but I don't recall them ever making such statements.
How about Mr Bush's pledge to "change the Iraqi regime"? He actually did it, as previous US administrations did to other countries via coup, etc. It matters very little if someone like the US president say it more deplomatically or less.
Barking dog does not bite. It just wants you to keep a safe distance. If you keep approaching with a big club, things will inevitably turn ugly.
It really depends on how the US react now, I'm afraid.
The incumbent Iranian president really wants George W jump up and down shouting, so that he can silence his opponents. If it were not Mr Bush, the radical man would never have been elected years ago. If it were not the pressure from outside, Iranians would have long ago abandoned this president. Just have a look at inflation in Iran and you know how unpopular he is. The rocket is just what he needs to gather support. We all know patriasm makes the mass blind, don't we?
Hush, you are not supposed to use that D-word with the US. "Destablize" is a word reserved for Russia, China and the Axis of evil countries only. There's another D-word though. You can freely use it with the US and any other western countries (as long as they do what Uncle Sam tells them). My English is too bad. I can't remember the spelling, but it must have something to do with democracy I suppose.:)
that an insult-throwing coward like you dares only to post in anonymity, though it's all too obvious to anyone who reads careful enough who posted it.
Read my post carefully, what I said was in fact that human nature was not very different from country to country, religion to religion. I did not attack or praise either religion. So stop using your bias to interpret my intelligence.
Post #18120990 quoted some bad law in contemporary Saudi Arabia in support of the poster's speculation about the converted ancient architect's intention, with which he/she would implie Christians' superiority over Muslims. Reading the post in context, I don't think I've been unfair on this. Note post #18120500 was by the same poster and expressed such a view quite explicitly.
You know what, I think you just said enough about yourself in your post. Haha!
This Christian-superior-over-others argument is laughable. Such narrow-mindedness in the western societies shows exactly that no people in one country is born better human than in another, the opposite of what the GP implies.
That's a hell of oversimplification and deliberate confusion, isn't it?
Debian's repository enhances it's security but don't shut the door to developers based on profit-driven policies. The source code is open to everyone. Anybody can write software for Debian and if it's good enough it will appear in the repository.
In Microsoft's case, most exploits do not need a malicious kernel level driver anyway. Plus, AFAIK, developing an opensource kernel level driver has never been what people're asking for. They are asking the hardware vendors to open up the spec of their products so that an open source driver can be written for other operating systems. Closed source drivers for Windows are there already, thanks to MS monopoly. If MS ever choose to open source Windows, backdoors and security holes are going to be fixed first, then application compatibilities. Kernel level drivers, not such an issue.
The fact that they don't fix things of higher priorities but spin on and on about non-issues actually shows how they really care about Windows security.
I agree with a lot of other stuff I've been reading, MS has themselves a bit of a pickle. They want to make an accessible product (i.e., your 10-year-old sister can sit down and start using it without apt-getting), and at the same time they have to try to protect those people from themselves to some extent. To add more problems, because their product is sold, they get all the critical press, because the press loves doing that.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. But if you look at OSX, you'll know these are just excuses. Microsoft's trouble is not that they can't come up with a better solution, but that they are unwilling to do so.
For once, I'd like to see a thread on Slashdot complaining about the other enablers; they're not making their products only "because Vista says so".
People criticize MS more because they are agressive in pushing DRM. Other aggressive are also flamed. Remember Sony? Apple, on the other hand, allows their iPod to play non-iTunes stuff, thereby appears to be less annoying to the customers. Steve Jobs even spoke against the DRM philosophy in public recently. Why should people see Apple in the same league as MS?
MS get all the bashing they deserve, because they behave badly. It's all that simple.
The crucial difference here is, Linux never wants to control the world. It just do what an OS suppose to do - give the user _JUST ENOUGH_ control over his/her computer, and protect it from attackers as well as clueless users.
For Microsoft, this is another matter. They want to control the world. They don't really care about the user.
It is too easy to blame the clueless users. But who put those vulnerabilities in Windows in the first place? As an OS vendor, MS should prevent clueless user doing random stupid things. This is not rocket science. It's common sense.
"If everyone ran Linux" then malware writers would target Linux distributions with malware they way they target Windows now. Monocultures are targets like that.Linux is great, but it's not unbreakable. If the average person has root access, they can do serious damage.
This argument has been used by Microsoft for years in defending their abyssmal security record. It sounds plausible, but unfortunately, there's no truth in it.
The truth is that Linux does not give average user root access. There's no need for that. It is a superior design. Period.
The root cause that Microsoft screw up again and again in security is their attitude towards the end user. They just want to manipulate the user. Had they put 1/10 the effort they used to implement DRM, or treat every Windows installation as pirate, or crush their competitors using unfair means, the Windows security hell would have long gone away!
CFLs so clearly out perform incandescents that their eventual triumph in the free market is assured.
It's necessary to accelerate replacing incandscents with CFLs, because a lot of people either don't care, or simply don't get it. How many offices are left lit all night? How many SUVs do Americans drive? If only people had made more sensible choice, such regulations would never been thought off.
Moreover, the coercive policy will almost certainly fail in its goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Since it takes more energy to construct CFLs, forcing their adoption will generate more CO2 emissions in the short run.
Sounds plausible but let's do some simple calculation first. A CFL normally consumes 1/5 to 1/3 power of an equivalent incandescent bulb. Suppose a 60W incandescent bulb has a life span of 2000 hours and the CFL replacing it works twice longer (conservative figures, just for the purpose of illustration). The energy saved would be:
4000 hours * 60W * (1- 0.25) - energy_needed_in_making_one_CFL + 2 * energy_needed_in_making_one_incandescent
The first term comes to 180KW. Even if making one CFL need more energy than making two incandescent, which I highly doubt, the overall result is not likely to be negative or even a small positive. In other words, energy saving by using CFL is a considerably big NET GAIN.
Parent post on/. and the fact it being moderated as interesting actually makes a great example for my first argument - some people either don't care or just don't get it, even in the presence of mounting evidence. It's a really sad thing.
The news conspicuously avoided any mention of China and the cloud of junk China sent shooting through space right before all these satellites failed.
Pointing figers before even remote evidence supports an accusation against someone would hurt the credibility of any decent press, don't you think so?
Politicians in Washington seemed to developed a habbit. When anything bad happens, they always find a way to blame China or someone who's not likely to defend themselves before the general US public. To support the accusation, they could even buy some research to influence the public opinion. Once the public's attention gets diverted, the politicians just go on with their agenda. Isn't it wonderful?
Fortunately, it seems these scientists are more decent than the politicians.
This appears rather strange. I could be wrong speculating about the other poster and the moderator then.
My traceroute results indicate though, www.google.co.uk and www.google.cn are of different locations.
UK
traceroute: Warning: www.google.co.uk has multiple addresses; using 209.85.135.103
traceroute to www.l.google.com (209.85.135.103), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets ...
5 72.14.238.242 (72.14.238.242) 37.411 ms 37.824 ms 45.779 ms
6 209.85.248.80 (209.85.248.80) 45.861 ms 47.029 ms 48.017 ms
7 209.85.248.87 (209.85.248.87) 45.967 ms 72.14.232.95 (72.14.232.95) 48.051 ms 46.269 ms
8 72.14.232.104 (72.14.232.104) 53.906 ms 54.674 ms 216.239.43.89 (216.239.43.89) 45.321 ms
9 72.14.232.209 (72.14.232.209) 53.471 ms 51.701 ms 54.657 ms
10 72.14.238.128 (72.14.238.128) 62.267 ms 60.794 ms 59.753 ms
11 72.14.239.46 (72.14.239.46) 60.840 ms 60.102 ms 61.022 ms
12 72.14.239.48 (72.14.239.48) 60.286 ms 59.540 ms 61.581 ms
13 72.14.239.58 (72.14.239.58) 67.919 ms 209.85.135.103 (209.85.135.103) 59.779 ms 60.032 ms
China
traceroute to cn.l.google.com (72.14.203.160), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets ...
5 so-1-2-0.gar2.London1.Level3.net (212.113.0.118) 39.331 ms 38.783 ms 38.958 ms
6 ae-29-54.ebr2.London1.Level3.net (4.68.116.126) 44.014 ms 49.637 ms ae-29-52.ebr2.London1.Level3.net (4.68.116.62) 38.375 ms
7 ae-4.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.132.109) 110.953 ms 108.586 ms 108.079 ms
8 ae-1-100.ebr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.132.26) 117.260 ms 107.740 ms 109.648 ms
9 ae-2.ebr1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.69.132.65) 129.249 ms 140.059 ms 130.563 ms
10 ae-11-51.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.2) 127.923 ms ae-11-53.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.66) 125.570 ms ae-11-55.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.130) 126.529 ms
11 GOOGLE-INC.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.79.208.18) 127.510 ms 126.549 ms 126.312 ms
12 66.249.94.133 (66.249.94.133) 128.287 ms 127.363 ms 72.14.232.53 (72.14.232.53) 128.543 ms
13 72.14.232.46 (72.14.232.46) 129.839 ms 66.249.94.128 (66.249.94.128) 132.557 ms 129.019 ms
14 72.14.238.66 (72.14.238.66) 133.033 ms 142.270 ms 64.233.175.94 (64.233.175.94) 137.116 ms
15 ro-in-f160.google.com (72.14.203.160) 129.439 ms 131.241 ms 129.293 ms
...looks fairly complicated.
and finally www.google.com
traceroute: Warning: www.google.com has multiple addresses; using 209.85.135.147
traceroute to www.l.google.com (209.85.135.147), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets ...
5 72.14.238.242 (72.14.238.242) 38.407 ms 39.853 ms 40.094 ms
6 209.85.248.80 (209.85.248.80) 58.211 ms 46.265 ms 45.237 ms
7 209.85.248.87 (209.85.248.87) 45.833 ms 46.447 ms 45.351 ms
8 216.239.43.89 (216.239.43.89) 47.030 ms 46.805 ms 45.036 ms
9 72.14.232.209 (72.14.232.209) 51.187 ms 52.897 ms 52.483 ms
10 72.14.238.128 (72.14.238.128) 61.604 ms 60.990 ms 62.841 ms
11 72.14.239.51 (72.14.239.51) 61.600 ms 72.14.239.50 (72.14.239.50) 63.381 ms 62.278 ms
12 72.14.239.48 (72.14.239.48) 59.292 ms 60.320 ms 60.268 ms
13 72.14.239.58 (72.14.239.58) 70.441 ms 72.14.239.54 (72.14.239.54) 62.620 ms 61.770 ms
14 72.14.239.54 (72.14.239.54) 68.157 ms 60.301 ms 209.85.135.147 (209.85.135.147) 62.138 ms
It could be that Google's servers in Netherlands are running different kind of domain resolver, which ardently translate the.cn TLD into.com, whereas in the UK, verbatim requests are sent to different places.
Thanks for your comment. If you check my previous posts, you know we share quite a lot common thoughts. "1984" was written long time ago, yet weaknesses of human being have changed very little.
I agree if people from different countries get to know each other face to face, they are more likely to find the stereotypical perception to be wrong. That's part of the reason I'm on slashdot.
I'm not going to criticize either the current US administration or the general public. Others have done that much better than I ever could. There are much more to improve in China. We're working on it. I believe a lot of people here are working on their respective goals too.
My sig is only there to provoke some thought, to challenge the stereotypical image of China inside some people's mind.
I think people are smart enough to tell the difference between the ones doing the shooting and the ones getting shot at.
It's a simple fact, isn't it?
I assume everybody is capable of telling it. But whether people bother to tell it, is another question. One quickly loses his/her ability to reason when some strong emotion is mobilized. That's how the neo-conservatives, in fact, most politicians, get their way.
Certainly the average American people has more power than the average Chinese, and arguably average people in any other country. You've got the chance to elect a president that unilaterally dictates over world affairs. We don't even have much say over Chinese affairs yet.
...With absolutism, sure, it's easy to point out what to do. Frankly though, that's a rather juvenile thought process, something that lacks complexity because one feels "the world must work the way I see it" or "these values I hold dear, you must also."...
Well said!
Absolute ideologies ARE harmful in that they care very little about the different real-life situations one could be in. They tend to give people a dangerously simple (or naive sometimes) set of glasses, through which everything in the world becomes either black or white.
For example, it is well known that in physics, a physicist tends to put his tested theory in the simplest form, and a lot of us would agree, simple is beautiful. But in engineering, when an engineer attempts to solve some real world problem using the physicist's theory, her solution will always involve some kind of compromise and will not get even remotely near the simplicity of the physics. If she doesn't deal with all the inevitable subtleties with such compromise, her application is going to fail.
What I'm trying to say here is, even to something as unambiguous as physics, the application of principle is not as obvious as one would expect. If a principle in science is like this, how can one expect ideologies, which subject its principles to a million different interpretations, to be applied on real life without any balanced consideration?
To me, this is obviously for a niche market, where your requirements are actually less important.
Suppose you'd like to set up a personal server at home, which hosts a personal webpage and email, runs some p2p client, and acts as a file server(ftp/nfs/samba) etc. How much performance do you realy need? A sub-500mhz box would suffice. I would think someone to actually underclock it just to save on power.
One advantage of C7 is its low power consumption. If you run your personal server 24/7, the saving on your electricity bill easily offset the initial cost in the long run.
By making the mobo smaller, it actually cuts the power consumption in driving unnecessary wires on the PCB. All these makes sense in above niche market.
If you prefer a CRT for this reason, you'd probably need a standard-size box for better performance too.
Same thing with the DVI. The box this mobo is most likely to sit in probably only require the MOST BASIC graphics. Any cheap VGA will do a good job for the purpose.
p.s. this has nothing to do with choosing LCD or CRT. There're cheap LCD monitors out there with only a VGA connector.
Probably because DVI is an overkill for the mobo's application.
People are likely to run the box headless as a personal server anyway. When they need to hook up a monitor, they tend to find any monitor they can easily find, without disrupting their main desktop. This monitor is most possibly a old VGA, sitting quietly in the garage.
Slashdot Mirror
How about Mr Bush's pledge to "change the Iraqi regime"? He actually did it, as previous US administrations did to other countries via coup, etc. It matters very little if someone like the US president say it more deplomatically or less.
Barking dog does not bite. It just wants you to keep a safe distance. If you keep approaching with a big club, things will inevitably turn ugly.
The incumbent Iranian president really wants George W jump up and down shouting, so that he can silence his opponents. If it were not Mr Bush, the radical man would never have been elected years ago. If it were not the pressure from outside, Iranians would have long ago abandoned this president. Just have a look at inflation in Iran and you know how unpopular he is. The rocket is just what he needs to gather support. We all know patriasm makes the mass blind, don't we?
Hush, you are not supposed to use that D-word with the US. "Destablize" is a word reserved for Russia, China and the Axis of evil countries only. There's another D-word though. You can freely use it with the US and any other western countries (as long as they do what Uncle Sam tells them). My English is too bad. I can't remember the spelling, but it must have something to do with democracy I suppose. :)
It's not a dead-or-alive game and nobody is forcing you to choose side...
Oh, wait a minute, somebody in USofA seemed to having said:
You're either with us, or against us.
Sorry, I'm mistaken. #-
BTW, I find it indeed ironical that they did ask Ballmer, who had admitted banning his kids from using Google, to do a patent search on Google.
Read my post carefully, what I said was in fact that human nature was not very different from country to country, religion to religion. I did not attack or praise either religion. So stop using your bias to interpret my intelligence.
Post #18120990 quoted some bad law in contemporary Saudi Arabia in support of the poster's speculation about the converted ancient architect's intention, with which he/she would implie Christians' superiority over Muslims. Reading the post in context, I don't think I've been unfair on this. Note post #18120500 was by the same poster and expressed such a view quite explicitly.
You know what, I think you just said enough about yourself in your post. Haha!
This Christian-superior-over-others argument is laughable. Such narrow-mindedness in the western societies shows exactly that no people in one country is born better human than in another, the opposite of what the GP implies.
An OS install would most often overwrite the MBR. Your hidden phone-home code would never get a chance to run.
Debian's repository enhances it's security but don't shut the door to developers based on profit-driven policies. The source code is open to everyone. Anybody can write software for Debian and if it's good enough it will appear in the repository.
In Microsoft's case, most exploits do not need a malicious kernel level driver anyway. Plus, AFAIK, developing an opensource kernel level driver has never been what people're asking for. They are asking the hardware vendors to open up the spec of their products so that an open source driver can be written for other operating systems. Closed source drivers for Windows are there already, thanks to MS monopoly. If MS ever choose to open source Windows, backdoors and security holes are going to be fixed first, then application compatibilities. Kernel level drivers, not such an issue.
The fact that they don't fix things of higher priorities but spin on and on about non-issues actually shows how they really care about Windows security.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. But if you look at OSX, you'll know these are just excuses. Microsoft's trouble is not that they can't come up with a better solution, but that they are unwilling to do so.
For once, I'd like to see a thread on Slashdot complaining about the other enablers; they're not making their products only "because Vista says so".
People criticize MS more because they are agressive in pushing DRM. Other aggressive are also flamed. Remember Sony? Apple, on the other hand, allows their iPod to play non-iTunes stuff, thereby appears to be less annoying to the customers. Steve Jobs even spoke against the DRM philosophy in public recently. Why should people see Apple in the same league as MS?
MS get all the bashing they deserve, because they behave badly. It's all that simple.
For Microsoft, this is another matter. They want to control the world. They don't really care about the user.
It is too easy to blame the clueless users. But who put those vulnerabilities in Windows in the first place? As an OS vendor, MS should prevent clueless user doing random stupid things. This is not rocket science. It's common sense.
This argument has been used by Microsoft for years in defending their abyssmal security record. It sounds plausible, but unfortunately, there's no truth in it.
The truth is that Linux does not give average user root access. There's no need for that. It is a superior design. Period.
The root cause that Microsoft screw up again and again in security is their attitude towards the end user. They just want to manipulate the user. Had they put 1/10 the effort they used to implement DRM, or treat every Windows installation as pirate, or crush their competitors using unfair means, the Windows security hell would have long gone away!
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_arc hive/2006/04/03/8373041/index.htm
It's necessary to accelerate replacing incandscents with CFLs, because a lot of people either don't care, or simply don't get it. How many offices are left lit all night? How many SUVs do Americans drive? If only people had made more sensible choice, such regulations would never been thought off.
Moreover, the coercive policy will almost certainly fail in its goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Since it takes more energy to construct CFLs, forcing their adoption will generate more CO2 emissions in the short run. Sounds plausible but let's do some simple calculation first. A CFL normally consumes 1/5 to 1/3 power of an equivalent incandescent bulb. Suppose a 60W incandescent bulb has a life span of 2000 hours and the CFL replacing it works twice longer (conservative figures, just for the purpose of illustration). The energy saved would be:
4000 hours * 60W * (1- 0.25) - energy_needed_in_making_one_CFL + 2 * energy_needed_in_making_one_incandescent
The first term comes to 180KW. Even if making one CFL need more energy than making two incandescent, which I highly doubt, the overall result is not likely to be negative or even a small positive. In other words, energy saving by using CFL is a considerably big NET GAIN.
Parent post on /. and the fact it being moderated as interesting actually makes a great example for my first argument - some people either don't care or just don't get it, even in the presence of mounting evidence. It's a really sad thing.
Pointing figers before even remote evidence supports an accusation against someone would hurt the credibility of any decent press, don't you think so?
Politicians in Washington seemed to developed a habbit. When anything bad happens, they always find a way to blame China or someone who's not likely to defend themselves before the general US public. To support the accusation, they could even buy some research to influence the public opinion. Once the public's attention gets diverted, the politicians just go on with their agenda. Isn't it wonderful?
Fortunately, it seems these scientists are more decent than the politicians.
My traceroute results indicate though, www.google.co.uk and www.google.cn are of different locations.
UK
...
traceroute: Warning: www.google.co.uk has multiple addresses; using 209.85.135.103
traceroute to www.l.google.com (209.85.135.103), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
5 72.14.238.242 (72.14.238.242) 37.411 ms 37.824 ms 45.779 ms
6 209.85.248.80 (209.85.248.80) 45.861 ms 47.029 ms 48.017 ms
7 209.85.248.87 (209.85.248.87) 45.967 ms 72.14.232.95 (72.14.232.95) 48.051 ms 46.269 ms
8 72.14.232.104 (72.14.232.104) 53.906 ms 54.674 ms 216.239.43.89 (216.239.43.89) 45.321 ms
9 72.14.232.209 (72.14.232.209) 53.471 ms 51.701 ms 54.657 ms
10 72.14.238.128 (72.14.238.128) 62.267 ms 60.794 ms 59.753 ms
11 72.14.239.46 (72.14.239.46) 60.840 ms 60.102 ms 61.022 ms
12 72.14.239.48 (72.14.239.48) 60.286 ms 59.540 ms 61.581 ms
13 72.14.239.58 (72.14.239.58) 67.919 ms 209.85.135.103 (209.85.135.103) 59.779 ms 60.032 ms
China
...
traceroute to cn.l.google.com (72.14.203.160), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
5 so-1-2-0.gar2.London1.Level3.net (212.113.0.118) 39.331 ms 38.783 ms 38.958 ms
6 ae-29-54.ebr2.London1.Level3.net (4.68.116.126) 44.014 ms 49.637 ms ae-29-52.ebr2.London1.Level3.net (4.68.116.62) 38.375 ms
7 ae-4.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.132.109) 110.953 ms 108.586 ms 108.079 ms
8 ae-1-100.ebr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.132.26) 117.260 ms 107.740 ms 109.648 ms
9 ae-2.ebr1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.69.132.65) 129.249 ms 140.059 ms 130.563 ms
10 ae-11-51.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.2) 127.923 ms ae-11-53.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.66) 125.570 ms ae-11-55.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.68.101.130) 126.529 ms
11 GOOGLE-INC.car1.Chicago1.Level3.net (4.79.208.18) 127.510 ms 126.549 ms 126.312 ms
12 66.249.94.133 (66.249.94.133) 128.287 ms 127.363 ms 72.14.232.53 (72.14.232.53) 128.543 ms
13 72.14.232.46 (72.14.232.46) 129.839 ms 66.249.94.128 (66.249.94.128) 132.557 ms 129.019 ms
14 72.14.238.66 (72.14.238.66) 133.033 ms 142.270 ms 64.233.175.94 (64.233.175.94) 137.116 ms
15 ro-in-f160.google.com (72.14.203.160) 129.439 ms 131.241 ms 129.293 ms
and finally www.google.com
...
traceroute: Warning: www.google.com has multiple addresses; using 209.85.135.147
traceroute to www.l.google.com (209.85.135.147), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
5 72.14.238.242 (72.14.238.242) 38.407 ms 39.853 ms 40.094 ms
6 209.85.248.80 (209.85.248.80) 58.211 ms 46.265 ms 45.237 ms
7 209.85.248.87 (209.85.248.87) 45.833 ms 46.447 ms 45.351 ms
8 216.239.43.89 (216.239.43.89) 47.030 ms 46.805 ms 45.036 ms
9 72.14.232.209 (72.14.232.209) 51.187 ms 52.897 ms 52.483 ms
10 72.14.238.128 (72.14.238.128) 61.604 ms 60.990 ms 62.841 ms
11 72.14.239.51 (72.14.239.51) 61.600 ms 72.14.239.50 (72.14.239.50) 63.381 ms 62.278 ms
12 72.14.239.48 (72.14.239.48) 59.292 ms 60.320 ms 60.268 ms
13 72.14.239.58 (72.14.239.58) 70.441 ms 72.14.239.54 (72.14.239.54) 62.620 ms 61.770 ms
14 72.14.239.54 (72.14.239.54) 68.157 ms 60.301 ms 209.85.135.147 (209.85.135.147) 62.138 ms
It could be that Google's servers in Netherlands are running different kind of domain resolver, which ardently translate the .cn TLD into .com, whereas in the UK, verbatim requests are sent to different places.
I agree if people from different countries get to know each other face to face, they are more likely to find the stereotypical perception to be wrong. That's part of the reason I'm on slashdot.
I'm not going to criticize either the current US administration or the general public. Others have done that much better than I ever could. There are much more to improve in China. We're working on it. I believe a lot of people here are working on their respective goals too.
My sig is only there to provoke some thought, to challenge the stereotypical image of China inside some people's mind.
It's a simple fact, isn't it?
I assume everybody is capable of telling it. But whether people bother to tell it, is another question. One quickly loses his/her ability to reason when some strong emotion is mobilized. That's how the neo-conservatives, in fact, most politicians, get their way.
Certainly the average American people has more power than the average Chinese, and arguably average people in any other country. You've got the chance to elect a president that unilaterally dictates over world affairs. We don't even have much say over Chinese affairs yet.
Come on, moderators, if only you had bothered to click on that link, you would have known what the post said was not true.
I can visit google.cn from UK. I use it almost everyday, along side google.co.uk. I don't get redirected to google.com in either case.
Others reported from Europe and USA that they didn't get redirected either.
If google don't redirect traffic from Europe and USA, why should they redirect that from anywhere else? Give me a reason.
The bottom line is, this guy didn't know what he's talking about, yet still got modded insightful.
Absolute ideologies ARE harmful in that they care very little about the different real-life situations one could be in. They tend to give people a dangerously simple (or naive sometimes) set of glasses, through which everything in the world becomes either black or white.
For example, it is well known that in physics, a physicist tends to put his tested theory in the simplest form, and a lot of us would agree, simple is beautiful. But in engineering, when an engineer attempts to solve some real world problem using the physicist's theory, her solution will always involve some kind of compromise and will not get even remotely near the simplicity of the physics. If she doesn't deal with all the inevitable subtleties with such compromise, her application is going to fail.
What I'm trying to say here is, even to something as unambiguous as physics, the application of principle is not as obvious as one would expect. If a principle in science is like this, how can one expect ideologies, which subject its principles to a million different interpretations, to be applied on real life without any balanced consideration?
Suppose you'd like to set up a personal server at home, which hosts a personal webpage and email, runs some p2p client, and acts as a file server(ftp/nfs/samba) etc. How much performance do you realy need? A sub-500mhz box would suffice. I would think someone to actually underclock it just to save on power.
One advantage of C7 is its low power consumption. If you run your personal server 24/7, the saving on your electricity bill easily offset the initial cost in the long run.
By making the mobo smaller, it actually cuts the power consumption in driving unnecessary wires on the PCB. All these makes sense in above niche market.
Same thing with the DVI. The box this mobo is most likely to sit in probably only require the MOST BASIC graphics. Any cheap VGA will do a good job for the purpose.
p.s. this has nothing to do with choosing LCD or CRT. There're cheap LCD monitors out there with only a VGA connector.
People are likely to run the box headless as a personal server anyway. When they need to hook up a monitor, they tend to find any monitor they can easily find, without disrupting their main desktop. This monitor is most possibly a old VGA, sitting quietly in the garage.