You're absolutely right about mothers with babies. Imagine trying and trying to quieten a crying baby, all the time unaware that it's being targetted by a device you don't know is there.
Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you, but pointing out that a bias can also be expressed in the selection and especially the omission of stories. Which I believe Fox is a case with Fox.
So if you have evidence with which to impeach Bush (and I'm not disputing that), then why isn't he impeached? Who is eligible to start the impeachment procedure in the USA?
For that matter, who is eligible to bring War Crimes charges against Blair in the UK? Something he is also guilty of for lying about WMD to get a war started.
Wow! That's one of the rare occasions I've actually seen a useful analogy on Slashdot. If that's yours, you should really see if you can get that analogy wider exposure. It illustrates Comcast's behaviour and the perceived immorality of that behaviour beautifully.
You can't even limit it just to kids and, as they mentioned, what makes someone magically responsible at 25? I had a full time job and owned a house before I turned 25, I'm going to say it is ok for me to want to go to a store.
I'm going to turn that around and make what I feel is the more critical point. What magically makes someone less than 25 not responsible? "Nothing" is the answer, so what right does anybody have to inflict discomfort on kids en masse just because of their own prejudice?
I can hear these things and my teenage years are gone. I can also hear devices that are supposed to scare pigeons away and I left a shopping area because it was giving me a headache.
But whether or not adults can hear these things is not the issue. They are offensive, discriminatory and wrong for several solid reasons even if they did work as advertised.
Possibly people here see Microsoft as the big evil. Well sometimes it might be. But stand it next to Murdoch's Newscorp and it looks like Ghandi in comparison. The last thing I want to see is yet another part of the media gobbled up by that company.
It seems easy enough to rationalise, though perhaps not completely justify. The ships move through "hyperspace," yes? They are somehow either warping space or moving in some parallel dimension to space. Could not the "made it in less than X parsecs" represent the degree to which the ship is warping space? I.e. The total real distance of the Kessel Run might be 400 light years. The Millenium Falcon is so good that it covered that in 12 parsecs of actual movement.
Somebody mod the parent up, please. AC is right to state that these could benefit from multiple cores. My point is that you're not going to see so much benefit from them as with applications that are "continuous." The thing with all these examples is that they do a task and then they reach another static point and stop. Yes, doing some calculations with a spreadsheet might cause a temporary slow-down, but it probably wont be taking long enough that you're going to go back to your Word document and do some more typing and spell-checking while you're waiting. The benefits are not the same as with tasks like movie encoding and playing music where you really can see a significant difference as they don't interefere with each other.
It's going to depend on whether those ten applications are actually making ongoing use of your processor. Encoding a movie whilst listening to music and editing photos - yes, proper use of multiple cores will see big benefits. But if you're talking about some spreadsheets, word documents, browser and an email client, then less so because no matter how quickly you think you're switching between these applications, it's going to look like slow motion to a CPU swapping processes. With this sort of usage, a CPU is actually sitting idle a lot of the time waiting for the next eternity between keystrokes to end. I'm not saying you wont see a benefit, but the benefit really kicks in when you've got multiple applications that are really doing something. A lot of applications (and probably the ten you have open at work) simply don't fall into that category.
I can add one more to the list, which is simple posturing / sabre-rattling. There's a long history of countries sending little warnings of one sort or another to countries they don't like, and that it would be covert to their own populace wouldn't impede its threat value to the Iranians. It should be understood that there are people in the US government and around it, that consider Iran to be enemies who should be dealt with. They would consider punishing and pushing around Iran like this a end in and of itself.
I took the same approach that you did with some employers. They would have gone for it eventually as the alternative was me leaving, but I ended up leaving anyway so it never transpired. Plain english is the best approach. Agree what you both understand to be the case and then send it back and forth a couple of times to check everyone is happy with the wording.
They may not be following you in the expectation that you'd actually be stupid enough to do something, but for the purpose of intimidation - letting you know that they're there and they're in charge. They see you (wrongly) as someone to be controlled.
We still need surgeons: operating on oneself is mechanically tricky, but for the rest, let everybody care for themselves.
Well wouldn't that be an efficient society - where either everyone spends great quantities of time studying up on diseases and diagnosis that they'll never need, or else everyone saves the time and people get sick or die of things that could be prevented.
I'll take that on the listed conditions. I can see there being factions in the US that want this, I see doves triumphant, however. The US is simply in no state to pursue another major engagement on their own initiative. But either way, a good cause will benefit from our wager. Not the first time I've made a bet of dubious taste. I tried to run a sweepstake of when the US invasion of Iraq would begin while they were still announcing that they were doing everything they could to avoid a conflict. And was severely bollocked by my boss for it.:)
E-mail me. My address is in my profile. 100 Euros it is and it will be interesting to watch events.
due to how much bribery they accept to not start their own military-industrial complex).
That's interesting. Can you offer any more support or reasoning for that? I'm aware of the gross amount of bribery that goes on, but I'd always attributed it to getting electoral support from US-resident supporters of Israel and more significantly, a means of channeling yet more public money into friends in the military-industrial complex. I'd like to hear more about any other angle.
In this instance, it may not be accurate to say that a big company is swallowing a smaller one. In this case, it might be more accurate to say they are rescuing it. Obviously Yahoo wasn't going to vanish, but in terms of search engine usage, it's nowhere close to Google. This might boost that area and introduce a real rival to Google. In which case it really will increase competition.
they can't all of a sudden tell us not to, without either increasing the price a lot, lowering the max speed, or admit to the general public that what they have been selling was not what they claimed it was
Fourth option - accept that they'll make less than ten-bajillion dollars this fiscal year and plough some of their profits into developing their infrastructure. I like option four!
Perhaps the solution is that iTunes should bear some of the additional cost of the high amount of traffic their service creates. Then they can pass that additional cost along to their subscribers, rather than the rest of us subsidizing the Jobs company.
Oh please, no! The last thing we need is the precedent of ISPs charging both ends of a connection or choosing how much to charge a company based on the perceived profit they make (i.e. "how much can we get out of them?"). At best, it would just be another way big companies to produce a barrier to entry for smaller companies.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely right about mothers with babies. Imagine trying and trying to quieten a crying baby, all the time unaware that it's being targetted by a device you don't know is there.
Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you, but pointing out that a bias can also be expressed in the selection and especially the omission of stories. Which I believe Fox is a case with Fox.
There - fixed that for you.
Oh, and I agree.
So if you have evidence with which to impeach Bush (and I'm not disputing that), then why isn't he impeached? Who is eligible to start the impeachment procedure in the USA?
For that matter, who is eligible to bring War Crimes charges against Blair in the UK? Something he is also guilty of for lying about WMD to get a war started.
Wow! That's one of the rare occasions I've actually seen a useful analogy on Slashdot. If that's yours, you should really see if you can get that analogy wider exposure. It illustrates Comcast's behaviour and the perceived immorality of that behaviour beautifully.
I'm going to turn that around and make what I feel is the more critical point. What magically makes someone less than 25 not responsible? "Nothing" is the answer, so what right does anybody have to inflict discomfort on kids en masse just because of their own prejudice?
I can hear these things and my teenage years are gone. I can also hear devices that are supposed to scare pigeons away and I left a shopping area because it was giving me a headache.
But whether or not adults can hear these things is not the issue. They are offensive, discriminatory and wrong for several solid reasons even if they did work as advertised.
Possibly people here see Microsoft as the big evil. Well sometimes it might be. But stand it next to Murdoch's Newscorp and it looks like Ghandi in comparison. The last thing I want to see is yet another part of the media gobbled up by that company.
It seems easy enough to rationalise, though perhaps not completely justify. The ships move through "hyperspace," yes? They are somehow either warping space or moving in some parallel dimension to space. Could not the "made it in less than X parsecs" represent the degree to which the ship is warping space? I.e. The total real distance of the Kessel Run might be 400 light years. The Millenium Falcon is so good that it covered that in 12 parsecs of actual movement.
No - it will just slice your tongue to pieces. "Nano-Cotton Candy - the Sharpest Flavour Ever!"
Somebody mod the parent up, please. AC is right to state that these could benefit from multiple cores. My point is that you're not going to see so much benefit from them as with applications that are "continuous." The thing with all these examples is that they do a task and then they reach another static point and stop. Yes, doing some calculations with a spreadsheet might cause a temporary slow-down, but it probably wont be taking long enough that you're going to go back to your Word document and do some more typing and spell-checking while you're waiting. The benefits are not the same as with tasks like movie encoding and playing music where you really can see a significant difference as they don't interefere with each other.
It's going to depend on whether those ten applications are actually making ongoing use of your processor. Encoding a movie whilst listening to music and editing photos - yes, proper use of multiple cores will see big benefits. But if you're talking about some spreadsheets, word documents, browser and an email client, then less so because no matter how quickly you think you're switching between these applications, it's going to look like slow motion to a CPU swapping processes. With this sort of usage, a CPU is actually sitting idle a lot of the time waiting for the next eternity between keystrokes to end. I'm not saying you wont see a benefit, but the benefit really kicks in when you've got multiple applications that are really doing something. A lot of applications (and probably the ten you have open at work) simply don't fall into that category.
I can add one more to the list, which is simple posturing / sabre-rattling. There's a long history of countries sending little warnings of one sort or another to countries they don't like, and that it would be covert to their own populace wouldn't impede its threat value to the Iranians. It should be understood that there are people in the US government and around it, that consider Iran to be enemies who should be dealt with. They would consider punishing and pushing around Iran like this a end in and of itself.
I took the same approach that you did with some employers. They would have gone for it eventually as the alternative was me leaving, but I ended up leaving anyway so it never transpired. Plain english is the best approach. Agree what you both understand to be the case and then send it back and forth a couple of times to check everyone is happy with the wording.
They may not be following you in the expectation that you'd actually be stupid enough to do something, but for the purpose of intimidation - letting you know that they're there and they're in charge. They see you (wrongly) as someone to be controlled.
Well wouldn't that be an efficient society - where either everyone spends great quantities of time studying up on diseases and diagnosis that they'll never need, or else everyone saves the time and people get sick or die of things that could be prevented.
Doh! That's what I wanted to say!
I'll take that on the listed conditions. I can see there being factions in the US that want this, I see doves triumphant, however. The US is simply in no state to pursue another major engagement on their own initiative. But either way, a good cause will benefit from our wager. Not the first time I've made a bet of dubious taste. I tried to run a sweepstake of when the US invasion of Iraq would begin while they were still announcing that they were doing everything they could to avoid a conflict. And was severely bollocked by my boss for it.
E-mail me. My address is in my profile. 100 Euros it is and it will be interesting to watch events.
Regards,
-H.
That's interesting. Can you offer any more support or reasoning for that? I'm aware of the gross amount of bribery that goes on, but I'd always attributed it to getting electoral support from US-resident supporters of Israel and more significantly, a means of channeling yet more public money into friends in the military-industrial complex. I'd like to hear more about any other angle.
In this instance, it may not be accurate to say that a big company is swallowing a smaller one. In this case, it might be more accurate to say they are rescuing it. Obviously Yahoo wasn't going to vanish, but in terms of search engine usage, it's nowhere close to Google. This might boost that area and introduce a real rival to Google. In which case it really will increase competition.
Fourth option - accept that they'll make less than ten-bajillion dollars this fiscal year and plough some of their profits into developing their infrastructure. I like option four!
Oh please, no! The last thing we need is the precedent of ISPs charging both ends of a connection or choosing how much to charge a company based on the perceived profit they make (i.e. "how much can we get out of them?"). At best, it would just be another way big companies to produce a barrier to entry for smaller companies.
Interested. How did it go and how successful were you?
Well speaking as someone outside the US, wouldn't it show greater concern for your troops to not send them out to get shot at?
Listen to this person. He or she speaks truth!