I work for a large (17.5 billion USD) company, and they balk at ordering me a new keyboard and mouse because then everyone could ask for it. Now, if they won't spend the money on a keyboard and mouse, why in the world would they give Joe/Jane Secretary a machine with a 4GHz proc and over a TB of storage? When they are finding it hard to fill their little 80GB hard drive and not using half of their 2.0GHz proc. And forget the 2GB of ram, it's more like 512MB and why do we have so much?
Re:I want animated program icons
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 1
Well that's simple. The same reason someone told me the other day that to get on the Internet you had to use Internet Explorer. And you do, right?
Perhaps, perhaps not. The first season of TNG was pretty bad and often way over the top. You are right as far as people leaving. I really want the people responsible for the first three seasons, beaten.
It seems someone doesn't remember the first season or so of TNG when it was almost painful to watch. Or the first season of Voyager when it WAS painful to watch. Every new trek show needs time to find itself before it doesn't suck balls. Ent was no different.
There are times when I wish that slashdot would allow more than +5 for a comment. I don't think I've seen a more complete thrashing of an argument in a long while. Thank you, very much.
As I said in my post, I can't wait till I can justify buying a Crossfire. That thing is just beautiful. It will also be interesting to see what Chrysler turns out with the merger with Daimler even more in force now.
You're probably right about the consumer's opinions.
I would love to have an inside look at the way Chrysler does things these days. From what I've read about the development of the Crossfire it must be an interesting place to work these days. It's a place I've considered seeking employment once or twice myself.
Ahh yes, let's bring out this tired old horse. So far I've had nothing but great service, and good cars. And I've never owned anything that wasn't a GM, Chrysler, or one Ford. This notion that all American cars suck is just wrong. Just as not all "foreign" cars are the greatest.
PS: I love my Chrysler Sebring and will likely always own one so long as they make them. And I can't wait to buy my Crossfire.
Given what is supposed to be the high criteria of a patent, there should be no silly patents. What, the examiner should be able to say he had an off day when he let the swinging patent go through? Or the cat and laser pointer one? If you want to say that some trivial patents get through because it was written by a lawyer and designed to be obfuscated that's one thing. There is no excuse for the patents cited above and you bloody well know it.
However, as you said, it will take at least 20 years for a given patent to get out of the way. And, excluding really unusual cases, who cares about a bit of software 20 years from now? 20 years is enough time to totally destroy any meaningful competition in a given field.
Do patents help innovation? In the physical world perhaps so. But, in software I would wager they are far more often used as weapons, offensive and defensive, than anything else. To prevent competition.
The thing is, you're buying a license to use the software. Does your license evaporate if you loose the number for it? I'd imagine not. That being the case, if you can prove you have a valid license, a receipt or such, they should have to issue you a new number. This isn't the same as loosing money and then demanding that someone give you more. You weren't issued a license for that money, it was yours.
You misunderstand. There's nothing wrong with this and it is in fact a great thing. However, I'm just asking for perspective. Yes, it is three quarters of a billion dollars. But, we're talking about a man with over 30 billion. We're also talking about a donation over several years. All good, but not the Second Coming.
That's all I'm saying. And as far as the comparison goes, I'm just trying to draw scale. The amounts don't matter as much as the relative scale.
It's great that he's done this, and it's a lot of money. I'm glad that at least he, unlike a lot of rich people, is doing something good with his money. But, we're not talking about 3 billion all at once. This is a reasonable donation for a person with this amount of money. There is always that concept of tithing. If one wants go down that line, then one with that much money should donate around $300 million or so. I wouldn't be surprised to find that if you added it all up, this and other donations, it comes to something around that number.
So please, don't assume I'm saying this is a bad thing when all I'm doing is pointing out the relative scale of the situation.
The last part of my comment was a way of pointing out that if this were anyone besides BG, it wouldn't have even been a story on here. Even with this amount of money.
Bill Gates's net worth is currently estimated to be around $30 billion. This single donation is about 2.5% of his net worth.
That's true, but on the other hand we're talking $750 million USD over the next ten years working out to $75 million USD per year. Something tells me that's less than he makes in interest/dividends per year. It's a nice gesture. But, when one scales this seemingly large amount against the funds available, it's more like me donating $100.00 as someone else already said.
Nice, but not a big deal really.
On a vaguely related note, when I was in the Navy I gave around 10% of my income to various causes through the CFC. Can I get a front page story on slashdot now? Hmmmm?
No, we probably lose the same article, posted by ten million other people. And we loose a bunch of trackbacks which also screw up search engines. All in all, no real loss. Besides, if what they have to say is all that important, it will rise to the top of pagerank all by itself.
Of course, I should disclose by saying I think google shouldn't index blogs at all. That's just me though.
So far as I know, they aren't. There is a knee jerk reaction among some to the word "Evolution". They tend to jump straight to things like the "missing link" and "chimps into man".
Myself, I believe in God, in creation, and all that. But, on the other hand I also believe that evolution of creatures takes place, and that the earth is a very old place indeed. It is always interesting reconciling these two things. I think I'm pretty successful at it.
It is in my view no more strange to believe that God has always been here, and created the universe, than it is to believe that the universe either sprang out of nothingness or has always been. Either one must be taken on faith, you can't really prove how the universe came to be. You can only come up with theories about it. And, I'd rather believe and be wrong, then not believe and be right. How that would truly be depressing for all of life to be just these few years between birth and death. And then you're dust.
Not quite a straw man argument, however, I will concede that evolution is a process. On the other hand, surely you must concede as well that to believe in the entire theory, one must accept that life started as single cell organisms, and evolved, through many branches, to more or less it's current state. Is that statement not generally true and as accurate as such a short statement can be?
What would be perfect would be the clear teaching in the science classroom that all scientific theories are just "theories": that all are falsifiable, and that in the presence of a theory that better explains the evidence, the current theory is in question or disproven. Any science student, before being presented with actual theories, should understand the scientific process.
Totally agree.
The problem with the sticker is that, by singling out evolution for this special caution about it's theoretical status, it unfairly prejudiced the teaching of evolution in the classroom. Gravitation is "only" a theory, but you don't see the parents clamoring for Aristotle's theory of natural motion to be taught, do you?
While it's true that gravitation is "only" a theory, there aren't any commonly held counters to the basic principals. There are those who believe drastically differently, but they are so far and few between that they are little more than a statistical blip. On the other hand, those who don't believe the universe is an accident are numerous.
As to the unasked question of what should be taught in schools on this subject, in science class I think that evolution as a mechanism for the improvement of species should be taught. It is very hard, if not impossible, to argue against that portion. However, evolution as the total force for creation of life is more of a theory. It should be taught as a theory, perhaps a strong one, but still a theory. I remember science class. I know in my class it wasn't taught as a theory, it was fact. And from a scientific perspective, that's wrong. Hell, I'm not sure if it was even referred to as the "Theory" of evolution. I seem to remember it was just "evolution", this is how we came to be.
And this was in Kansas of all places!!
Not really so much for you, but I've often found it amusing that hard core evolutionists often complain that creationists insist that God came from nothing, and since nothing can come from nothing, they must be wrong. But, don't evolutionists accept on faith that the material for the Big Bang, and subsequently everything else, sprang out of the nothingness?
Slashdot Mirror
Duh, and you're right. hehehe
I work for a large (17.5 billion USD) company, and they balk at ordering me a new keyboard and mouse because then everyone could ask for it. Now, if they won't spend the money on a keyboard and mouse, why in the world would they give Joe/Jane Secretary a machine with a 4GHz proc and over a TB of storage? When they are finding it hard to fill their little 80GB hard drive and not using half of their 2.0GHz proc. And forget the 2GB of ram, it's more like 512MB and why do we have so much?
Well that's simple. The same reason someone told me the other day that to get on the Internet you had to use Internet Explorer. And you do, right?
I just can't come up with what that means. What is NBMS?
Perhaps, perhaps not. The first season of TNG was pretty bad and often way over the top. You are right as far as people leaving. I really want the people responsible for the first three seasons, beaten.
I cannot tell you why it is, just that it seems to be true. It should be the way you say.
One word: Roddenberry
It seems someone doesn't remember the first season or so of TNG when it was almost painful to watch. Or the first season of Voyager when it WAS painful to watch. Every new trek show needs time to find itself before it doesn't suck balls. Ent was no different.
There are times when I wish that slashdot would allow more than +5 for a comment. I don't think I've seen a more complete thrashing of an argument in a long while. Thank you, very much.
As I said in my post, I can't wait till I can justify buying a Crossfire. That thing is just beautiful. It will also be interesting to see what Chrysler turns out with the merger with Daimler even more in force now.
I would love to have an inside look at the way Chrysler does things these days. From what I've read about the development of the Crossfire it must be an interesting place to work these days. It's a place I've considered seeking employment once or twice myself.
All that can be said on that matter is: Ouch.
PS: I love my Chrysler Sebring and will likely always own one so long as they make them. And I can't wait to buy my Crossfire.
Given what is supposed to be the high criteria of a patent, there should be no silly patents. What, the examiner should be able to say he had an off day when he let the swinging patent go through? Or the cat and laser pointer one? If you want to say that some trivial patents get through because it was written by a lawyer and designed to be obfuscated that's one thing. There is no excuse for the patents cited above and you bloody well know it.
Do patents help innovation? In the physical world perhaps so. But, in software I would wager they are far more often used as weapons, offensive and defensive, than anything else. To prevent competition.
The thing is, you're buying a license to use the software. Does your license evaporate if you loose the number for it? I'd imagine not. That being the case, if you can prove you have a valid license, a receipt or such, they should have to issue you a new number. This isn't the same as loosing money and then demanding that someone give you more. You weren't issued a license for that money, it was yours.
That's all I'm saying. And as far as the comparison goes, I'm just trying to draw scale. The amounts don't matter as much as the relative scale.
It's great that he's done this, and it's a lot of money. I'm glad that at least he, unlike a lot of rich people, is doing something good with his money. But, we're not talking about 3 billion all at once. This is a reasonable donation for a person with this amount of money. There is always that concept of tithing. If one wants go down that line, then one with that much money should donate around $300 million or so. I wouldn't be surprised to find that if you added it all up, this and other donations, it comes to something around that number.
So please, don't assume I'm saying this is a bad thing when all I'm doing is pointing out the relative scale of the situation.
The last part of my comment was a way of pointing out that if this were anyone besides BG, it wouldn't have even been a story on here. Even with this amount of money.
That's true, but on the other hand we're talking $750 million USD over the next ten years working out to $75 million USD per year. Something tells me that's less than he makes in interest/dividends per year. It's a nice gesture. But, when one scales this seemingly large amount against the funds available, it's more like me donating $100.00 as someone else already said.
Nice, but not a big deal really.
On a vaguely related note, when I was in the Navy I gave around 10% of my income to various causes through the CFC. Can I get a front page story on slashdot now? Hmmmm?
Of course, I should disclose by saying I think google shouldn't index blogs at all. That's just me though.
Yes, I see two of them everyday at work.
I work on a SuperDome and would love to see it running Linux. HP-UX is such a pain!!!
I better tell my friend to stop playing CS:Source and BF1942 then. Granted, that is with cedega, but still.
Myself, I believe in God, in creation, and all that. But, on the other hand I also believe that evolution of creatures takes place, and that the earth is a very old place indeed. It is always interesting reconciling these two things. I think I'm pretty successful at it.
It is in my view no more strange to believe that God has always been here, and created the universe, than it is to believe that the universe either sprang out of nothingness or has always been. Either one must be taken on faith, you can't really prove how the universe came to be. You can only come up with theories about it. And, I'd rather believe and be wrong, then not believe and be right. How that would truly be depressing for all of life to be just these few years between birth and death. And then you're dust.
Not quite a straw man argument, however, I will concede that evolution is a process. On the other hand, surely you must concede as well that to believe in the entire theory, one must accept that life started as single cell organisms, and evolved, through many branches, to more or less it's current state. Is that statement not generally true and as accurate as such a short statement can be?
Totally agree.
The problem with the sticker is that, by singling out evolution for this special caution about it's theoretical status, it unfairly prejudiced the teaching of evolution in the classroom. Gravitation is "only" a theory, but you don't see the parents clamoring for Aristotle's theory of natural motion to be taught, do you?
While it's true that gravitation is "only" a theory, there aren't any commonly held counters to the basic principals. There are those who believe drastically differently, but they are so far and few between that they are little more than a statistical blip. On the other hand, those who don't believe the universe is an accident are numerous.
As to the unasked question of what should be taught in schools on this subject, in science class I think that evolution as a mechanism for the improvement of species should be taught. It is very hard, if not impossible, to argue against that portion. However, evolution as the total force for creation of life is more of a theory. It should be taught as a theory, perhaps a strong one, but still a theory. I remember science class. I know in my class it wasn't taught as a theory, it was fact. And from a scientific perspective, that's wrong. Hell, I'm not sure if it was even referred to as the "Theory" of evolution. I seem to remember it was just "evolution", this is how we came to be.
And this was in Kansas of all places!!
Not really so much for you, but I've often found it amusing that hard core evolutionists often complain that creationists insist that God came from nothing, and since nothing can come from nothing, they must be wrong. But, don't evolutionists accept on faith that the material for the Big Bang, and subsequently everything else, sprang out of the nothingness?