"Unproven" ? The University of Illinois is one of the top tech schools in the country, and has one of the longest traditions of strong distance learning programs. The university is hardly new to this, and accreditation from this school is definitely worth the price tad.
Professors pay a good deal of money for their tenure. The opportunity cost of a tenured job at a university can be measured as the difference in salary between this IT professor's job and a job with the same requirements in the private sector. Professors also pay a premium for the independence and flexible work hours of life in the academic world. The extra salary you get over the salary of a potential professiorship is the cost of tenure (which includes the cost of getting a Phd if you don't have one, etc.)
I'm sure that there's an economist who can correct me on this - but it is basically correct.
Futurephone (www.futurephone.com) works pretty well, too --
You call a number in Iowa (which is free for many people with cell phones) and they connect (presumably via VoIP) to whatever land line you want, internationally. So far there don't seem to be any catches. You can't call many international cell phones, and you do have to pay for a call to Iowa.
But other than that, it's totally free!
That's a truly meaningless statement - what's your point? That pedophiles are better than the US government? Or that they should take over the government because then they'd limit their activities from starting wars to abusing children?
Of course the government has hurt more people than pedophiles have, that's what happens when institutions are as powerful as a government. In fact, it's an inevitable consequence of having a working government.
Would you rather there were no government at all? Sure - there'd be no wrongheaded iraq war, but then there'd be no national security whatsoever. Or protection from American corporations. Or Medicaid or Medicare.
The point is that the net benefit of having a government is very large, whereas the net cost of having pedophiles is very large.
You're clearly not making a coherent point about the US government, or about American policy toward pedophiles. Or toward the renewed call for the.xxx domain. However, you are being provocative. I conclude that you are a flamebait, nothing more, nothing less.
Bill Gates didn't steal his money per say: other corporations may have made better software than him, and his business practices may have been illegal, but it wasn't stolen. People did pay for Windows (and other pieces of Microsoft software), and people continue to do so. Most of it is bad, and much of it is overpriced - but it's mostly well-off corporations who are paying for it.
The people who are getting the money that Bill Gates donates are surely more deserving than the people he "stole" it from. Think of this as the ultimate form of income distribution. And from a utilitarian perspective, Bill Gates is surely doing the right thing: is it not better that American capitalists lose a little bit for the much greater good and greater number of the world's poor, sick and starving? All of that money would be in the hands of other (often greedy and immoral) capitalists if it weren't for Gates. And TB and Malaria would continue to ignored by most of the world.
Re:The website that changed policy
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Apples to oranges. That argument would be valid if the US were thinking of invading China, infringing on the soveriegnty of the Chinese government. Despite pressure that the US is putting on China, the Chinese government still has ultimate soveriegnty over its territory.
Moreover, arguments like this one are not limited to the Left. What do American conservatives have to say about the International Criminal Court, for example?
Fungi and Bacteria cannot survive at 100C, but fungal spores can. It takes temperatures of about 121C to destroy them. So boiling your pillows won't help...
I disagree. I find that a simple Turtle script does the job just fine. I use it for all of my word processing needs, and when that doesn't do the trick, I use Whitespace in vi. You ought to try it sometime, it works really well.
Apple doesn't sell products, Apple sells a product package. The iPod works seamlessly with iTunes, and they all work seamlessly together with Max os X, which works with Apple computers... and so on. If realy has songs that try to work with the iPod, there are more things that can go wrong, and Apple might be blamed (as parent noted).
Apple's product is not just a music player, or a song; it is an image, a collection, a seamless package. This is exactly the opposite of the common Linuz choice-oriented philosophy, but works well (full disclosure: I'm an apple partisan myself). You really can't fault them for feeling endangered when someone threatens their package.
You people on slashdot are so suspicious. You really ought to give SCO a chance. I mean, they did file a lawsuit. Therefore it was probably merited, right? I mean, they have stockholders to answer to. Not to speak of the fact that Darl McBride is a good, moral person. Why don't you just pay your $699 fee, like the rest of us, and get on with your life?
You just gotta give them a chance, then you'll see how wrong you've been all this time!
IANAL, but I do know that according to US law (I know nothing about Japanese or European laws) that -- regardless of antitrust law, which this also involves -- a judge may rule a contract invalid. This occurs most often (but not necessarily) when the contract stipulates something illegal. In this case, that something might involve patent law. Plus of course antitrust law.
Or something like that (uh oh gotta be ready for flurry of angry responses correcting me...)
I hope that made sense and wasn't oo difficult. But at least IANAL -- if I were, I would probably right something even more confusing!
Although it bothers you, this clearly has a good point. Other people have been complaining about spam bots harvesting email addresses, now that the WHOIS information is returned as text.
This is clearly their attempt at a solution to that problem.
Of course, it won't stop 100 000 virus-infested computers from each harvesting 10 emails each 24 hours. Oh, well, more spam for me...
The law says that landlords may not restrict tenants from setting up their own wireless networks. The parents says that landlords may force users to use their networks. A big difference.
Why is this important? If a landlord forces tenants to pay fo their networks, they are not going to (even if they are allowed to) set up their own -- in effect, this stops the motivation for tenants to set up their own networks.
In this way, landlords can circumvent the resttriction, while staying withing your definition of the law.
Back in the day, Armies did the fighting, and Civilians were not really much affected by war (unless a battle happened in your backyard)
Umm, wrong. Past wars -- if anything, much more so than ones today -- were incredibly destructive to civilians. For example, traveling armies would have to support themselves on the road, so they would loot and ransack the surrounding areas. Germany, was entirely destroyed during the 100 years war. Historically, moving armies have razed just about everything in their path.
In any case, the traditional view is that wars have a distinct beginning, middle and end. And Guerrillas mess up that "end" part no end.
Again, take the example that I just mentioned: the hundred years war. This, like almost all past wars, had no start or middle or end. Same with the virtually-continuous state of war, between France and England. And take Louis XIV: He was is a constant state of war with the Germanic states to the East; this war did not "start" or end, but was a continous, deeply destructive, conquest. And many Italian states were constantly fighting with each other, in a way that is almost reminiscent of the no-end no-start "wars" of ancient Greece.
The examples go on and on; war is always terrible, and always destructive. In fact, I doubt that there was a single pre-Napoleonic war where "Civilians were not really much affected [sic]" or that had "a distinct beginning, middle and end." Can you?
I agree with you on both counts. However, my guess would be that, had he said yes to either of those questions, the agents would have actually been much more open. The reason for this would have been the increased publicity involved with the entire case (that is, releasing the information after the ACLU made a request would have actually made them look good; not releasing it would have made them look terrible). Also, it would be a legitimate and logical explanation regarding why he wanted the information.
Again, I agree -- it was inappropriate to ask those questions. But the reasons why were probably relatively harmless
Suddenly it all makes sense--
Longhorn will be a fighting game, maybe even a flight simulator! Opening, say, Word will be a harrowing mission, with multiple enemies that threaten to get in your way and kill you. Every file will be a mission that will be difficult, sometimes even impossible to accomplish. Some may kill you. It will require reflexes, a lot of time, and will require all of this enormous computing power. It all becomes clear, now that I phrase it this way.
Wait a sec -- how is that different from Windows today?
That code takes up only a handful of bytes, whereas the texture graphic itself would take up hundreds of kilobytes, even compressed.
Not to belabor a point here, but an algorithm that generates a texture is a compressed form of the texture -- a compressed version of your checkerboard might be, quite simply, your algorithm. In a sense, a (losslessly) compressed file is just an algorithm that creates that file. I think.
1. Sign up for the service with, say, 150 spammers. Find their contact information.
2. Sell the spammers' email addresses to, say, 100 angry users per month, who have recieved one-too-many penis-enlargement offers.
3. You sell $50 worth of spammers' addresses to 100 users per month, every month. That's $60000 per year.
4. The spammers' addresses are shut down by angry users who have signed the spammers themselves up for spam. The spammers, in turn, get new addresses. You sell the new addresses.
This would encourage outsourcing of American goods (whether or not that is a good thing is another issue althoger). Cheap items are made with cheap labor. Price is not always a good indicator of how "basic" an item is.
PS: Moreover, this would probably tax computers heavily! Aaargh! I better buy my iPod and that new G5 before you become President.:) At least you still couldn't tax Linux... I hope...
A TI-89? Try programming that on an HP-48G+, what I used for math class! Trying to program that thing to do games is the cool way to drop out of school...:)
Slashdot Mirror
"Unproven" ? The University of Illinois is one of the top tech schools in the country, and has one of the longest traditions of strong distance learning programs. The university is hardly new to this, and accreditation from this school is definitely worth the price tad.
Professors pay a good deal of money for their tenure. The opportunity cost of a tenured job at a university can be measured as the difference in salary between this IT professor's job and a job with the same requirements in the private sector. Professors also pay a premium for the independence and flexible work hours of life in the academic world. The extra salary you get over the salary of a potential professiorship is the cost of tenure (which includes the cost of getting a Phd if you don't have one, etc.)
I'm sure that there's an economist who can correct me on this - but it is basically correct.
Futurephone (www.futurephone.com) works pretty well, too -- You call a number in Iowa (which is free for many people with cell phones) and they connect (presumably via VoIP) to whatever land line you want, internationally. So far there don't seem to be any catches. You can't call many international cell phones, and you do have to pay for a call to Iowa. But other than that, it's totally free!
For everyone who doesn't have anything intelligent to say... here's someone who does: the Planetary society has a good report on the findings at http://www.planetary.org/news/2006/0414_First_Venu s_Express_VIRTIS_Images_Peel.html
That's a truly meaningless statement - what's your point? That pedophiles are better than the US government? Or that they should take over the government because then they'd limit their activities from starting wars to abusing children?
.xxx domain. However, you are being provocative. I conclude that you are a flamebait, nothing more, nothing less.
Of course the government has hurt more people than pedophiles have, that's what happens when institutions are as powerful as a government. In fact, it's an inevitable consequence of having a working government.
Would you rather there were no government at all? Sure - there'd be no wrongheaded iraq war, but then there'd be no national security whatsoever. Or protection from American corporations. Or Medicaid or Medicare.
The point is that the net benefit of having a government is very large, whereas the net cost of having pedophiles is very large.
You're clearly not making a coherent point about the US government, or about American policy toward pedophiles. Or toward the renewed call for the
Bill Gates didn't steal his money per say: other corporations may have made better software than him, and his business practices may have been illegal, but it wasn't stolen. People did pay for Windows (and other pieces of Microsoft software), and people continue to do so. Most of it is bad, and much of it is overpriced - but it's mostly well-off corporations who are paying for it.
The people who are getting the money that Bill Gates donates are surely more deserving than the people he "stole" it from. Think of this as the ultimate form of income distribution. And from a utilitarian perspective, Bill Gates is surely doing the right thing: is it not better that American capitalists lose a little bit for the much greater good and greater number of the world's poor, sick and starving? All of that money would be in the hands of other (often greedy and immoral) capitalists if it weren't for Gates. And TB and Malaria would continue to ignored by most of the world.
Another big source of publicity was the planetary society, http://planetary.org./ They deserve a lot of the credit for getting this mission finished, finally. Their web site on the New Horizons mission also has some great info, at http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/new_horizo ns/
Apples to oranges. That argument would be valid if the US were thinking of invading China, infringing on the soveriegnty of the Chinese government. Despite pressure that the US is putting on China, the Chinese government still has ultimate soveriegnty over its territory.
Moreover, arguments like this one are not limited to the Left. What do American conservatives have to say about the International Criminal Court, for example?
Fungi and Bacteria cannot survive at 100C, but fungal spores can. It takes temperatures of about 121C to destroy them. So boiling your pillows won't help...
I disagree. I find that a simple Turtle script does the job just fine. I use it for all of my word processing needs, and when that doesn't do the trick, I use Whitespace in vi. You ought to try it sometime, it works really well.
Apple doesn't sell products, Apple sells a product package. The iPod works seamlessly with iTunes, and they all work seamlessly together with Max os X, which works with Apple computers... and so on. If realy has songs that try to work with the iPod, there are more things that can go wrong, and Apple might be blamed (as parent noted).
Apple's product is not just a music player, or a song; it is an image, a collection, a seamless package. This is exactly the opposite of the common Linuz choice-oriented philosophy, but works well (full disclosure: I'm an apple partisan myself). You really can't fault them for feeling endangered when someone threatens their package.
The original LOTR/slashdot comment
You people on slashdot are so suspicious. You really ought to give SCO a chance. I mean, they did file a lawsuit. Therefore it was probably merited, right? I mean, they have stockholders to answer to. Not to speak of the fact that Darl McBride is a good, moral person. Why don't you just pay your $699 fee, like the rest of us, and get on with your life?
You just gotta give them a chance, then you'll see how wrong you've been all this time!
[-1 too sarcastic]
IANAL, but I do know that according to US law (I know nothing about Japanese or European laws) that -- regardless of antitrust law, which this also involves -- a judge may rule a contract invalid. This occurs most often (but not necessarily) when the contract stipulates something illegal. In this case, that something might involve patent law. Plus of course antitrust law.
Or something like that (uh oh gotta be ready for flurry of angry responses correcting me...)
I hope that made sense and wasn't oo difficult. But at least IANAL -- if I were, I would probably right something even more confusing!
Doom 3 release imminent; Eurasia ruled by antichrist
My memory of revelations is weak; which is supposed to come next: The Twelve Riders of The Apocalopse or Duke Nukem 3?
Although it bothers you, this clearly has a good point. Other people have been complaining about spam bots harvesting email addresses, now that the WHOIS information is returned as text.
This is clearly their attempt at a solution to that problem.
Of course, it won't stop 100 000 virus-infested computers from each harvesting 10 emails each 24 hours. Oh, well, more spam for me...
The law says that landlords may not restrict tenants from setting up their own wireless networks. The parents says that landlords may force users to use their networks. A big difference.
Why is this important? If a landlord forces tenants to pay fo their networks, they are not going to (even if they are allowed to) set up their own -- in effect, this stops the motivation for tenants to set up their own networks.
In this way, landlords can circumvent the resttriction, while staying withing your definition of the law.
Umm, wrong. Past wars -- if anything, much more so than ones today -- were incredibly destructive to civilians. For example, traveling armies would have to support themselves on the road, so they would loot and ransack the surrounding areas. Germany, was entirely destroyed during the 100 years war. Historically, moving armies have razed just about everything in their path.
Again, take the example that I just mentioned: the hundred years war. This, like almost all past wars, had no start or middle or end. Same with the virtually-continuous state of war, between France and England. And take Louis XIV: He was is a constant state of war with the Germanic states to the East; this war did not "start" or end, but was a continous, deeply destructive, conquest. And many Italian states were constantly fighting with each other, in a way that is almost reminiscent of the no-end no-start "wars" of ancient Greece.The examples go on and on; war is always terrible, and always destructive. In fact, I doubt that there was a single pre-Napoleonic war where "Civilians were not really much affected [sic]" or that had "a distinct beginning, middle and end." Can you?
I agree with you on both counts. However, my guess would be that, had he said yes to either of those questions, the agents would have actually been much more open. The reason for this would have been the increased publicity involved with the entire case (that is, releasing the information after the ACLU made a request would have actually made them look good; not releasing it would have made them look terrible). Also, it would be a legitimate and logical explanation regarding why he wanted the information.
Again, I agree -- it was inappropriate to ask those questions. But the reasons why were probably relatively harmless
Suddenly it all makes sense--
Longhorn will be a fighting game, maybe even a flight simulator! Opening, say, Word will be a harrowing mission, with multiple enemies that threaten to get in your way and kill you. Every file will be a mission that will be difficult, sometimes even impossible to accomplish. Some may kill you. It will require reflexes, a lot of time, and will require all of this enormous computing power. It all becomes clear, now that I phrase it this way.
Wait a sec -- how is that different from Windows today?
Ha! I'm writing this on my mechanical typewriter that has been broken since 1988!
Not to belabor a point here, but an algorithm that generates a texture is a compressed form of the texture -- a compressed version of your checkerboard might be, quite simply, your algorithm. In a sense, a (losslessly) compressed file is just an algorithm that creates that file. I think.
Oh yeah? An even better way to make money:
1. Sign up for the service with, say, 150 spammers. Find their contact information.
2. Sell the spammers' email addresses to, say, 100 angry users per month, who have recieved one-too-many penis-enlargement offers.
3. You sell $50 worth of spammers' addresses to 100 users per month, every month. That's $60000 per year.
4. The spammers' addresses are shut down by angry users who have signed the spammers themselves up for spam. The spammers, in turn, get new addresses. You sell the new addresses.
5a. Life of spammers is hell!
5b. Profit!
This would encourage outsourcing of American goods (whether or not that is a good thing is another issue althoger). Cheap items are made with cheap labor. Price is not always a good indicator of how "basic" an item is.
:) At least you still couldn't tax Linux... I hope...
PS: Moreover, this would probably tax computers heavily! Aaargh! I better buy my iPod and that new G5 before you become President.
A TI-89? Try programming that on an HP-48G+, what I used for math class! Trying to program that thing to do games is the cool way to drop out of school... :)