from a local theater showing?
And exactly how do you know the "Bubba Bandits" latest album isn't the next Bethoven's 9th? If they created a great work of art, are they less entitled to earn money from their work? Is a professor who writes a book on Rome not entitled to earn a wage from his efforts? I'm not arguing for the current systems non-expiring copyrights, but against the idea that illegal copying of copyrighted works is OK because "I wasn't going to buy it".
do you not know what stealing is?
Do you not understand the concept of intellectual property? Have you never heard the expression "Stealing their ideas"? Do you have trouble with the concept of negative numbers? Perhaps even the number 0? These are things that exist in peoples heads that lack a physical counterpart, yet are key to the functioning of a modern world.
Why should Joe have the privledge of enjoying music/movies/anything that he can't pay for? This isn't Food, Shelter, or Medicine here, Joe will get along just fine without access to the Bubba Bandits latest album (there's even this "free" service called the radio and TV).
The RIAA bugs me because they use price fixing to inflate the price of their goods, and haven't figured out the sliding price models that serve the software and movie industry pretty well. While these successful and growing inustries price their new material highest, slowly dropping prices over time, the music industry prices new material lowest, then raises prices. But I still don't use that as justification for stealing music.
Personally I was sad to see "The World's Most Dangerous Band" become "The CBS Orchestra"
Whereas here in the US, I had to hunt and wait to find my G35 6MT Sedan, then pay a premium over the standard Auto equipped car (worth every penny). Most inspired line, when talking to my salesman (who actually remembers me bitching about Infiniti delaying the stick shift cars to speed the Coupe along):
SALESMAN: You know, these six-speeds are hard to come by. They sell as soon as they hit the lot.
ME: Why don't you order more of them, then?
SALESMAN: Because nobody wants a manual transmission
Huh? Still, this beats the Lincoln dealership, who insisted I buy the LS manual sight unseen, if I didn't like the car I could "refuse delivery". Six dealerships gave me that answer, the closest I ever came to a test drive was a used one that sold within 4 hours of trade in. But I'm sure this will be used extensively to show Americans don't like manual transmission, and we need these horrific auto-shifting SMT transmissions (curse you BMW! Manuals are about more than selecting what gear you are in! Otherwise I'd be happy with those infernal auto-sticks)
Ah! I responded to what you said and not what you meant. That of course is true. But note that its not running Windows XP Pro, its running Windows CE; and your comparison is roughly like saying "It would cost the consumer more to buy boat with a 50hp Evinrude outboard and replace it with a 50 hp Mercury outboard than if the manufacturer had just installed the Mercury in the first place". Assuming the interface was well designed, why would they rip out the stock interface to run MS's non-optimized interface? I can see several arguements that a tweaked Linux interfae would be faster than a generic Windows CE core, could be upgraded and maintained by the local populace, etc.
I suspect this may be a case of not knowing your mrkets. In less industrialized markets, copper phone lines are rare. Cellular phones, WiFi, and other new technologies will be the source of connectivity.
Strange math there. I agree the $250 computer does not have a $249 Windows CE installation, but it likely has a $15 to $20 installation. Heck, it might even be a $5, but its most most certainly some price p, where p > $0. Thus, we are certain that by utilizing Fedora/FreeBSD/ he unit will cost $p less or there will be $p more profit for the manufacturers.
Please explain how n-p > n when p is a non-zero positive number.
Yeah, I saw that 2. What I think he meant to say is that Office 2003 was based on Office X(?), they introduced a lot of new features on the Mac that they brought back to the PC. Which makes sense, each time a new product comes out it introduces new ideas.
Bigger point is that the Mac platform is really what got MS into applications, prior to that MS did OS'es and compilers; Lotus was reluctant to bring their industry leading 1-2-3 spreadsheet to the Mac, so Jobs asked Bill (notorious for taking advantage of others misteps, ie DOS when Mr CP/M didn''t care to port to IBM's new PC) to develop one. Bill jumped all over it (partially to get early access to the ground breaking UI), the rest is history.
I use it all the time with MRTG. Admitedly, I'm only scratching the surface of what SNMP can do, but it works great for what it does. The only big problem I see is a lack of error detection/correction, but considering how widespread SNMP is, I can't see it getting pushed out anytime soon.
I've run big shops where rebuild would have been an obvious answer, but when you are imaging systems in batches of 6 or 8 every few months, you'll see its more of an annoyance than "a hell of a lot harder" You figure out on the first machine which key the image was built with, and then its not a problem on the next 7.
Anyone accepting legal advice from Slashdot gets what they they deserve
This was probably due to using the wrong install CD. The Key checking algorithms are keyed to the versions that are shipped with the machine, so you can't use a consumer key with the Volume License Install CD, or vice versa. Its a pain in my behind, because some of my images got built with the Dell CD, and need a Dell key, and some got built with our VL CD, and need a VL key.
Its possible a smaller vendor is distributing the wrong CD with his legitimate keys (shows horrible QA, BTW)
Of course, given the number of licensed to run Windows PC's I have that are actually running Linux, this just reinforces my thoughts that Gartner sells its soul to whomever is buying this week. "Yes sir, you want an independant study? What would you like the conclusion to say? 3 = 5? Not a problem sir!"
The grandparent refered to a flatscreen 40" tube TV. I'm not sure what model he's refering to, but I'm sure its heavier than my brother's 32" flatscreen tube TV, which weighs about 132 lbs and is a real bitch to move, especially up and down stairs.
I'm currently thinking about a new bedroom TV, to replace my 20" 15 year old set. I want HD capable and widescreen. A 30" Tube TV version is $700 from BJ's (warehouse club), a 30" Dell LCD is about $2200. The extra money saves me 100+lbs of weight, and the narrow depth means I can put it anywhere in my room, The Tube TV needs furniture pulled out from the wall to accomadate the depth, will dominate the decor, and contribute more heat to the room than I care to deal with.
Plasmas aren't really a concideration, despite you flippant comment, they typically start at 42" and used to have bad burn in problems. They say they are better now, thanks but I'll wait till I see one that lasts 5 years in an always on environment before I drop $6k on one. They are more for the I don't care about the money crowd, or the "I'm to stupid to research the tech" crowd.
Hmm, price point of LCD's too high. The 20" LCD I want goes for $700 if I shop, a decent 21" is going for about $500. I plan to spend my time in front of the monitor enjoying a flicker free all digital image, not at a 70 degree angle too itplaying fast twitch games till my eyes burn.
#3) Those 5 moves in 7 years were all in the SF Bay Area, and never once did I think "Man, I need to get a smaller footprint monitor, so I can save on rent!"... Why? because that extra 1 square foot is not optional in a house/apartment.
Didn't say you would save on rent; what you get is an extra two feet of space between you and your TV. Which means more space for you. I would love an extra two feet of space in my apartment, if you don't care, more power to you. Next time I'm in town, I'll drop of some boxes you can store for me, since you clearlly have extra room...
Now, since that seems to be on your plans, and you seem to have a "Champale" budget, I think a CRT is a good choice for you. Just don't assume that your concerns are mine
Nope. Why? Because hiding the fact means that he knows what he did was wrong. Because he admits to it in an interview, its a sign he doesn't view it as wrong. I don't care if he likes pornography, but if he brings it up in an interview, thats a sign he has trouble with determining appropriateness(is that a word?).
It not about giving him a chance to mend his ways, it about the ability to determine where the lines are. I know some of my staff might do this sort of thing, I know some have done this sort of thing. I've made some really dumb hiring decisions, allowed people who were drunk to drive for my company because I trusted my staff would say something and I didn't think it was neccessary. Now, would you allow somebody with DUI on their record to drive for you? Would you waste time administering breathalizers every 4 hours?
Which explains all the dying Cisco 3524's and 2900's I have. Random dead ports, complete lockups, etc. Not that our 3com's are doing any better. For now I'm replacing them with Dell Gigabit switches, cause the price is nice, but I'm looking for something that built for the data-center (Dell's lack an effective backplane interconnect is a big strike). Just wanted to point out Cisco's fail too.
For another, he's clearly subject to certain moral lapses.
I've been given this opportunity before, an applicant admited to hacking into a company to demonstrate his abilities and knowledge; they hired him. While I recognized his potential to help secure our network, could I trust him not to monitor peoples mail for his own amusement, access private data like salaries, "attack" computers of folks he didn't like, or otherwise cause trouble?
It took a slam dunk "Hire him" to a long debate, we wound up not making an offer.
Sort of
The reason those engines rev so high is because of their small displacement. longer strokes mean higher piston speeds, higher piston speeds mean more force on the rods, connecting pins, etc as they accelerate and decelerate twice per revolution, more pistons mean smaller valves, which means lighter valves, which also get accelerated up and down. I had a spreadsheet a while ago that would tell me all these factors, given a certain stroke, max piston speed would be this; you can then figure out at what RPM your engine wil gernade itself. shave this much from the cylinder head and how does the compression ratio change? bore the engine and what happens to the numbers?
The other side of this is that horsepower is a function of rpm; with each fuel/air explosion, the pistons are pushed down with a certain force (torque); the more rpms you run the more explosions, and thus the more power. So the more rpm you can run, the more power, subject to all sorts of real world limits, like the ability to supply fuel and air to the engine, etc.
So all things beeing equal, an engine spinning at 15,000 rpm make more power than one spinning at 12,000 rpm. More cylinders for a given displacement means lighter components, which mean more rpms, etc. The flip side being more cylinders means more components, which means higher failure rates, more expense (12 pricey pistons instead of 10, etc), not to mention certain materials limitations (we can only move the valves so fast before they stretch/bend/etc).
That said, you are right that engine longevity is a major factor. Qualifying engines that need last only 15 laps are accepted practice, and teams are alway strategizeing wether this mode for .5% more power is worth the 3% risk that the engine wont survive the 200 laps (how many laps will be under caution? they hardly count).