Does anyone actually WANT to live in a high density residential building? A place where you can't bbq, fly a kite, play catch with your kid, engage in your latest and craziest idea like building a teepee?
You mean, a place where you have a 15 minute commute instead of a 2 hour one? Where you actually have time to do all those things you mentioned instead of spending all your time running errands in your car?
The fact that poor people live in the dense population residences (except for a small areas where the residents are extremely wealthy) and those who have a few more dollars in their pockets live in the sprawling suberbs couldn't have anything to do with it eh?
And those who have a few more dollars than that live in the city again, in condos and townhouses (incidentally, the key fact you missed about the poor people is that they rent, not own).
What are you, stupid? I said "relatively narrow," not "alley!" It's entirely possible to build a street wide enough for a fire truck and a parked car (or two!) to fit side-by-side, but still too narrow for that fire truck to turn around in (especially if the truck in question is a ladder truck).
But when you consider that companies now have offices which hold >1,000 people it makes a walk/bike commute rather difficult if you have to consider building the houses and other infrastructure (including stores) within that distance of the office building.
No shit, Sherlock! That's why cities with high-density office buildings are supposed to also have high-density residential buildings (e.g. high-rise condos instead of houses)!
no lights at night, jumping red lights without even looking, swerving in front of a queue of cars at the lights just as they go green, never ever stopping if they hit your car, etc etc....
...riding on the wrong side of the road and on crosswalks (as if they think they're pedestrians)...
Not necessarily. For example, maybe it makes more sense to build relatively narrow streets in blocks instead. The fire trucks could still turn around quickly enough (by driving forward around the block), but it still can't be built anyway because it wouldn't meet code.
Seriously, I always believed that _how_ one chooses to live contributes to their health more than where.
Right, but the point of the article is that a suburban environment encourages unhealthy choices (e.g. by making it impractical to walk anywhere) while an urban environment encourages healthy ones (e.g. by making it impractical to drive anywhere).
Wal-Mart's IT infrastructure is so huge, though, that it ought to be handling it all in-house anyway. Wal-Mart's logistical prowess (of which the computer network is a large part) comprises the bulk of its competitive advantage, in exactly the same way that Google's computer network is the bulk of its competitive advantage.
As long as you dont boost the voltage too much (Which these guys prpbably did), you can not damage anything
Sure you can! If the temperature changes too fast (creating differential thermal expansion/contraction) you can physically crack the chip (or a PCB, or whatever).
Unless you have an illegal version of OS X hacked to work on a normal PC.
Yeah, it'll be nice when Leopard comes out -- it would become possible to get a legal version and hack it to work on a normal PC (because Apple would have to sell a Universal boxed version).
There is no extra speed merely from switching from 32 to 64 bits, in general. However, on the AMD64 (aka EM64T in Intel-speak) architecture in particular, switching to the native mode of the processor (which happens to be 64-bit) also enables a bunch of extra registers -- and that does speed things up.
But I am convinced that they too seek to benefit from all of that DRM. They are making their best effort to curb piracy.
I agree with the first half of what you said, but "curbing piracy" is the least of their goals. What does Microsoft need a few extra percentage points of Windows sales for, when becoming the "standard" for DRM gives them control of all the world's information?
Apple and Linux vendors will also have to bend over for the RIAA and MPAA if they want to be able to support viewing the content.
If it weren't for Microsoft handing over our rights to the them on a silver platter, it would be the RIAA and MPAA bending over to the people instead!
There's a chance that Steve Jobs will bend the universe to his will on this and avoid it, but it's doubtful. Linux users will probably just find ways hack around it, and ignore the fact they're breaking the law (no matter how ill-conceived that law may be; the point is that if Microsoft breaks the same law they would be sued into oblivion. It's simply not an option.).
If Microsoft had refused to support this bullshit, Steve Jobs and Linux users would have had a hell of an easier time of it.
That said, one thing that could be argued is that Microsoft wields enough money/power that they could fight back against the RIAA, MPAA, etc. and block the media industry's attempts to create such lame DRM policies.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean, a place where you have a 15 minute commute instead of a 2 hour one? Where you actually have time to do all those things you mentioned instead of spending all your time running errands in your car?
And those who have a few more dollars than that live in the city again, in condos and townhouses (incidentally, the key fact you missed about the poor people is that they rent, not own).
And does it include time spent by all the stereotypical geeks who don't have significant others?
What are you, stupid? I said "relatively narrow," not "alley!" It's entirely possible to build a street wide enough for a fire truck and a parked car (or two!) to fit side-by-side, but still too narrow for that fire truck to turn around in (especially if the truck in question is a ladder truck).
...because the text "below the fold" (in newspaper-speak) was by far the most interesting part of the summary.
No shit, Sherlock! That's why cities with high-density office buildings are supposed to also have high-density residential buildings (e.g. high-rise condos instead of houses)!
...riding on the wrong side of the road and on crosswalks (as if they think they're pedestrians)...
Not necessarily. For example, maybe it makes more sense to build relatively narrow streets in blocks instead. The fire trucks could still turn around quickly enough (by driving forward around the block), but it still can't be built anyway because it wouldn't meet code.
Right, but the point of the article is that a suburban environment encourages unhealthy choices (e.g. by making it impractical to walk anywhere) while an urban environment encourages healthy ones (e.g. by making it impractical to drive anywhere).
Or more appropriately, executed for treason?
Not to mention, how many don't bother with XP at all and just use 2000 instead?
Wal-Mart's IT infrastructure is so huge, though, that it ought to be handling it all in-house anyway. Wal-Mart's logistical prowess (of which the computer network is a large part) comprises the bulk of its competitive advantage, in exactly the same way that Google's computer network is the bulk of its competitive advantage.
...not to be confused with the similarly-named Shatnix (which, is advertised, by a certain, fat and, old actor).
KHAAAAAAAAAN!!
Well, if DRM is the problem, then what Norway and France and Germany ought to do is just outlaw DRM entirely and be done with it!
After all, why should it be the governments' responsibility to prop up Apple's business model, to the detriment of their own citizens?
Sure you can! If the temperature changes too fast (creating differential thermal expansion/contraction) you can physically crack the chip (or a PCB, or whatever).
Except that Core 2 Duo is a different architecture than Pentium 4, so that 3.4 Ghz is faster than 3.4 Ghz on a NetBurst would be.
The trouble is that Apple apparently had no choice, because it needs FCC approval which would have made the device public anyway.
Just out of curiosity, why not? And what would you suggest instead?
Yeah, it'll be nice when Leopard comes out -- it would become possible to get a legal version and hack it to work on a normal PC (because Apple would have to sell a Universal boxed version).
There is no extra speed merely from switching from 32 to 64 bits, in general. However, on the AMD64 (aka EM64T in Intel-speak) architecture in particular, switching to the native mode of the processor (which happens to be 64-bit) also enables a bunch of extra registers -- and that does speed things up.
Yes, that's exactly what he said. After all, what self-respecting Linux user would install closed-source media codecs and DVD-playing software?
The DMCA and laws enforcing software patents are bad laws. They deserve to be ignored!
See you in Gitmo ('cause I'd do the same thing as you, and suffer the same fate)!
Cameras can't prevent crimes any more than your grandmother can!
I agree with the first half of what you said, but "curbing piracy" is the least of their goals. What does Microsoft need a few extra percentage points of Windows sales for, when becoming the "standard" for DRM gives them control of all the world's information?
If it weren't for Microsoft handing over our rights to the them on a silver platter, it would be the RIAA and MPAA bending over to the people instead!
If Microsoft had refused to support this bullshit, Steve Jobs and Linux users would have had a hell of an easier time of it.
No kidding.
Not to mention that if I had someone operating on me, I'd want them to be in as good a mood as possible...