The public debt is the summation of the deficit over time. You're confusing the terms.
Either I am misunderstanding you, or you misunderstood what I posted. While the Wikipedia article I linked to is entitled, "United States Public Debt," the table I posted in my comment was the deficit by year, not the debt.
I fail to understand how the government can borrow 962 billion in 2008 (Bush's last year in office), then borrow almost 1.8T in 2009 (Obama's first year in office), followed by another almost 1.5T in 2010, and have that be a decrease in borrowing.
Of course, we're both ignoring the fact that the congress actually controls the purse strings. Since the Democrats took the legislature in November 2006, they have been responsible for the roughly five trillion dollars added to the national debt in that time.
Google disputes this (not surprisingly) and notes various problems with Microsoft solutions -- including well reported downtime issues.
What "well reported downtime issues?"
My Exchange boxes haven't had any significant downtime (outside of scheduled maintenance windows) in the last six years--and that includes the time we migrated all the users into a new forest! Granted, this started as a very small domain of only ~100 users, but for the last 18 months (as a result of the above mentioned forest move) we've been serving about six hundred at nine sites in six countries with no outages.
I think people are still thinking about the days of Exchange 5.5 as if that were today. Today's Exchange is stable and scalable.
I could see your argument about rifles manufactured as semi's, but there are plenty of AK-47's floating around the US that were manufactured as automatics but modified to be semi. Those are still AK-47's.
[citation needed]
Note that such weapons would be unlawful to import, or to possess. BATFE takes a rather extreme, "once a machine gun, always a machine gun" view. There was a case a couple of years ago where some M1A rifles were built on former M14 receivers (which I believe were demilled, then rewelded) and BATFE required that these weapons be recalled and destroyed. They were NOT capable of automatic fire, nor were they easily modifiable to such a state.
...but those guys don't sit around all day and whine that they're not allowed to tinker with the engine on their United Airlines flight.
A rather absurd comparison, don't you think? I mean, after all, the aircraft you're riding on when you fly UAL is owned by United, not you, so you don't really have an expectation of being able to fiddle with the hardware. You could, if you owned, say, a 747, get the FAA to issue you a new airworthiness certificate in the experimental category, and you could play with its systems until you either had your fill, or killed yourself.
It's not Apple's hardware, it's MY hardware. If they really want to keep that level of control, they should start leasing the damn devices instead of selling them.
Letting his party have control of America again would be a total disaster. The minute the Supreme Court put them in unchecked power in 2000, they fired up the pump and started draining the treasury and several decades' worth of future earnings, putting us in the deepest hole we've ever been in.
The Republican party had "total control" for about four months in early 2001 (from when Bush was sworn in, until Jim Jeffords left the party in May 2001), then for four years from jan 2003-jan 2007. In other words, the Bush presidency was almost evenly divided between "total control" and at least a split legislature.
It galls me to have to defend the Republican version of Jimmy Carter, but anyone assigning complete blame for the last decade to the Republican party is delusional.
Given that there's massive infringement over there (not just software or entertainment, physical as well) does that mean that they might actually start enforcing IP rights?
I doubt they'll be enforced in China... but I have no doubt that they will be enforced in the west, against western companies.
Where did you get that number? For a corporate licensed install of MS Office you don't pay anywhere NEAR a couple of hundred US dollars per year.
If you're a shop with > 1000 workstations, and you have an enterprise agreement (which offers Office Enterprise + Software Assurance), "a couple of hundred bucks per year" sounds just about right--and I am just talking the office suite.
FWIW, I do agree with your point that it is foolish to spend a whole lot of money in the interest of saving less money--but this is a calculation that every business has to do for themselves... not everyone is built around 10,000 excel/VBA "applications."
So they should have built their own software to run on S7 PLCs?
Well, they could have used with the Linux version of PCS7, which also supports S7 controllers (and the older 505 series controllers, too) but Siemens killed this product (which had a multi-decade track record--it was UNIX based before being ported to Linux in 2000-2001) in favor of the WinNT based PCS7.
A little broad, but then again it was filed in 1995 which is over a year before H.323 was even published.
Sure, H.323 was published in late 1996, but that didn't appear fully formed from nothing. I'm curious (a cursory search does not answer this question) how long the working group took to release their final spec--I'm willing to bet it took them at least a year or two, most likely long enough to pre-date the filing of this patent.
Your point about "obviousness" is very well taken, though--for sure, we tend to trivialize something hard that has been done in the past, because in the present it is easy and obvious ("A patent on transitors?! WTF, any electrical engineer could have come up with that!") but the mid-90s are fairly notorious for a rash of "doing the crap that's been done since the dawn of time... on the internet! " patents. An IP to PSTN gateway isn't a very large leap from just sending audio over the internet to begin with. Now, the specific implementation of a IP-PSTN gateway is likely another kettle of fish--but I, personally, cannot but see the idea of "connecting a voice network to a data network" to be anything other than "obvious," even without the benefit of hindsight.
I can't buy a machine gun, or rocket propelled grenades or nukes
While it's effectively impossible to obtain a nuke, the other two are able to be lawfully owned in the US. The machine gun will be quite expensive--the law limits what civilians can own to weapons manufactured and properly registered before 1986, and the law of supply and demand being what it is, what would cost maybe $800 today purchased new can cost twenty times that in rather dubious condition. You will have to undergo a background check that takes about six months. You'll also be required to get the permission of your local chief law enforcement officer, and to pay a $200 tax.
While you couldn't import an RPG, you're almost certainly legal to make one if you follow the law. These would be classified as a "destructive device" and require you to jump through all of the hoops above... which need to be complete before you can begin construction.
FWIW, the above is based on Federal law--but California bans neither machine guns nor destructive devices that are properly registered.
Thankfully, they did recognize that some things needed to be specifically stated. If you don't actually have your rights listed, it makes it easier for people in power to ignore it, and harder for people to understand what it means and its value if lost.
And if you DO have some rights listed, eventually some people try to twist an example of protected rights into an exhaustive list of them. This leads to people asking the rather annoying question, "Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to $ACTIVITY?" The 9th and 10th amendments, designed to mitigate this, have been largely ignored, and you're often seen as some kind of raving anarchist if you ever appeal to them.
. If you haven't played with it, well, it is pretty impressive for Microsoft (at a hefty cost, of course).
Can you amplify on this a bit? Looking at the editions comparison page, it appears that the spatial features are included even in the free version of SQL Server (SQL Server Express). Am I missing something? (like it's feature complete, and just doesn't include some proprietary dataset, or dev tools, or...?)
(For example, OEM version of Microsoft Office is mysteriously cheaper when purchased through Dell than when purchased through other sources... perhaps this is "Dell's doing" but then again, to what advantage is it to offer MS Office at a perceived discount?
FWIW, Dell typically doesn't make any money on the MS software they sell--at least not when to comes to volume licensed software. They sell it as cost, as a means of driving other business (hardware). At least, that's the story I've gotten from my sales team in the past, and I believe it--I've gotten another reseller (very large--IIRC, the #2 MS reseller compared to Dell's #1) to match their pricing before, but it took a VP and $100k to do it.
Things might be different in the OEM licensed software, but based on the pricing, I don't think so.
i just got out of linuxcon brasil, and i saw an idea there that could save dell if they pull it right... . really small, ultra low power computers that can remainin an always on state running linux (of course) attached to the back of TVs or small monitors
I disagree with your conclusion--TV manufacturers are already building similar devices into the TVs themselves, and this is just going to become more and more common. No way the suggestion above would be a win for Dell.
I personally find pedophilic rape and murder abhorrent, but who am I to judge, eh?
You really don't see a difference between having children and raping them? What's next? Can we equate jaywalking with participating in the international trade in sex slaves?
I'm the guy whose entire species will die out like a virus in a petri-dish because of egoic thoughts like yours.
...
No, but you are most definately defending peoples right to give birth like machineguns, and that's almost just as bad.
There's half a dozen responses similar to yours that I'm not going to bother to respond to individually. Apparently, you didn't really "get" what I was saying, and decided to paint me as someone who wants to see humans overrun the world like locusts and destroy ourselves. Not interested in that outcome, thanks.
What you all seem to ignore is that the US (and the EU for that matter) are, in general, not overpopulated, and, in fact, our societies are producing children at below the replacement rate. As such, there is nothing ethically wrong with the occasional outlier producing children in litters--assuming they can provide for those children, that is. I'm not at all familiar with the subject family (other than their name, and the fact that they have a reality TV show), but from what I understand, they are perfectly capable of supporting their children, without being a burden on anyone.
By the way, your closing bit, "But I don't have kids" does in fact describe me--my wife had ovarian problems as a teenager and can't have children. We're talked about fertility treatment, etc, but you know what? I personally don't want to have children in litters, and many fertility treatments seem to make that a very possible outcome.
So, to me, this isn't at all about ego. This is about being pissed off about someone telling someone else how to live their life, simply because they don't approve of that lifestyle.
He's not completely psycho. Discovery's (TLC's) support of Jon and Kate Plus Eight, 19 Kids and Counting, etc is disgusting. Those parents should be in jail, not rolling in money.
I personally think having that many kids is pretty damn weird, but who the hell are you to judge? It's not like they're on welfare and you're paying for it--apparently, they were fine financially before the reality stuff. The US isn't an overpopulated nation, either. Our birth rate is below replacement, so we can tolerate the occasional outlier--and "outlier" is exactly what these people are--like this.
My opinion is that, as a culture, we've become too risk averse. The requirement to (and expense of) engineering every possible conceivable thing that could go wrong out of, well, everything, is destroying the possibility of achieving anything.
A bear charging will not be stopped by a handgun, no matter what caliber (unless you manage something like a shot in the eye of a running bear - good luck with that).
This is pretty much what rounds like the.454 Casull and.50S&W were made for. I know a few people who have (legally) hunted bear with a pistol (or even bow... no way in hell I'd be that brave^H^H^H^H^H stupid) and while that's a far cry from being charged by one, even a charging mass of teeth and claws is going to lose to 400 grains of lead moving at 1600fps. This assumes that you can actually hit your target, of course--I imagine the warm, wet sensation from both the front and seat of your pants may be slightly distracting.:)
Note, as you state above (and as I noted in my original post) I agree that avoiding the things is a much, much better idea than shooting at one.
About 20 years ago I went backpacking in Alaska and took a couple training classes prior and one bear class was particularly effective, they showed gory actual footage of what bears do, you can't out run them, you can't fight them, it's simple: avoid conflict with them or you will most likely die and they will eat you.
While I'm all for avoiding bears (as you noted, you're begging for trouble otherwise), having a rifle or large caliber pistol handy tends to change the "you can't fight them" part of the equation.
Slashdot Mirror
Either I am misunderstanding you, or you misunderstood what I posted. While the Wikipedia article I linked to is entitled, "United States Public Debt," the table I posted in my comment was the deficit by year, not the debt.
I fail to understand how the government can borrow 962 billion in 2008 (Bush's last year in office), then borrow almost 1.8T in 2009 (Obama's first year in office), followed by another almost 1.5T in 2010, and have that be a decrease in borrowing.
Of course, we're both ignoring the fact that the congress actually controls the purse strings. Since the Democrats took the legislature in November 2006, they have been responsible for the roughly five trillion dollars added to the national debt in that time.
According to wikipedia you are incorrect. Please forgive the formatting, I dont think slashcode will let me drop a table in my comment.
Fiscal year Value % of GDP
2001 $144.5 billion 1.4%
2002 $409.5 billion 3.9%
2003 $589.0 billion 5.5%
2004 $605.0 billion 5.3%
2005 $523.0 billion 4.3%
2006 $536.5 billion 4.1%
2007 $459.5 billion 3.4%
2008 $962.2 billion 6.6%
2009 $1785.6 billion 12.5%
2010 $1471.0 billion (est.)10.0%
What "well reported downtime issues?"
My Exchange boxes haven't had any significant downtime (outside of scheduled maintenance windows) in the last six years--and that includes the time we migrated all the users into a new forest! Granted, this started as a very small domain of only ~100 users, but for the last 18 months (as a result of the above mentioned forest move) we've been serving about six hundred at nine sites in six countries with no outages.
I think people are still thinking about the days of Exchange 5.5 as if that were today. Today's Exchange is stable and scalable.
[citation needed]
Note that such weapons would be unlawful to import, or to possess. BATFE takes a rather extreme, "once a machine gun, always a machine gun" view. There was a case a couple of years ago where some M1A rifles were built on former M14 receivers (which I believe were demilled, then rewelded) and BATFE required that these weapons be recalled and destroyed. They were NOT capable of automatic fire, nor were they easily modifiable to such a state.
A rather absurd comparison, don't you think? I mean, after all, the aircraft you're riding on when you fly UAL is owned by United, not you, so you don't really have an expectation of being able to fiddle with the hardware. You could, if you owned, say, a 747, get the FAA to issue you a new airworthiness certificate in the experimental category, and you could play with its systems until you either had your fill, or killed yourself.
It's not Apple's hardware, it's MY hardware. If they really want to keep that level of control, they should start leasing the damn devices instead of selling them.
The Republican party had "total control" for about four months in early 2001 (from when Bush was sworn in, until Jim Jeffords left the party in May 2001), then for four years from jan 2003-jan 2007. In other words, the Bush presidency was almost evenly divided between "total control" and at least a split legislature.
It galls me to have to defend the Republican version of Jimmy Carter, but anyone assigning complete blame for the last decade to the Republican party is delusional.
I doubt they'll be enforced in China... but I have no doubt that they will be enforced in the west, against western companies.
If you're a shop with > 1000 workstations, and you have an enterprise agreement (which offers Office Enterprise + Software Assurance), "a couple of hundred bucks per year" sounds just about right--and I am just talking the office suite.
FWIW, I do agree with your point that it is foolish to spend a whole lot of money in the interest of saving less money--but this is a calculation that every business has to do for themselves... not everyone is built around 10,000 excel/VBA "applications."
Well, they could have used with the Linux version of PCS7, which also supports S7 controllers (and the older 505 series controllers, too) but Siemens killed this product (which had a multi-decade track record--it was UNIX based before being ported to Linux in 2000-2001) in favor of the WinNT based PCS7.
Disclosure: I'm a former member of the dev team.
Sure, H.323 was published in late 1996, but that didn't appear fully formed from nothing. I'm curious (a cursory search does not answer this question) how long the working group took to release their final spec--I'm willing to bet it took them at least a year or two, most likely long enough to pre-date the filing of this patent.
Your point about "obviousness" is very well taken, though--for sure, we tend to trivialize something hard that has been done in the past, because in the present it is easy and obvious ("A patent on transitors?! WTF, any electrical engineer could have come up with that!") but the mid-90s are fairly notorious for a rash of "doing the crap that's been done since the dawn of time... on the internet! " patents. An IP to PSTN gateway isn't a very large leap from just sending audio over the internet to begin with. Now, the specific implementation of a IP-PSTN gateway is likely another kettle of fish--but I, personally, cannot but see the idea of "connecting a voice network to a data network" to be anything other than "obvious," even without the benefit of hindsight.
Aluminum takes something like 15 kilowatt hours or electricity per kilogram to extract... if that's not energy intensive, I don't know what is.
Greenwash annoys the hell out of me.
While it's effectively impossible to obtain a nuke, the other two are able to be lawfully owned in the US. The machine gun will be quite expensive--the law limits what civilians can own to weapons manufactured and properly registered before 1986, and the law of supply and demand being what it is, what would cost maybe $800 today purchased new can cost twenty times that in rather dubious condition. You will have to undergo a background check that takes about six months. You'll also be required to get the permission of your local chief law enforcement officer, and to pay a $200 tax.
While you couldn't import an RPG, you're almost certainly legal to make one if you follow the law. These would be classified as a "destructive device" and require you to jump through all of the hoops above... which need to be complete before you can begin construction.
FWIW, the above is based on Federal law--but California bans neither machine guns nor destructive devices that are properly registered.
And if you DO have some rights listed, eventually some people try to twist an example of protected rights into an exhaustive list of them. This leads to people asking the rather annoying question, "Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to $ACTIVITY?" The 9th and 10th amendments, designed to mitigate this, have been largely ignored, and you're often seen as some kind of raving anarchist if you ever appeal to them.
Can you amplify on this a bit? Looking at the editions comparison page, it appears that the spatial features are included even in the free version of SQL Server (SQL Server Express). Am I missing something? (like it's feature complete, and just doesn't include some proprietary dataset, or dev tools, or...?)
FWIW, Dell typically doesn't make any money on the MS software they sell--at least not when to comes to volume licensed software. They sell it as cost, as a means of driving other business (hardware). At least, that's the story I've gotten from my sales team in the past, and I believe it--I've gotten another reseller (very large--IIRC, the #2 MS reseller compared to Dell's #1) to match their pricing before, but it took a VP and $100k to do it.
Things might be different in the OEM licensed software, but based on the pricing, I don't think so.
I disagree with your conclusion--TV manufacturers are already building similar devices into the TVs themselves, and this is just going to become more and more common. No way the suggestion above would be a win for Dell.
You really don't see a difference between having children and raping them? What's next? Can we equate jaywalking with participating in the international trade in sex slaves?
There's half a dozen responses similar to yours that I'm not going to bother to respond to individually. Apparently, you didn't really "get" what I was saying, and decided to paint me as someone who wants to see humans overrun the world like locusts and destroy ourselves. Not interested in that outcome, thanks.
What you all seem to ignore is that the US (and the EU for that matter) are, in general, not overpopulated, and, in fact, our societies are producing children at below the replacement rate. As such, there is nothing ethically wrong with the occasional outlier producing children in litters--assuming they can provide for those children, that is. I'm not at all familiar with the subject family (other than their name, and the fact that they have a reality TV show), but from what I understand, they are perfectly capable of supporting their children, without being a burden on anyone.
By the way, your closing bit, "But I don't have kids" does in fact describe me--my wife had ovarian problems as a teenager and can't have children. We're talked about fertility treatment, etc, but you know what? I personally don't want to have children in litters, and many fertility treatments seem to make that a very possible outcome.
So, to me, this isn't at all about ego. This is about being pissed off about someone telling someone else how to live their life, simply because they don't approve of that lifestyle.
I personally think having that many kids is pretty damn weird, but who the hell are you to judge? It's not like they're on welfare and you're paying for it--apparently, they were fine financially before the reality stuff. The US isn't an overpopulated nation, either. Our birth rate is below replacement, so we can tolerate the occasional outlier--and "outlier" is exactly what these people are--like this.
"In jail?" Fuck you.
At the very least, they proved it was salable...
My opinion is that, as a culture, we've become too risk averse. The requirement to (and expense of) engineering every possible conceivable thing that could go wrong out of, well, everything, is destroying the possibility of achieving anything.
By my count, it's more like 400.
IIRC, Lexmark has been the OEM for quite a few Xerox Phaser printers over the last five or ten years.
This is pretty much what rounds like the .454 Casull and .50S&W were made for. I know a few people who have (legally) hunted bear with a pistol (or even bow... no way in hell I'd be that brave^H^H^H^H^H stupid) and while that's a far cry from being charged by one, even a charging mass of teeth and claws is going to lose to 400 grains of lead moving at 1600fps. This assumes that you can actually hit your target, of course--I imagine the warm, wet sensation from both the front and seat of your pants may be slightly distracting. :)
Note, as you state above (and as I noted in my original post) I agree that avoiding the things is a much, much better idea than shooting at one.
While I'm all for avoiding bears (as you noted, you're begging for trouble otherwise), having a rifle or large caliber pistol handy tends to change the "you can't fight them" part of the equation.