Will it run Starcraft, Diablo II, Heroes of Might and Magic I, II, III, and IV, Master of Orion II, all of my Nintendo, SuperNintendo, N64, gameboy, gameboy color, gameboy advance emulators?
probably not. Probably not any of my other favorite PC apps either.
Since Mac OS is now built on Unix, I'm curious about what windows emulation software is out there & how well it works on MacOS. (especially this speedy new machine.) I know that Macs are supposed to be "better" at multimedia editing and such, but I can't think of any "killer apps" for the Mac that aren't available for Windows as well or have functional equivilants.
From my understanding, Adobe Photoshop, Quark Express, and other software which was once the only real reason that many mac users didn't switch to PC's is now offered for the PC and some software developeres are considering dropping their Mac versions. I could be wrong, but that's what I've heard.
All of my friends who once used Macs say they'll never buy another one... some because they didn't like not being able to upgrade the machine as easily, some because they couldn't use the newest software their buddy down the hall on a PC could use... etc.
I just don't see the purpose in buying a fast, yet incompatable computer system. It's like buying a Sun workstation or a really fast Amiga for home use *shrugs*.
What is it that the mac offers for the price that's so compelling to mac users??? It can't be the fruity colors, the wierd form factors, or the candy colored menu options.
I admit Apple has been doing some interesting work for the Ipod, but there are other MP3 players out there -- I prefer an MP3 Cd player for $25 w/ cheap/free w/ rebate CDs to burn than the Ipod, but that's just me. I hear Itunes and other programs are interesting, but really they're not much different than other programs for the PC.
I don't understand why Apple doesn't compete with MS directly by porting to Intel/AMD hardware. Then, we could try out both OS's on the same machine(s) to try them out and possibly dual boot for whichever serves whatever purpose best. I understand that AI-64 and x86-64 technologies are different from IBM's chips to the point where porting the OS may impair its speed, but I'd rather have a generic system which can run multiple OS's than buy a Mac where my only choice if I dislike the mac is to install Linux instead.
I'm not bashing, trolling, or flaming... I'm just honestly curious as to why anyone would choose a Mac. All of my Mac buddies are now AMD/Intel people running either Windows or Linux, and I'm wondering why everyone else who likes macs hasn't done the same. What am I missing? With Macs only making up about 4% of the marketplace for personal computers, there aren't a lot of software companies producing mac software, but I'm assuming many linux programs can run on MacOS now that it's based on unix???
It seems to me that Apple would at least do better by creating a MacOS that runs on top of linux instead of Darwin or merge the two together so that "cool" linux users willing to pay a little extra could have MacOS natively built in. hmm... *shrugs* I dunno.
I guess the gist of it is... sure, the specs sound impressive, but what would I use the machine for that I couldn't use a dual Athlon64 system for? (dual opterons are out now, but expensive... dual athlon64's will be out in September)
I think SCO's lawyer is working on a percentage basis, so their court costs will be low. Also, I'd hope the court case would be over quickly so that the stigma over Linux IP would vanish.
I think our best hope would be for IBM to present a strong defense and have the case thrown out or ask for a summary judgement due to lack of evidence on SCO's part (or weak evidence at least).
It seems that SCO has found code in Linux and System V that is identical, but the origin and IP rights to that code is in question. Also, I don't see how they can prove IBM is the culprit in inserting such code into Linux if it did come from SCO Unix.
I hope for a speed trial and a good laugh at SCO's stock price afterword:-)
You missed my point entirely. Microsoft can save money by killing the IE Mac project because it is a seperate program than IE windows. There's no need to continue wasting time and money on a seperate version for the Mac. I know they're done by seperate teams (seperate OS's... seperate teams... makes sense to me.) My point was that they no longer wish to waste money on multiple projects. One code base for Windows, one code base for IE, etc.
Also, there are bills ready to go on the floor of congress to make English the official language and repeal all laws requiring the feds to accomidate people who speak poor english or no english.
hmm... I remember something about this, but I thought it was a specific King of England at the time who set it at the length of his foot. *shrugs* It'd be interesting to find out where they came up with inches!
My bet is that they intend for future versions of IE to be even more integrated into Windows and don't want to waste programming time on a seperate version for the Mac at a time when the Mac is touting it's Safari program.
Microsoft has already stated the next version of IE will be the last standalone version of IE because they plan to integrate it even more into the OS -- which means windows 9x/Me will finally be left out in the cold when it comes to new web technologies from MS at least.
Everything I've seen that's going on with Microsoft seems to be about creating one code base. Killing windows 9x/Me so that they only have to work on XP/NT, using the XP core for their handhelds and tablet PCs, etc. etc.
They don't see Mac's 2-3% marketshare as being any competition, so they don't need to support that browser anymore. In fact, by removing IE as an option, they're giving people one more reason not to choose a Mac b/c w/ out IE, it may not render web pages the same as IE -- or at all if it's one of those stupid websites that won't allow anything but IE to view it.
I don't see this as strange at all. By removing their products from Macs, they're making windows appear to have more functionality for users (office, IE, etc).
I hope it backfires on them and people learn to do without MS programs;-)
Getting rid of unnecessary workers is a high priority in most businesses.
A friend of mine was once told that illiminating 1 job position on an assembly line at his company would save the company about $80,000 a year when the person's salary, benefits, training, and management overhead from supervising were totalled. If I were to use those same numbers (which granted are arbitrary -- and it's likely more savings for a skilled worker) then 125*80,000 would be over a $10 Million savings for the combined company per year.
Companies are in business to make a profit, which sometimes means getting rid of unnecessary job positions. You don't know if those workers are upper management, janitors, or human resource personel. It's likely that the workers will get a nice severance package and find a job elsewhere where they are needed. (even if it is flipping burgers temporarily until they either find a new job where their skills are needed or learn new skills that are in demand)
I was a worker at a mortgage company when it was baught out by another in a merger... sure some people were laid off, but they got a severance package equal to about 6 months pay plus their company benefits were extended through 6 months after they left & many that left went to work at better jobs just down the street.
Not all layoffs are bad for workers (I know people that jumped at the chance to leave w/ a severance package). Layoffs are a part of business. To say that there is always another way is true, but few would chose the alternatives. Say you have two companies that merge. They each have a human resource department, accounting, and IT department. It's likely that most of the HR department from one or the other would have to go. Also, the upper management in charge of each department would have to be rearranged to where some vice presidents or assistant vice presidents would become unnecessary & be given the old golden parachute.
As for your other options, I don't want to give the systems administrator of one company a job sweeping the hallway because I gave the other systems administrator full control of both companies' network resources. I would rather roll the dice of being the one to get the axe than have my pay and benefits cut by 5 or 10% for SURE, as well.
Jobs are cut for a reason -- they are no longer needed and/or no longer add to the value of the company.
I don't know what Rose-colored glasses you're wearing, but the IT industry has been in a downward spiral for some time now & companies have mergers and layoffs so they can survive and hopefully become more profitable in tough times. Without the merger, it's possible handspring might dry up and everyone there would be out of work. Or, someone else could have baught them and fired half of the workers. Losing only 125 people ain't bad between two businesses of this size.
Mozilla Firebird
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The cool thing about Mozilla Firebird is that you can add extensions to the browser that you want. I'm sure someone could add an extention for bittorrent & then only those that want it could install it. I have almost a dozen extensions (or are they called plugins? I forget) in my Firebird 0.6 that do all sorts of things like block flash ads unless I click on them & filters to block ads and other files from specific domains and subdomains
ex: block all from http://www.whatever.com/ads/* so that I can still get everything from that server except whatever is in the ads directory;-)
Mozilla Firebird will be like a "build your own" browser where you can choose from a lot of add ons without adding bloat to the core browser for everyone.
While I might like to add bittorrent, I don't see any reason for my neighbor, grandma, mom, dad, cousin, uncle, aunt, etc etc... to have that included in their browser be default. Bittorrent is hardly a widely accepted standard on the web at this point, where as FTP is used regularly on websites for downloads (such as Cnet, ZDNet -- okay so Cnet and ZDnet are owned by the same people... lol-- and most other sites w/ files for download
In fact, I hope they strip most components that are unneccessary for normal browsing out of the browser and offer them as add-ons instead.
Wow... and me w/ no mod points -- I'd mod you up! I certainly agree that any company working with user's machines should have some sort of privacy policy for client's machines' data. Anything from a nobel-prize winning idea to picture of someone's wife in nothing but high-heels could be on a machine.
Having said that, I think the Prof was a moron to leave anything incriminating on his office computer -- most places assume the machine and everything on it are the property of the office/university & can take a peek anytime they want or hand it over to a 3rd party for repairs.
Cool beans... er.. potatoes that is. I remember reading about that in high school history class --wow, talk about wasted brain cells.;-) Thanks for the post. I think that's the most devastating example I've heard of... I think something similar happened to a rice crop and a corn crop, but nothing on that scale.
This is an interesting idea... but, how would anyone know what you found unless you told someone in the first place? There are hundreds of gigs of data on PC's these days, and if you're just doing your job -- why would you be snooping to see what multimedia files are on that computer? Unless they have a file folder called "kiddie porn", then... it probably wouldn't be obvious that that material existed -- same for pirated programs and even ripped DVD's or mp3's.
I've worked on computers for over a decade & the only time I've ever gone snooping through jpg files on someone else's computer was when I had family member's computers & I thought they might have some cool vacation pics they wouldn't mind me having a copy of. -- or if I was trying to specifically help them sort jpgs or needed to save what I could from a corrupt or dying hard drive before it failed.
It seems unlikely that anyone could be prosecuted unless there is a law that specifically requires technicians to check for illigal material, even then, it could be difficult to prove that material wasn't copied or d/l AFTER the technician looked at the pc.
I'd be interested in what the laws are on this issue...
Actually, no. This idea of inbreeding causing mutations is generally a myth -- if not an extreme exageration. Mutations exist naturally in nature, but inbreeding can cause recessive traits (mutations)which are normally suppressed by a dominant non-mutated gene to be expressed through mating with someone who also has the same mutation -- giving at least a 25% chance that the recessive trait will be expressed (showing the mutation).
However, the number of fatal or severe defects in genes in the population is very low & when 2 copies of a gene that causes severe noticable deformities do match up, that new individual simply doesn't find a mate -- thus, helping to remove the defective gene from the population. Humans are over 99.9% identical genetically, so the idea that mixing the "same genes" would cause defects is really a myth... it's only mixing those with the same current defects (or future if there are further mutations) that will randomly create problems, but it would take thousands of years for the slight increase in likelyhood to create a mutant population unless people were stupid enough to mate with someone with a severe mutation.
I've heard of a few tribes in africa where people have 4 fingers and 4 toes that are shaped oddly -- but in those tribes, they were forbidden to marry outside the tribe & they were basically forced to marry people within the tribe they didn't like, so... mutation or no mutation, you were gonna mate w/ that person. In a situation like this, people were given no choice but to mate w/ someone with defective genes, so... that doesn't really count.
I believe there are a few diseases which affect the Amish and a few other people, but they are mostly non-lethal and show no outward physical deformity.
Most people don't realize that mutations such as red hair, blond hair, blue eyes, green eyes, white skin, etc. are all recessive mutations caused by inbreeding (with the same population -- nomatter how large the population is, eventually the same genes mix)
The only reason mating with someone who isn't related makes sense is that they may have a different recessive gene than the one you are carrying -- that way neither will be expressed in your offspring b/c there aren't 2 copies of either one. But, the mutations are still there & gives rise to the possibility that your children might be twice as likely to give a mutation to their children -- one of each of the mutations you and your mate gave it. This means that your child will have to mate w/ someone that is neither related to you or our mate in order to avoid mating with someone with the same recessive mutations -- and so on , and so forth, but what this really does is increase the likelyhood that they will have a "bad copy" of a lot of genes, thus increasing the likelyhood that somewhere along the way, they'll mate w/ someone w/ the same mutation and have a mutant offspring.
So, what you have is mating with others which increases genetic errors, yet allows an individual to survive... and mating with relatives which may cause errors that already exist to express themselves more often (I think mating with one's brother or sister gives a 1% higher risk of mutant offspring than with a random stranger), yet are quickly removed from the gene pool (hopefully b/c noone wants to marry a mutant.. lol). Who is to say which is better? At some point, the mutations within a population will reach a saturation point, and all people will have the same likelyhood of having the same mutation... yet, with inbreeding, you can successfully prevent new mutations while attempting to remove the ones you have in your family.
I believe that there's a species of animal that's protected right now... hmm... I think it's the Leopard... maybe the Jaguar... I forget. Seems like it is the Leopard or a specific type of Leopard that's gene pool is over 99.999% identical. They say that they are all healthy and may as well be clones of each other as far as genetic testing goes, but the problem is tha
Really?? I've heard such good things about Pheonix/Firebird. I'm really looking forward to Mozilla using it in future releases (I think starting in release 1.5?). This particular feature was requested in Mozilla about 3 years ago. I'm sure there are other things that required their attention, but I look at it as a user-interface design flaw b/c IE has had it so long, people just expect it to be there.
Thanks for the info! Downloading my first copy of Phoenix/Firebird as we speak!:-)
Well, it depends on your use of it, really. Often, I'll be doing research and just bookmark every site that I come across that seems interesting & that'll take up a lot of the main bookmark list space. Those bookmarks would be just temporary and for only one project, so it wouldn't be worth it to me to create a subdirectory and store them all under that just to delete it later. Often, I'll be working on as many as 5 projects at a time & will have several dozen links that I only want to use once or twice while I'm writing a paper or working on a project, so... Being able to find them isn't a necessity & sorting into subdirectories would be a bit of a pain. I prefer to have them auto-hide after a few days of non-activity & just scroll down to them as needed. (Which is why I'd prefer to have a right-click context menu to delete bookmarks as I go).
I did find the auto-hide annoying at first with XP's start menu, but it "grew on me" & it seldom interferes with my ability to find what I want & actually helps me by not displaying seldom-used system settings and such so that my nephews won't see them, ask what they are, and/or play with them while I'm not looking! lol...
Also, it makes the bookmarks appear less cluttered by removing bookmarks and submenus that I don't regularly use -- which makes finding what I regularly use much simpler.
As for the tabs feature, I find it as useless as the sidebar. I don't see any reason to open a webpage in a tab when I can open it as a new window and click on the start menu "tab" just as easily as I could click on the tab within tabbed windows. It just wastes more screen space by adding the tabs. A program "DeadAIM" that I use with AOL's IM also allows tabbed interfaces. I know a few people that uninstalled it b/c they didn't know that the tabs could be turned off. But, I suppose that's apples to oranges b/c most people enjoy having multiple IM windows open and sometimes have one above or below the other.
I meant specifically within the bookmarks menu -- I dispise the sidebar & I don't care to go into the bookmark manager... I'd rather be able to edit what I see when I click on the bookmarks menu -- another poster mentioned Pheonix/Firebird allows this and has a drag 'n drop interface for sorting them like IE. Sounds good to me since Mozilla is looking to use it instead in future releases!:-)
Re:Email Mozilla about this must have feature
on
Mozilla 1.4b Loosed
·
· Score: 1
It's unfortunate that there is no way to block ads from certain sections of servers -- for instance, instead of blocking all images from www.whatever.com,only block images from www.whatever.com/ads and all subdirectories. That way, sites which host their own ads can have their ads filtered without losing the images we want to see.
I'd also love to have a Flash - filtering feater!:-)
I've begun using Mozilla about 10% of the time because of it's pop-up blocking and ad-blocking features (you can block images from some servers -- which I use to block anything from ad-only servers hehehe). If Mozilla would create context menus for it's bookmarks (favorites) where I could right-click and delete or rename them, I'd use it a LOT more often -- especially if they auto-hid seldom-used links like IE does. Mozilla is a lot faster than IE and loads pages that IE sometimes won't on my cable modem connection (don't know why -- maybe IE isn't as good at rendering some pages or there's a timeout issue that mozilla handles better b/c I can click reload a few times and get IE to view things properly if it doesn't want to, but Mozilla loads the page instantly w/ no trouble while IE might take a few reloads to get it right).
Mozilla has come a long way, but I won't use it as my primary browser until it fixes the bookmarks and perhaps has the ability to block FLASH animations from servers:-)
This is exactly right. Just as you can sue for damages caused by unintended use of a product (like... sayy... when your kid swallows a toy that didn't have a warning label on it to keep it away from small children). There are certain unspoken "contracts" between a buyer and a seller, and if an unspoken contract is broken, the offender can be sued for damages. Courts have long held that there are certain rights that cannot be signed away by a contract (such as a EULA), and therefore many of the statements in Microsoft's EULAs about the company not offering any warrantees may not shield it from being held liable for damages in court.
I recall from my business law class that workers once sued a company who manufactured a type of machine they used at work. The machine had a steel casing around it to prevent people from accessing the moving parts. I don't recall how exactly, but part of the casing was removed by the workers and replaced with a cardboard box (perhaps for easy access), and one day, someone was walking on top of the huge machine and stepped on the cardboard covering. Their leg went right through it, of course, and they lost their leg in the gears below. They sued -- not their company, but the manufacturer of the machine for not clearly labeling that removing the casing (or replacing it w/ another material) could be a safety hazard & WON!!! Do I agree with the ruling personally? no... but, there is an implied contract that states that the manufacturer has a duty to warn the buyer of potential safety hazards. The metal casing was assumed to be protection enough, but there was no warning to the customer that removing it while in operation might be unsafe, thus... they were liable.
I could forsee a case against Microsoft for not giving advice for proper protection against viruses (such as putting up a firewall, using anti-virus software, not opening e-mail attachments from people you don't know & never opening an executable (bat, exe, com, vbs) without knowing exactly what it is, etc. Of course, you couldn't win any damages for physical pain and suffering, but perhaps monetary compensation for work, money, and/or computers lost due to their negligence in warning a user.
hmm... I'd have to ask a lawyer about that b/c it could be considered "common sense" in the computing age, but... hey... if you can win a few million for spilling hot coffee on yourself from a fast-food place, who knows?!?!?;-)
I've heard this mentioned before as a "fan-fiction" idea, but I don't see how it would be any more plausible. If machines exist that are capable of human-like consciousness, it would seem that they could easily manufacture a huge parallel processing computer without any organic parts and not have to worry about feeding humans or giving them an enormous virtual world with constant I/O between human brains. I think the human brain operates at some incredibly slow clock speed like 24 hz -- can't remember exactly, but it's powerful b/c it has so many specialized parts working in parallel. I imagine that robots capable of human-like thought and emotion could engineer a computer that would have faster reaction time and higher computational capabilities than human brains in any case.
That being said, I do think billions of human beings could give off enough heat and bio-electric energy to power a machine (much like a duracel battery as is implied in the movie), yet the idea of that "combined with a form of fusion" does seem rediculous unless the form of fusion is a low-energy form of fusion we haven't discovered yet or perhaps created by some rare element that the machines are unable to use as a sufficient power source alone.
It takes quite a bit of energy to keep the human body at a constant 98.6 degrees internally, so I could see that as being a fuel source so long as the method of feeding the human protiens and nutrients it requires doesn't take a lot of energy. While dead bodies could be liquified by acid or some other means to be fed to the living, there would still need to be some sort of chemical processing to either convert any organic waste back into useful protiens or to harvest new nutrients from some other source (so that the laws of thermodynamics are not violated). Thus, turning a human body essentially into a living furnace with a low heat output. Input nutrients, output heat and electricity.
I still think the whole idea is a bit insane considering single-celled organisms would be much easier to feed & could be engineered to give off a lot of heat -- who needs the brains??? Human bodies wouldn't make great computers or great fuel sources compared to machines or other life forms -- I suppose I can deal with having one unbelievable piece of fiction as long as the rest of the story falls into place.:-)
Because this is a new architecture, I'd be willing to bet that AMD designed it with the need to ramp up the clock speed quickly in order to compete with Intel. Not to say that they'd succeed -- especially with the delays, but generally when teams design a new processor core, they have some idea of a maximum clock speed they'll reach before they have to redesign it. I'm thinking... if the processor used for these tests was an early release of the Athlon 64, the actual production line might pump out chips that have a higher core frequency than this one -- maybe by its september release, AMD will show it has an ace up its sleeve & catch Intel off-guard because the early releases were clocked so low;-)
I can't comment on the model you have, but my experience with Deskjets - 900 series and up- is quite different. I've never had a problem with our 932C , nor have any of my family members, friends, or the university I worked for. (all together, maybe 15 printers of the 900 series -- the rest were old black 'n white only HP's that have been around since not long before we invented the wheel.;-) I forget what model Deskjet my roommates had in college, but theirs worked rather well also (I forget what year they got it 1999?)
I print a lot of stuff, too. Pictures, papers for class, web pages -- probably a lot more than most home users.
I'd recommend an HP over a Lexmark or an Epson anyday. Some Cannons are pretty good -- usually the really old ones or dirt cheap ones. Most of the newer, expensives Cannons have broken within a few months for most folks I know. The rubber track the print heads move on gets jammed or something, I think. I can't say much about "Brother" branded machines, but the only one I've seen was a combo printer/fax/copier and it was junk on delivery -- never worked & was returned. It could have been a fluke, though.
Dude, I agree with you. That's why I didn't reply to the parent post (yours), but the know-it-all who had the technical aspect wrong.
I agree that long-term growth is much more important than short-term profits and hyping stocks to overvalue them temporarily, then selling them off for a profit.
I also agree that ethics are a big problem today in management. Most of these corporate scandals are from hotshot execs that thought they could hide from fiscal reality forever (or at least until they retired to their private island faaaar away from the reach of the law) by manipulating numbers and hiding losses in dummy corporations or by using accounting tricks with inventory. Thankfully, more regulations and background checks should help some fix of the damage and restore confidence in the marketplace.
I do disagree with your interpretation of the motives of entreprenuers & I do believe profit is the #1 motive of all businessmen, although social responsibility and the warm fuzzy feeling of making the world a better place do factor in. I subscribe to the "invisible hand" theory where all people in the world largely work for their own self-interests and by doing so, markets shift and businesses rise and fall or create new products to meet demands. I don't think morality enters into the equation of the dog-eat-dog world of business which is why we have to regulate it with laws and organizations to oversee them & simply trust that owners will refrain from illegal practices out of their own fear of prosecution. (sad, but likely necessary in a system that rewards the most cunning, ruthless backstabbers more than the nice guys just trying to make a difference).
I ain't sayin' it's the greatest system, but it does make people strive to compete to offer lower prices and better products & work harder for more money. I think it's sad that many monopolies have the power to crush little guys with regulations they can't possibly adhere to 'n things like that, but hopefully laws will be made against that sort of behavior -- which is why I'm against corporate funding of political candidates 'n such -- cuz the crooks alter laws to help businesses and not the majority of the people, which is really who should be the ones whose voices are heard when laws are made, but that's another issue;-)
The whole point of investing anything is to see a return on the investment -- a profit. While it's true that some see benefiting humanity or other outcomes as "profitable" such as in non-profit organizations, most businesses operate with the expectation of generating a reasonable profit over time.
Personally, I hate the ups and downs of the stock market daily. I don't see how so many people can value a stock at one thing one minute and something else the next all day every day on news like the war or such things like what the president said one day. I invest for the long-term (decades) because I trust that over time, the value of the company will increase because of responsible management -- and that's usually the case.
Firstly, a business major does not a stock market expert make. Being a business major, you are inhearantly republican economics biased just because that is where all the republicans are. And your post has shown that your understanding of the stock market is from that perspective.
Firstly, the argument on politics is irrelevant as there are democrats and republicans in all my classes. Don't make yourself look even more stupid by denying basic economics and finance. Also, noone is an "expert" on the market. There are simply those of us who are more informed than others. And the parent poster was clearly an uninformed flamer.
Secondly, Since joe stock owner doesn't own, or come close to owning, 51% of the stock, and the board members and officers do (in the real world), Your whole point about voting is mute (except in certain circumstances of companies that this is not the case, which is not as common and doesn't make up for a significant consideration on the discussion).
"Joe stock owner" may not, but if a majority share of the average joes out there wants something, they own most of the company & therefore should have their way. In the real world, the people buying and selling most of the stocks are wealthy people who often do own 2% to 10% of the stock in a company themselves & they are often on the boards of companies which makes them concerned with stock price as well. I don't know where you get your figures from, but most board members combined don't have 51% of the stock of a company. Members are often considered to have an extremely large majority interest when they have only 12%. All stock owners want to either maximise their dividends or increase their stock value -- that's the point of having stock as an investment tool. To say that the "company" shouldn't care whether or not stockholders are happy with the stock prices is rather like saying a country doesn't care if it has oxygen.
Thirdly, your parent wasn't talking about loans or bonds. He is talking about profit sharing. This is common practice in the stock market as I'm sure you are aware. While his argument isn't technically completely correct, the spirit of it is. His claim (if I read it correctly) is that unless you directly invested into the company (and aren't just transferring stocks from someone who transferred stocks from someone who transferred stocks..... from someone who invested originally, because it is the hot thing on the market) then the company has no reason to be greatful, or have any interest in helping you or people like you. You are forgetting that the purpose of selling stocks is to generate funding for corporations, not for hot head business majors wanting to profit from the volatile inflation and deflation rate of shares.
Thirdly, they sure were talking about loans, Which is why I replied to his instead of yours! The poster seems to have the impression that only the "original" investors of a company actually "loaned" the company any money, so all these newbies should shut up and take what the company gives them -- as if the company were some other entity than the stockholders. The "company" as you refer to it is the stockholders. I don't care if anyone is "grateful" -- they're legally required to look after stockholder's interests. His entire point was moot because he didn't know what he was talking about.
Finally, you make an interesting point:
"The initial IPO doesn't mean jack... Noone buys the stock "originally". That is done by an investment banker -- usually a firm that has set up the value of the company and takes a cut of the price before they RESELL it to investors. There is no human being on the planet that has stock that came directly from a company -- that would be illegal. The company gets its original funding from the investment banker -- period. After that, the stock is OWNERSHIP in the company "
While this is true, you have only described the details of the supporting facts that were made in the previous argu
Slashdot Mirror
Will it run Starcraft, Diablo II, Heroes of Might and Magic I, II, III, and IV, Master of Orion II, all of my Nintendo, SuperNintendo, N64, gameboy, gameboy color, gameboy advance emulators?
probably not. Probably not any of my other favorite PC apps either.
Since Mac OS is now built on Unix, I'm curious about what windows emulation software is out there & how well it works on MacOS. (especially this speedy new machine.) I know that Macs are supposed to be "better" at multimedia editing and such, but I can't think of any "killer apps" for the Mac that aren't available for Windows as well or have functional equivilants.
From my understanding, Adobe Photoshop, Quark Express, and other software which was once the only real reason that many mac users didn't switch to PC's is now offered for the PC and some software developeres are considering dropping their Mac versions. I could be wrong, but that's what I've heard.
All of my friends who once used Macs say they'll never buy another one... some because they didn't like not being able to upgrade the machine as easily, some because they couldn't use the newest software their buddy down the hall on a PC could use... etc.
I just don't see the purpose in buying a fast, yet incompatable computer system. It's like buying a Sun workstation or a really fast Amiga for home use *shrugs*.
What is it that the mac offers for the price that's so compelling to mac users??? It can't be the fruity colors, the wierd form factors, or the candy colored menu options.
I admit Apple has been doing some interesting work for the Ipod, but there are other MP3 players out there -- I prefer an MP3 Cd player for $25 w/ cheap/free w/ rebate CDs to burn than the Ipod, but that's just me. I hear Itunes and other programs are interesting, but really they're not much different than other programs for the PC.
I don't understand why Apple doesn't compete with MS directly by porting to Intel/AMD hardware. Then, we could try out both OS's on the same machine(s) to try them out and possibly dual boot for whichever serves whatever purpose best. I understand that AI-64 and x86-64 technologies are different from IBM's chips to the point where porting the OS may impair its speed, but I'd rather have a generic system which can run multiple OS's than buy a Mac where my only choice if I dislike the mac is to install Linux instead.
I'm not bashing, trolling, or flaming... I'm just honestly curious as to why anyone would choose a Mac. All of my Mac buddies are now AMD/Intel people running either Windows or Linux, and I'm wondering why everyone else who likes macs hasn't done the same. What am I missing? With Macs only making up about 4% of the marketplace for personal computers, there aren't a lot of software companies producing mac software, but I'm assuming many linux programs can run on MacOS now that it's based on unix???
It seems to me that Apple would at least do better by creating a MacOS that runs on top of linux instead of Darwin or merge the two together so that "cool" linux users willing to pay a little extra could have MacOS natively built in. hmm... *shrugs* I dunno.
I guess the gist of it is... sure, the specs sound impressive, but what would I use the machine for that I couldn't use a dual Athlon64 system for? (dual opterons are out now, but expensive... dual athlon64's will be out in September)
I think our best hope would be for IBM to present a strong defense and have the case thrown out or ask for a summary judgement due to lack of evidence on SCO's part (or weak evidence at least).
It seems that SCO has found code in Linux and System V that is identical, but the origin and IP rights to that code is in question. Also, I don't see how they can prove IBM is the culprit in inserting such code into Linux if it did come from SCO Unix.
I hope for a speed trial and a good laugh at SCO's stock price afterword :-)
You missed my point entirely. Microsoft can save money by killing the IE Mac project because it is a seperate program than IE windows. There's no need to continue wasting time and money on a seperate version for the Mac. I know they're done by seperate teams (seperate OS's... seperate teams... makes sense to me.) My point was that they no longer wish to waste money on multiple projects. One code base for Windows, one code base for IE, etc.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFOR D/langleg.htm#State
Also, there are bills ready to go on the floor of congress to make English the official language and repeal all laws requiring the feds to accomidate people who speak poor english or no english.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFOR D/langleg.htm#108th
I'm sure it'll eventually pass. If not now, then soon.
hmm... I remember something about this, but I thought it was a specific King of England at the time who set it at the length of his foot. *shrugs* It'd be interesting to find out where they came up with inches!
Microsoft has already stated the next version of IE will be the last standalone version of IE because they plan to integrate it even more into the OS -- which means windows 9x/Me will finally be left out in the cold when it comes to new web technologies from MS at least.
Everything I've seen that's going on with Microsoft seems to be about creating one code base. Killing windows 9x/Me so that they only have to work on XP/NT, using the XP core for their handhelds and tablet PCs, etc. etc.
They don't see Mac's 2-3% marketshare as being any competition, so they don't need to support that browser anymore. In fact, by removing IE as an option, they're giving people one more reason not to choose a Mac b/c w/ out IE, it may not render web pages the same as IE -- or at all if it's one of those stupid websites that won't allow anything but IE to view it.
I don't see this as strange at all. By removing their products from Macs, they're making windows appear to have more functionality for users (office, IE, etc).
I hope it backfires on them and people learn to do without MS programs ;-)
A friend of mine was once told that illiminating 1 job position on an assembly line at his company would save the company about $80,000 a year when the person's salary, benefits, training, and management overhead from supervising were totalled. If I were to use those same numbers (which granted are arbitrary -- and it's likely more savings for a skilled worker) then 125*80,000 would be over a $10 Million savings for the combined company per year.
Companies are in business to make a profit, which sometimes means getting rid of unnecessary job positions. You don't know if those workers are upper management, janitors, or human resource personel. It's likely that the workers will get a nice severance package and find a job elsewhere where they are needed. (even if it is flipping burgers temporarily until they either find a new job where their skills are needed or learn new skills that are in demand)
I was a worker at a mortgage company when it was baught out by another in a merger... sure some people were laid off, but they got a severance package equal to about 6 months pay plus their company benefits were extended through 6 months after they left & many that left went to work at better jobs just down the street.
Not all layoffs are bad for workers (I know people that jumped at the chance to leave w/ a severance package). Layoffs are a part of business. To say that there is always another way is true, but few would chose the alternatives. Say you have two companies that merge. They each have a human resource department, accounting, and IT department. It's likely that most of the HR department from one or the other would have to go. Also, the upper management in charge of each department would have to be rearranged to where some vice presidents or assistant vice presidents would become unnecessary & be given the old golden parachute.
As for your other options, I don't want to give the systems administrator of one company a job sweeping the hallway because I gave the other systems administrator full control of both companies' network resources. I would rather roll the dice of being the one to get the axe than have my pay and benefits cut by 5 or 10% for SURE, as well.
Jobs are cut for a reason -- they are no longer needed and/or no longer add to the value of the company.
I don't know what Rose-colored glasses you're wearing, but the IT industry has been in a downward spiral for some time now & companies have mergers and layoffs so they can survive and hopefully become more profitable in tough times. Without the merger, it's possible handspring might dry up and everyone there would be out of work. Or, someone else could have baught them and fired half of the workers. Losing only 125 people ain't bad between two businesses of this size.
ex: block all from http://www.whatever.com/ads/* so that I can still get everything from that server except whatever is in the ads directory ;-)
Mozilla Firebird will be like a "build your own" browser where you can choose from a lot of add ons without adding bloat to the core browser for everyone.
While I might like to add bittorrent, I don't see any reason for my neighbor, grandma, mom, dad, cousin, uncle, aunt, etc etc... to have that included in their browser be default. Bittorrent is hardly a widely accepted standard on the web at this point, where as FTP is used regularly on websites for downloads (such as Cnet, ZDNet -- okay so Cnet and ZDnet are owned by the same people... lol-- and most other sites w/ files for download
In fact, I hope they strip most components that are unneccessary for normal browsing out of the browser and offer them as add-ons instead.
Having said that, I think the Prof was a moron to leave anything incriminating on his office computer -- most places assume the machine and everything on it are the property of the office/university & can take a peek anytime they want or hand it over to a 3rd party for repairs.
Slashdot??? One-sided? nooooo *sarcasm* lol.
Cool beans... er.. potatoes that is. I remember reading about that in high school history class --wow, talk about wasted brain cells. ;-) Thanks for the post. I think that's the most devastating example I've heard of... I think something similar happened to a rice crop and a corn crop, but nothing on that scale.
Thanks! I knew it was one of those darned overgrown cats... lol
I've worked on computers for over a decade & the only time I've ever gone snooping through jpg files on someone else's computer was when I had family member's computers & I thought they might have some cool vacation pics they wouldn't mind me having a copy of. -- or if I was trying to specifically help them sort jpgs or needed to save what I could from a corrupt or dying hard drive before it failed.
It seems unlikely that anyone could be prosecuted unless there is a law that specifically requires technicians to check for illigal material, even then, it could be difficult to prove that material wasn't copied or d/l AFTER the technician looked at the pc.
I'd be interested in what the laws are on this issue...
However, the number of fatal or severe defects in genes in the population is very low & when 2 copies of a gene that causes severe noticable deformities do match up, that new individual simply doesn't find a mate -- thus, helping to remove the defective gene from the population. Humans are over 99.9% identical genetically, so the idea that mixing the "same genes" would cause defects is really a myth... it's only mixing those with the same current defects (or future if there are further mutations) that will randomly create problems, but it would take thousands of years for the slight increase in likelyhood to create a mutant population unless people were stupid enough to mate with someone with a severe mutation.
I've heard of a few tribes in africa where people have 4 fingers and 4 toes that are shaped oddly -- but in those tribes, they were forbidden to marry outside the tribe & they were basically forced to marry people within the tribe they didn't like, so... mutation or no mutation, you were gonna mate w/ that person. In a situation like this, people were given no choice but to mate w/ someone with defective genes, so... that doesn't really count.
I believe there are a few diseases which affect the Amish and a few other people, but they are mostly non-lethal and show no outward physical deformity.
Most people don't realize that mutations such as red hair, blond hair, blue eyes, green eyes, white skin, etc. are all recessive mutations caused by inbreeding (with the same population -- nomatter how large the population is, eventually the same genes mix)
The only reason mating with someone who isn't related makes sense is that they may have a different recessive gene than the one you are carrying -- that way neither will be expressed in your offspring b/c there aren't 2 copies of either one. But, the mutations are still there & gives rise to the possibility that your children might be twice as likely to give a mutation to their children -- one of each of the mutations you and your mate gave it. This means that your child will have to mate w/ someone that is neither related to you or our mate in order to avoid mating with someone with the same recessive mutations -- and so on , and so forth, but what this really does is increase the likelyhood that they will have a "bad copy" of a lot of genes, thus increasing the likelyhood that somewhere along the way, they'll mate w/ someone w/ the same mutation and have a mutant offspring.
So, what you have is mating with others which increases genetic errors, yet allows an individual to survive... and mating with relatives which may cause errors that already exist to express themselves more often (I think mating with one's brother or sister gives a 1% higher risk of mutant offspring than with a random stranger), yet are quickly removed from the gene pool (hopefully b/c noone wants to marry a mutant.. lol). Who is to say which is better? At some point, the mutations within a population will reach a saturation point, and all people will have the same likelyhood of having the same mutation... yet, with inbreeding, you can successfully prevent new mutations while attempting to remove the ones you have in your family.
I believe that there's a species of animal that's protected right now... hmm... I think it's the Leopard... maybe the Jaguar... I forget. Seems like it is the Leopard or a specific type of Leopard that's gene pool is over 99.999% identical. They say that they are all healthy and may as well be clones of each other as far as genetic testing goes, but the problem is tha
I agree -- I use auto-hide for the taskbar :-)
Thanks for the info! Downloading my first copy of Phoenix/Firebird as we speak! :-)
I did find the auto-hide annoying at first with XP's start menu, but it "grew on me" & it seldom interferes with my ability to find what I want & actually helps me by not displaying seldom-used system settings and such so that my nephews won't see them, ask what they are, and/or play with them while I'm not looking! lol...
Also, it makes the bookmarks appear less cluttered by removing bookmarks and submenus that I don't regularly use -- which makes finding what I regularly use much simpler.
As for the tabs feature, I find it as useless as the sidebar. I don't see any reason to open a webpage in a tab when I can open it as a new window and click on the start menu "tab" just as easily as I could click on the tab within tabbed windows. It just wastes more screen space by adding the tabs. A program "DeadAIM" that I use with AOL's IM also allows tabbed interfaces. I know a few people that uninstalled it b/c they didn't know that the tabs could be turned off. But, I suppose that's apples to oranges b/c most people enjoy having multiple IM windows open and sometimes have one above or below the other.
I meant specifically within the bookmarks menu -- I dispise the sidebar & I don't care to go into the bookmark manager... I'd rather be able to edit what I see when I click on the bookmarks menu -- another poster mentioned Pheonix/Firebird allows this and has a drag 'n drop interface for sorting them like IE. Sounds good to me since Mozilla is looking to use it instead in future releases! :-)
I'd also love to have a Flash - filtering feater! :-)
Mozilla has come a long way, but I won't use it as my primary browser until it fixes the bookmarks and perhaps has the ability to block FLASH animations from servers :-)
I recall from my business law class that workers once sued a company who manufactured a type of machine they used at work. The machine had a steel casing around it to prevent people from accessing the moving parts. I don't recall how exactly, but part of the casing was removed by the workers and replaced with a cardboard box (perhaps for easy access), and one day, someone was walking on top of the huge machine and stepped on the cardboard covering. Their leg went right through it, of course, and they lost their leg in the gears below. They sued -- not their company, but the manufacturer of the machine for not clearly labeling that removing the casing (or replacing it w/ another material) could be a safety hazard & WON!!! Do I agree with the ruling personally? no... but, there is an implied contract that states that the manufacturer has a duty to warn the buyer of potential safety hazards. The metal casing was assumed to be protection enough, but there was no warning to the customer that removing it while in operation might be unsafe, thus... they were liable.
I could forsee a case against Microsoft for not giving advice for proper protection against viruses (such as putting up a firewall, using anti-virus software, not opening e-mail attachments from people you don't know & never opening an executable (bat, exe, com, vbs) without knowing exactly what it is, etc. Of course, you couldn't win any damages for physical pain and suffering, but perhaps monetary compensation for work, money, and/or computers lost due to their negligence in warning a user.
hmm... I'd have to ask a lawyer about that b/c it could be considered "common sense" in the computing age, but... hey... if you can win a few million for spilling hot coffee on yourself from a fast-food place, who knows?!?!? ;-)
That being said, I do think billions of human beings could give off enough heat and bio-electric energy to power a machine (much like a duracel battery as is implied in the movie), yet the idea of that "combined with a form of fusion" does seem rediculous unless the form of fusion is a low-energy form of fusion we haven't discovered yet or perhaps created by some rare element that the machines are unable to use as a sufficient power source alone.
It takes quite a bit of energy to keep the human body at a constant 98.6 degrees internally, so I could see that as being a fuel source so long as the method of feeding the human protiens and nutrients it requires doesn't take a lot of energy. While dead bodies could be liquified by acid or some other means to be fed to the living, there would still need to be some sort of chemical processing to either convert any organic waste back into useful protiens or to harvest new nutrients from some other source (so that the laws of thermodynamics are not violated). Thus, turning a human body essentially into a living furnace with a low heat output. Input nutrients, output heat and electricity.
I still think the whole idea is a bit insane considering single-celled organisms would be much easier to feed & could be engineered to give off a lot of heat -- who needs the brains??? Human bodies wouldn't make great computers or great fuel sources compared to machines or other life forms -- I suppose I can deal with having one unbelievable piece of fiction as long as the rest of the story falls into place. :-)
just a theory :-)
I print a lot of stuff, too. Pictures, papers for class, web pages -- probably a lot more than most home users.
I'd recommend an HP over a Lexmark or an Epson anyday. Some Cannons are pretty good -- usually the really old ones or dirt cheap ones. Most of the newer, expensives Cannons have broken within a few months for most folks I know. The rubber track the print heads move on gets jammed or something, I think. I can't say much about "Brother" branded machines, but the only one I've seen was a combo printer/fax/copier and it was junk on delivery -- never worked & was returned. It could have been a fluke, though.
I agree that long-term growth is much more important than short-term profits and hyping stocks to overvalue them temporarily, then selling them off for a profit.
I also agree that ethics are a big problem today in management. Most of these corporate scandals are from hotshot execs that thought they could hide from fiscal reality forever (or at least until they retired to their private island faaaar away from the reach of the law) by manipulating numbers and hiding losses in dummy corporations or by using accounting tricks with inventory. Thankfully, more regulations and background checks should help some fix of the damage and restore confidence in the marketplace.
I do disagree with your interpretation of the motives of entreprenuers & I do believe profit is the #1 motive of all businessmen, although social responsibility and the warm fuzzy feeling of making the world a better place do factor in. I subscribe to the "invisible hand" theory where all people in the world largely work for their own self-interests and by doing so, markets shift and businesses rise and fall or create new products to meet demands. I don't think morality enters into the equation of the dog-eat-dog world of business which is why we have to regulate it with laws and organizations to oversee them & simply trust that owners will refrain from illegal practices out of their own fear of prosecution. (sad, but likely necessary in a system that rewards the most cunning, ruthless backstabbers more than the nice guys just trying to make a difference).
I ain't sayin' it's the greatest system, but it does make people strive to compete to offer lower prices and better products & work harder for more money. I think it's sad that many monopolies have the power to crush little guys with regulations they can't possibly adhere to 'n things like that, but hopefully laws will be made against that sort of behavior -- which is why I'm against corporate funding of political candidates 'n such -- cuz the crooks alter laws to help businesses and not the majority of the people, which is really who should be the ones whose voices are heard when laws are made, but that's another issue ;-)
The whole point of investing anything is to see a return on the investment -- a profit. While it's true that some see benefiting humanity or other outcomes as "profitable" such as in non-profit organizations, most businesses operate with the expectation of generating a reasonable profit over time.
Personally, I hate the ups and downs of the stock market daily. I don't see how so many people can value a stock at one thing one minute and something else the next all day every day on news like the war or such things like what the president said one day. I invest for the long-term (decades) because I trust that over time, the value of the company will increase because of responsible management -- and that's usually the case.
Firstly, the argument on politics is irrelevant as there are democrats and republicans in all my classes. Don't make yourself look even more stupid by denying basic economics and finance. Also, noone is an "expert" on the market. There are simply those of us who are more informed than others. And the parent poster was clearly an uninformed flamer.
Secondly, Since joe stock owner doesn't own, or come close to owning, 51% of the stock, and the board members and officers do (in the real world), Your whole point about voting is mute (except in certain circumstances of companies that this is not the case, which is not as common and doesn't make up for a significant consideration on the discussion).
"Joe stock owner" may not, but if a majority share of the average joes out there wants something, they own most of the company & therefore should have their way. In the real world, the people buying and selling most of the stocks are wealthy people who often do own 2% to 10% of the stock in a company themselves & they are often on the boards of companies which makes them concerned with stock price as well. I don't know where you get your figures from, but most board members combined don't have 51% of the stock of a company. Members are often considered to have an extremely large majority interest when they have only 12%. All stock owners want to either maximise their dividends or increase their stock value -- that's the point of having stock as an investment tool. To say that the "company" shouldn't care whether or not stockholders are happy with the stock prices is rather like saying a country doesn't care if it has oxygen.
Thirdly, your parent wasn't talking about loans or bonds. He is talking about profit sharing. This is common practice in the stock market as I'm sure you are aware. While his argument isn't technically completely correct, the spirit of it is. His claim (if I read it correctly) is that unless you directly invested into the company (and aren't just transferring stocks from someone who transferred stocks from someone who transferred stocks..... from someone who invested originally, because it is the hot thing on the market) then the company has no reason to be greatful, or have any interest in helping you or people like you. You are forgetting that the purpose of selling stocks is to generate funding for corporations, not for hot head business majors wanting to profit from the volatile inflation and deflation rate of shares.
Thirdly, they sure were talking about loans, Which is why I replied to his instead of yours! The poster seems to have the impression that only the "original" investors of a company actually "loaned" the company any money, so all these newbies should shut up and take what the company gives them -- as if the company were some other entity than the stockholders. The "company" as you refer to it is the stockholders. I don't care if anyone is "grateful" -- they're legally required to look after stockholder's interests. His entire point was moot because he didn't know what he was talking about.
Finally, you make an interesting point:
"The initial IPO doesn't mean jack... Noone buys the stock "originally". That is done by an investment banker -- usually a firm that has set up the value of the company and takes a cut of the price before they RESELL it to investors. There is no human being on the planet that has stock that came directly from a company -- that would be illegal. The company gets its original funding from the investment banker -- period. After that, the stock is OWNERSHIP in the company " While this is true, you have only described the details of the supporting facts that were made in the previous argu