Most of Paul Allen's money was from inflated Microsoft stock prices. Not actual money from Microsoft. Money from selling stock comes from investors and not Microsoft customers.
And had Microsoft's practices been more, uh... responsible, their performance in the market wouldn't have been as good, they wouldn't have achieved the same level of dominance they did, and subsequently investors wouldn't have valued Microsoft's stock so high.
So while technically you're correct, the money Paul Allen made from Microsoft is only one or two steps removed from the actual business practices (eg: Microsoft tax) of the corporation.
For people using real standards, 200.000 feet is 60.960 meter
Kilometers.
No... meters. Most places in Europe use a decimal point as the thousands separator -- so $10,000.00 here becomes $10.000,00 in Europe. But even if you ignore this fact, the original poster is still correct. After all, 200.000 feet (200 feet to six significant digits) is equal to 60.960 meters (60 meters, 96.0 centimeters).
Of course, in North American-speak, he meant that 200,000 feet is 60,960 meters.
It's a general rule of thumb, not a universal truth. But, as always, the actions of the few have an impact on the many. For example, if you only knew French people who were obnoxious, pretentious cheese eaters you might think that all French people are like that. Or if you knew some awful Chinese drivers, you might think that all billion+ Chinese people must be universally awful drivers. We have stereotypes just as they do.
No, no... you've got it all wrong. You need to highlight your Americancy by throwing in some of your own country's words:
Well shizzle my nizzle, but y'all better listen to this guy as y'aint from around here... he knows what he's talking aboot, uh-huh. Fo' True, a-yup, that'll learn ya's. Y'all come back now, y'hear?
Reminds me of these two women (mother and daughter, I think) I saw in Jerusalem a few months ago, essentially wearing Canadian flags held together by random pieces of clothing. One, apparently feeling her University of Waterloo hat might not be sufficient, had safety-pinned a Canadian flag patch to the side.
If you've ever done a lot of traveling abroad, you'd be surprised to find the number of *Americans* who stick Canadian flags on their backpacks, etc. The general rule is that Canadians are much better respected globally than Americans for whatever reason.
However I dont think the canada numbers are skewed by not counting people who have been out of work long enough to stop getting unemployment or who have had to take a minimum wage job inorder to stay alive. I see and know more unemployed people then the government claims there are, for some reason I trust myself more then them.
What the hell? Just because your sample size of maybe 50 people includes perhaps 15 unemployed people, this means that the government is wrong and you actually have a better grasp of the situation of an entire country?
Arbitrary age restrictions like these, especially over something as innocuous as information, are plainly bullshit.
You mean like barring something innocuous like a woman's breast on TV and imposing huge fines on the network which showed it? Or preventing children from seeing a movie with innocuous nudity in it? It's not just China where censorship happens over "innocuous information".
We don't? I was almost certain that we did, being that anything anyone can say would insult someone somewhere...
No, you don't have to. It's a choice, like anything else. It's one thing to say something which you *know* is offensive within a certain group -- there's no real need to purposely insult others. But if you're verbally walking on egg shells so that you don't potentially offend anyone at all, what the hell's the point of speaking then?
As long as you're not saying things which are knowingly inflammatory, then someone's potential reaction to what you have to say is their own issue. What if *I* am offended by your politically correct choice of words? Don't *my* sensitivities count too? Where do you draw the line?
Insulting? Only for the easily insulted. I read the post as being very respectful of privacy advocates, and the tinfoil hat reference is one I've used myself -- and it came across as acknowledging an inside joke.
Honestly though... learn to react to the content presented, not the presentation itself. If everybody had to double-check every word to make sure they're not potentially offending any sensitive people out there, the world would really suck.
Normally, I don't even notice those banner ads. And I don't subscribe, so I don't know if there are any benefits to showing them. As to whether it's good or bad for you, judge for yourself. For me, an ad is relevant if I happen to be in the market for what they're advertising. Otherwise, like you, I don't even consider it.
% openssl speed rsa dsa md5 To get the most accurate results, try to run this program when this computer is idle. Doing md5 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 1104593 md5's in 3.00s Doing md5 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 940257 md5's in 3.04s Doing md5 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 660215 md5's in 3.00s Doing md5 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 301285 md5's in 2.98s Doing md5 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 49740 md5's in 3.04s Doing 512 bit private rsa's for 10s: 6927 512 bit private RSA's in 9.89s Doing 512 bit public rsa's for 10s: 70179 512 bit public RSA's in 10.01s Doing 1024 bit private rsa's for 10s: 1323 1024 bit private RSA's in 9.92s Doing 1024 bit public rsa's for 10s: 24115 1024 bit public RSA's in 9.99s Doing 2048 bit private rsa's for 10s: 214 2048 bit private RSA's in 9.98s Doing 2048 bit public rsa's for 10s: 7332 2048 bit public RSA's in 10.06s Doing 4096 bit private rsa's for 10s: 32 4096 bit private RSA's in 10.02s Doing 4096 bit public rsa's for 10s: 2098 4096 bit public RSA's in 9.91s Doing 512 bit sign dsa's for 10s: 8004 512 bit DSA signs in 9.89s Doing 512 bit verify dsa's for 10s: 6611 512 bit DSA verify in 10.00s Doing 1024 bit sign dsa's for 10s: 2596 1024 bit DSA signs in 9.98s Doing 1024 bit verify dsa's for 10s: 2112 1024 bit DSA verify in 9.97s OpenSSL 0.9.7b 10 Apr 2003 built on: Fri Mar 26 15:00:34 PST 2004 options:bn(64,32) md2(int) rc4(ptr,char) des(idx,cisc,16,long) aes(partial) blowfish(ptr) compiler: cc -arch i386 -arch ppc -g -Os -pipe -Wno-precomp -arch i386 -arch ppc -pipe -DOPENSSL_NO_IDEA -DFAR= available timing options: TIMEB USE_TOD HZ=100 [sysconf value] timing function used: getrusage The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed. type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes md5 5891.16k 19794.88k 56338.35k 103528.81k 134036.21k sign verify sign/s verify/s rsa 512 bits 0.0014s 0.0001s 700.4 7010.9 rsa 1024 bits 0.0075s 0.0004s 133.4 2413.9 rsa 2048 bits 0.0466s 0.0014s 21.4 728.8 rsa 4096 bits 0.3131s 0.0047s 3.2 211.7 sign verify sign/s verify/s dsa 512 bits 0.0012s 0.0015s 809.3 661.1 dsa 1024 bits 0.0038s 0.0047s 260.1 211.8
Well, the Sony Ericsson T616 (or equivalent, depending on network) does all that and more, except perhaps for your pricepoint. However, if you're willing to get locked into a contract, perhaps you can find a carrier willing to sell it to you for $150 or less.
Well, there's about a 1 in 10^13 chance of that happening for the actual number. Plus, you'd need to get the expiry date correct. Assuming a conservative 2 year window for month/year combinations, this makes it 24 times less likely you'd stumble upon a valid one. Oh, and not to mention the name wouldn't match. Suffice it to say I don't think you'd ever hit upon a valid credit card number with matching expiry in your lifetime.
Dumbass... I never said they had your home phone number. Didn't you read the part about "likely from your home number"? But even if you missed that, surely you read the part later on where I recommended calling from a phone booth?
And the summaries always contain accurate information, right? It's not like the editors would have called up the number to verify the information (they don't even check links!) so, while this may be legitimate, it *is* possible to Joe-job someone using Slashdot.
If you're reading this, dial 1-800-328-9795. One call won't hurt.
Or will it? Now that you've called them, they have your phone number -- ANI displays your number even if you block caller id from being sent. Because you called them, likely from your home number, doesn't that consitute a business relationship with them? Perhaps now you'll start getting tons of phone calls to your number, and they won't be unsolicited.
The best thing is to write down the number and take it with you. If you happen to pass by a phone booth (or hotel courtesy phone, or...) on the way to lunch or something, pick it up and make the call.
None of the reviews (eg: this one) talk about a Fulci character. The main character is James Earl Cash. The only link for Don Emilio Fulci in Google is a game called Headhunt, and doesn't appear to be the same as Manhunt. Fulci, in Headhunt, is the father of one of the character's girlfriend.
I am currently going by the name "Duke Nukem", and have issued a date when my "Forever" doomsday device will be unleashed upon the world! Fortunately, everybody will think it'll never happen, thus my plan will come to fruition!
Slashdot Mirror
I must have missed the news about the government rounding up Jewish people.
Jewish people? Aren't they of Middle Eastern descent?
Most of Paul Allen's money was from inflated Microsoft stock prices. Not actual money from Microsoft. Money from selling stock comes from investors and not Microsoft customers.
And had Microsoft's practices been more, uh... responsible, their performance in the market wouldn't have been as good, they wouldn't have achieved the same level of dominance they did, and subsequently investors wouldn't have valued Microsoft's stock so high.
So while technically you're correct, the money Paul Allen made from Microsoft is only one or two steps removed from the actual business practices (eg: Microsoft tax) of the corporation.
No... meters. Most places in Europe use a decimal point as the thousands separator -- so $10,000.00 here becomes $10.000,00 in Europe. But even if you ignore this fact, the original poster is still correct. After all, 200.000 feet (200 feet to six significant digits) is equal to 60.960 meters (60 meters, 96.0 centimeters).
Of course, in North American-speak, he meant that 200,000 feet is 60,960 meters.
It's a general rule of thumb, not a universal truth. But, as always, the actions of the few have an impact on the many. For example, if you only knew French people who were obnoxious, pretentious cheese eaters you might think that all French people are like that. Or if you knew some awful Chinese drivers, you might think that all billion+ Chinese people must be universally awful drivers. We have stereotypes just as they do.
No, but wait for Slashsdot infomercials. That will be a special section paid for by advertisers which will write the articles on their new products.
So you mean now they'll actually differentiate the paid placements rather than just passing them off as regular articles?
No, no... you've got it all wrong. You need to highlight your Americancy by throwing in some of your own country's words:
Well shizzle my nizzle, but y'all better listen to this guy as y'aint from around here... he knows what he's talking aboot, uh-huh. Fo' True, a-yup, that'll learn ya's. Y'all come back now, y'hear?
Reminds me of these two women (mother and daughter, I think) I saw in Jerusalem a few months ago, essentially wearing Canadian flags held together by random pieces of clothing. One, apparently feeling her University of Waterloo hat might not be sufficient, had safety-pinned a Canadian flag patch to the side.
If you've ever done a lot of traveling abroad, you'd be surprised to find the number of *Americans* who stick Canadian flags on their backpacks, etc. The general rule is that Canadians are much better respected globally than Americans for whatever reason.
However I dont think the canada numbers are skewed by not counting people who have been out of work long enough to stop getting unemployment or who have had to take a minimum wage job inorder to stay alive. I see and know more unemployed people then the government claims there are, for some reason I trust myself more then them.
What the hell? Just because your sample size of maybe 50 people includes perhaps 15 unemployed people, this means that the government is wrong and you actually have a better grasp of the situation of an entire country?
Arbitrary age restrictions like these, especially over something as innocuous as information, are plainly bullshit.
You mean like barring something innocuous like a woman's breast on TV and imposing huge fines on the network which showed it? Or preventing children from seeing a movie with innocuous nudity in it? It's not just China where censorship happens over "innocuous information".
Google weighs in on the answer as well.
Duke Nukem Forever is "ready"!
We don't? I was almost certain that we did, being that anything anyone can say would insult someone somewhere...
No, you don't have to. It's a choice, like anything else. It's one thing to say something which you *know* is offensive within a certain group -- there's no real need to purposely insult others. But if you're verbally walking on egg shells so that you don't potentially offend anyone at all, what the hell's the point of speaking then?
As long as you're not saying things which are knowingly inflammatory, then someone's potential reaction to what you have to say is their own issue. What if *I* am offended by your politically correct choice of words? Don't *my* sensitivities count too? Where do you draw the line?
Insulting? Only for the easily insulted. I read the post as being very respectful of privacy advocates, and the tinfoil hat reference is one I've used myself -- and it came across as acknowledging an inside joke.
Honestly though... learn to react to the content presented, not the presentation itself. If everybody had to double-check every word to make sure they're not potentially offending any sensitive people out there, the world would really suck.
Normally, I don't even notice those banner ads. And I don't subscribe, so I don't know if there are any benefits to showing them. As to whether it's good or bad for you, judge for yourself. For me, an ad is relevant if I happen to be in the market for what they're advertising. Otherwise, like you, I don't even consider it.
Dual 1.25 GHz PowerMac, 1GB RAM:
% openssl speed rsa dsa md5
To get the most accurate results, try to run this
program when this computer is idle.
Doing md5 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 1104593 md5's in 3.00s
Doing md5 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 940257 md5's in 3.04s
Doing md5 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 660215 md5's in 3.00s
Doing md5 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 301285 md5's in 2.98s
Doing md5 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 49740 md5's in 3.04s
Doing 512 bit private rsa's for 10s: 6927 512 bit private RSA's in 9.89s
Doing 512 bit public rsa's for 10s: 70179 512 bit public RSA's in 10.01s
Doing 1024 bit private rsa's for 10s: 1323 1024 bit private RSA's in 9.92s
Doing 1024 bit public rsa's for 10s: 24115 1024 bit public RSA's in 9.99s
Doing 2048 bit private rsa's for 10s: 214 2048 bit private RSA's in 9.98s
Doing 2048 bit public rsa's for 10s: 7332 2048 bit public RSA's in 10.06s
Doing 4096 bit private rsa's for 10s: 32 4096 bit private RSA's in 10.02s
Doing 4096 bit public rsa's for 10s: 2098 4096 bit public RSA's in 9.91s
Doing 512 bit sign dsa's for 10s: 8004 512 bit DSA signs in 9.89s
Doing 512 bit verify dsa's for 10s: 6611 512 bit DSA verify in 10.00s
Doing 1024 bit sign dsa's for 10s: 2596 1024 bit DSA signs in 9.98s
Doing 1024 bit verify dsa's for 10s: 2112 1024 bit DSA verify in 9.97s
OpenSSL 0.9.7b 10 Apr 2003
built on: Fri Mar 26 15:00:34 PST 2004
options:bn(64,32) md2(int) rc4(ptr,char) des(idx,cisc,16,long) aes(partial) blowfish(ptr)
compiler: cc -arch i386 -arch ppc -g -Os -pipe -Wno-precomp -arch i386 -arch ppc -pipe -DOPENSSL_NO_IDEA -DFAR=
available timing options: TIMEB USE_TOD HZ=100 [sysconf value]
timing function used: getrusage
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes
md5 5891.16k 19794.88k 56338.35k 103528.81k 134036.21k
sign verify sign/s verify/s
rsa 512 bits 0.0014s 0.0001s 700.4 7010.9
rsa 1024 bits 0.0075s 0.0004s 133.4 2413.9
rsa 2048 bits 0.0466s 0.0014s 21.4 728.8
rsa 4096 bits 0.3131s 0.0047s 3.2 211.7
sign verify sign/s verify/s
dsa 512 bits 0.0012s 0.0015s 809.3 661.1
dsa 1024 bits 0.0038s 0.0047s 260.1 211.8
If you're interested in Intel's future processors and how they'll be numbered, please look at the handy chart available here.
Well, the Sony Ericsson T616 (or equivalent, depending on network) does all that and more, except perhaps for your pricepoint. However, if you're willing to get locked into a contract, perhaps you can find a carrier willing to sell it to you for $150 or less.
Well, there's about a 1 in 10^13 chance of that happening for the actual number. Plus, you'd need to get the expiry date correct. Assuming a conservative 2 year window for month/year combinations, this makes it 24 times less likely you'd stumble upon a valid one. Oh, and not to mention the name wouldn't match. Suffice it to say I don't think you'd ever hit upon a valid credit card number with matching expiry in your lifetime.
Dumbass... I never said they had your home phone number. Didn't you read the part about "likely from your home number"? But even if you missed that, surely you read the part later on where I recommended calling from a phone booth?
And the summaries always contain accurate information, right? It's not like the editors would have called up the number to verify the information (they don't even check links!) so, while this may be legitimate, it *is* possible to Joe-job someone using Slashdot.
If you're reading this, dial 1-800-328-9795. One call won't hurt.
Or will it? Now that you've called them, they have your phone number -- ANI displays your number even if you block caller id from being sent. Because you called them, likely from your home number, doesn't that consitute a business relationship with them? Perhaps now you'll start getting tons of phone calls to your number, and they won't be unsolicited.
The best thing is to write down the number and take it with you. If you happen to pass by a phone booth (or hotel courtesy phone, or...) on the way to lunch or something, pick it up and make the call.
Got a surprise for you: Airphone is on the way OUT.
And good riddance.
Doh! Ignore this... next time I'll learn to read. :)
None of the reviews (eg: this one) talk about a Fulci character. The main character is James Earl Cash. The only link for Don Emilio Fulci in Google is a game called Headhunt, and doesn't appear to be the same as Manhunt. Fulci, in Headhunt, is the father of one of the character's girlfriend.
I am currently going by the name "Duke Nukem", and have issued a date when my "Forever" doomsday device will be unleashed upon the world! Fortunately, everybody will think it'll never happen, thus my plan will come to fruition!