No, we used only PGMs in the Iraqi conurbations. We never "bombed the cities." We used regular, unguided munitions dropped from B-52s to destroy the terrorist camps northeast of Baghdad, but those were dozens of miles away from any built-up areas....
Its interesting that you use the term "terrorist". In the context of Iraq, these are people who believe the Americans have no business being there and want to get them out. How does that make them terrorists ? If the russians invaded america if you fought back would that qualify you to be a "terrorist" ? Jeez!
Typical wrong-headed thinking. We go invading other countries to prevent problems at home. During the 1990s we failed to invade Sudan, choosing instead to fire cruise missiles...
We failed to invade Sudan, we invaded Afghanisan, we invaded Iraq, we invaded so and so.... Wow. Who the flying fuck gives America the right to invade whoever it pleases the world over ? Is it just me or have you noticed that it seems to be the only country large scale invading the ass out of the world ? Dont give me that bullcrap about "to prevent problems at home". Iraq had no means of doing the US any harm. All the charges against it were trumped up right down to the laughable WMD threat. The world over people knew that was horseshit and thats why any self respecting country (which wont get squeezed by the US) in the UN told you to fuck off! France got noticed only because it had veto and gave enough of a shit to say something about it...
What happened? September 11 happened. It became --you see where I'm going here? --a problem at home....
You're thinking is laughably simple. What did Sept 11th involve ? Aircraft and a bunch of seriously pissed off fanatics. Period. If you invade every country out there you will multiply the pissed off fanatics five times over. Wiping out "terrorists" in Iraq will only fuel more violence. America has a rich diversity of people and the more countries you invade the larger percentage of you're local populace you're going to have pissed off at you. Yeah thats solving problems at home...sure!
--you see where I'm going here ? --mayhem at home!
Militancy never solved anything unless it was absolutely necessary.
Re:Boring compared to... the Brainf*ck CPU!
on
A .Net CPU
·
· Score: 1
hmm.... MICROSOFT.Net based CPU....wouldnt that qualify sufficiently to be a BrainF**K CPU ?:-D
Re:Actually, it's an ARM7
on
A .Net CPU
·
· Score: 1
I expect that the.net VM is in ROM...
Squeezing a strapped down portion of a platform (or OS) into ROM isnt particularly new. If fact, Linux has a version of this : http://www.linuxbios.org/
ZDNet is reporting that sales of servers using Linux will reach a whopping $9.1 billion by 2008...
Considering Linux (and OSS in general) makes money via support offerings, shouldnt this be added to the overall $$$ amount ? Does 9.1. billion include support charges or simply the cost of hardware ?
Another thing I routinely keep hearing about is that hardware is going to keep become VERY cheap (as a matter of fact there were some articles suggesting it might even become free in the long term). If one cant sell hardware, and cant sell the OS, where the hell does 9.1 billion come from ? "Voluntary donation" ??
They largely did recon and organized the Northern Alliance to go on the offensive....Your simple view of what happened is based on watching the nightly news and not on doing research or educating yourself about the historical campaign....
5 stars for patriotism but -10 for being blinded by it. If you claim you have "researched" the news and yet not see the obvious in the news its REMARKABLE!
When I said "before setting foot" on the place I expected someone to at least read between the lines. I meant they didnt set foot on a battleground. Being in the country and not fighting themselves is as good as being a local tourist.
If it were my country and it was attacked by the Taliban, I would not be so gunshy about sending my soldiers in first hand to finish off the job instead of "using" the Northern Alliance. The Taliban had no aircraft, no tanks, no laser guided munitions, nothing. So exactly what was the purpose of bombing the shit out of them first with all the air/firepower at you're disposal if ground troops could have "finished off" the job anyway ? It's because they didnt want to become kalashnikov fodder like the russians were at the hands of the dug in Taliban who knew the terrain and the guerilla tactics far better. Being patriotic is all fine and great but at least look at the situation like it is. The Red Army is a considerable force to recon with so dont take they're defeat lightly.
You might argue that when one has the firepower why wouldnt one use it. I agree completely. But inspect you're own reasons about why they used it first. It was purely because it made the ground offensive a veritable cakewalk in comparrison to what the soviets faced facing the enemy in the eye on the ground. That was my point exactly - firepower and airpower are what win or lose a battle - not ground troops. They chose this strategy BECAUSE they learned from the Russian experience. Do you're research first before "educating" others.
I would be interested in doing a DDoS attack like this...
If I was a rival service trying to kill these guys.
If I were MPAA and wanted to kill these buggers off Blaster style.
If I were some dumb script kiddie trying to make a statement because of want of attention.
Point 1 doesnt make sense because it would make more sense for my service to figure out a way to plug into the rival network and siphon off they're shares. It would get me more notice and wont get me noticed as a nasty SOB.
Point 2 is unlikely because though these agencies are a mean litigating bunch, they are unlikely to condone something like this. More so that *if* they were discovered, they would be in a LOT of trouble (read : law suits galore!)
Point 3 seems more likely. Some guys just can't get enough attention. Downing the SCO site has been done already and people seem to be running out of ripe juicy targets that'll get them noticed.
If your assertation were true, Bush would not have be announcing an increase in troop deployment in Iraq....
Hey I meant the "won" with mild sarcasm. See the point I wanted to make that unlike the Soviets who got thoroughly clobbered with guerilla warfare tactics of the Afgan militia eventually had to pull out because they're ground troops were unable to quell the local uprising. The Americans on the other hand levelled the place to kingdom come even before they set foot on the place. If they attempted a land assault they would have suffered a similar fate as the soviets. The air bombardment and the cruise missile pummeling were the defining difference.
I have been interviewed several times AND have been on the other side of the interview panel just as often. If theres one thing I have noticed is that alarmingly often, people with 7-8 years of work are bungling loggerheads.
Work experience itself is good but like a good degree, its useful only if you actually came across learning something worthwhile from it. If you have 8 years of "work experience" tacking together little corny websites for you're kid brother how the hell are you going to be useful in my team ?
The real "geeks" are the ones who READ out of self motivation and enjoyment about the field they are in - not because they want a nice shiny degree from an Ivy league institute. Anyone whose basically lazy will never cut it big no matter where he came out of.
If the last few years and the cold war have taught anything, land assults (robots or humans) have largely become irrelevant to any war. The Soviets attached a great deal of importance to submarines with ballistic missile launch capability while the americans focussed a lot of aircraft and missile delivery systems of they're own.
The ONLY reason the Americans really "won" the Afgan war was because they bombarded the place to a pulp even before a single US soldier set foot onto a real battleground.
If there is really a place for robotics its to replace aircraft and submaries with robotic counterparts because they are the real force multipliers in a battle (not military headcount).
Like the former Soviet Empire, Communist Yugoslavia, British India, et. al., the Chinese "nation" will disintegrate into smaller parts once a central government becomes unable to control the provinces by brute force.
HAH!...Get the facts right dude, this is Slashdot!
British India did not "disintegrate". The British were instrumental in dividing it into India and Pakistan based on fuelling religious differences between otherwise previously peaceful and amicably living communities (Muslims and Hindus). They're "Divide and Rule" policy's ultimate victory was getting the communities to attack one another to the point of demanding they're own separate country. There are even conspiracy theories that indicate that a completely united India would have posed a significant threat to the British in future so they preferred to have the parts fighting rather than turn on them for screwing them over for the past 100 odd years!
Even in Yugoslavia it was basically widespread enthnic clensing that made the company tear from the middle. How do you think such a problem came about to the scale it did ? It's altogether possible it were deliberately instigated and once all hell broke loose its every man for himself.
Now if I were China, I'd be equally paranoid of "hostile" governments attemting to create dissent amongst the country to achieve similar aims. Maybe they're excessivly paranoid and resort to force to quell popular uprising but they're intensions are most likely NOT to torture people for fun as much as to maintain they're "empire"'s integrity.
....used only for formal communications, or by older, less tech-saavy generations
I somehow cant figure out how email requires lesser tech-savvyness than IM. Typically an old person will find some younger "tech savvy" person to set up the mail client or IM client anyway right ?
Assuming a grandpa has his IM and Email client both installed and configged with his alias and email account respectively. To use the IM, all he has to do is GO online and it logs in by default. He just double clicks on a contact's name and starts talking (i.e. type and press Enter). Even easier if someone else messages him since he just has to reply.
Now with an email client, he has to (typically), MANUALLY start the mail client, squint his eyes on all those funny icons with titles all over them, dig through a seperate address book app to find addresses, explicitly write mail messages hitting the "Compose" button, navigate some obscure menu to press "Send" (I doubt if most people mug shortcut keys let alone old people). If it flags some error most elderly folks dont even bother reading them and are left in suspence if the message actually went or not. If he/she uses online mail it only gets worse since he has to go to a site and then do all the above and more.
IM can at best be easier and at worst be AS difficult. The only obstruction I see is that older folks might be more familiar with email and are unwilling to switch because they arent used to adapting as quickly as we are. That doesnt mean they are less tech-savvy, just means they are not as flexible in adapting in general to new things.
This is due to the save file paradigm. Changes only get saved if you tell the computer to. People have long realized this is bad; this is why some programs have autosave.
The trouble with this is that AutoSave sucks bigtime if you're working on a relatively BIG file. Disk I/O is typically a very slow activity and comprises the biggest bottleneck in a computer system. If I have to wait 4-5 seconds every minute to autosave a file it's irritating and breaks my chain of thought. And all this because of a "potential" power failure that might occur once in a month or so (AT WORST!). Anyone who has power failures more often than that might as well buy a UPS because long term outages have a way of damaging computer hardware.
And as for AutoSave, if it must be implemented, at least come up with sane file formats that allow only the diff to be stored rather than chugging the whole damn thing to disk.
The question one must focus on is that WHAT does burning CO2 produce ? If it produces CO as one of the byproducts, we arent necessarily improving the situation much - CO is a lethal gas for human beings. On a place like Mars where you dont have to worry about poisoning humans no one could care less but the same doesnt apply on earth.
As per dictionary.com
Forensics: "The use of science and technology to investigate and establish facts in criminal or civil courts of law." or "The art or study of formal debate; argumentation."
Looks like a curious choice of words for a task like this...
Now having a phone that doubles up as a wife (minus the sex) is as useless as it gets.
But having a phone that learns to nag you're wife so, while shes occupied, you can do more "productive" stuff (like post on Slashdot;-D)...now THAT is something I'll be willing to pay good money for.
China (and quite possibly India too) are inherently wary and more suspicious of a big firm owning every computer they work on. Conspiracy theories aside, its pretty well known that the NSA and other security agencies in the US "work with" Microsoft during they're OS development. Now if I were a government in Asia, I'd rather ask patent lawyers to kiss my ass rather than let a foreign government have the complete ability to spy into my entire computer network.
Thats the simple reason why no matter what M$ does, it'll never gain absolute control over Asian governments.
Does it violate 228 or 288. Also how come it violates "about" 228 patents ? Does the number of patents it violates change depending on the time of day you measure it ?/sarcasm
Ah, but lack of a paper trail will not make your pissed off users forget where they bought their computer.
Maybe so, but it still isnt enough to prove he sold a pirated copy of Windows. Create suspicion, maybe but I doubt if that's enough by itself to conclusively prove the case.
What's the harm to give a free copy to people who are already using your stuff without paying and are likely trying to come clear?
No harm whatsoever. I'm all for free software but the thing is, MS isn't doing this so that everyone will get they're OS free. They are doing this so that eventually they will catch all the bootleggers giving they're OS away and then be able to properly charge everyone for the OS proper in the form of upgrades et. al. They wont go through all this trouble of catching piracy folks if they intend to give they're OS away anyway. As an example, would RedHat try and catch software pirates who peddle Linux ?
This is only a pilot program for the UK, and it requires a proof of purchase
Let me get this straight. Which "pirate" in his right mind is going to sell pirated software to anyone and leave a paper trail long enough to implicate him in the form of a bill ?
Another point, as soon as all the piracy shops hear about this, the few dumb ones who did pirate the copies with a bill will simply stop issuing bills for the copies thus preventing anything tracing back to them.
A third point, Windows might be a large chunk of pirateable software but it's far from being the ONLY piece of it. There are millions of other software titles worthy of pirating. These guys can afford to keep low until MS abandons this program. And abandon it they will because the only way to sustain this is to keep dishing out Windows free, which of course MS cannot possibly do.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we used only PGMs in the Iraqi conurbations. We never "bombed the cities." We used regular, unguided munitions dropped from B-52s to destroy the terrorist camps northeast of Baghdad, but those were dozens of miles away from any built-up areas....
Its interesting that you use the term "terrorist". In the context of Iraq, these are people who believe the Americans have no business being there and want to get them out. How does that make them terrorists ? If the russians invaded america if you fought back would that qualify you to be a "terrorist" ? Jeez!
Typical wrong-headed thinking. We go invading other countries to prevent problems at home. During the 1990s we failed to invade Sudan, choosing instead to fire cruise missiles...
We failed to invade Sudan, we invaded Afghanisan, we invaded Iraq, we invaded so and so.... Wow. Who the flying fuck gives America the right to invade whoever it pleases the world over ? Is it just me or have you noticed that it seems to be the only country large scale invading the ass out of the world ? Dont give me that bullcrap about "to prevent problems at home". Iraq had no means of doing the US any harm. All the charges against it were trumped up right down to the laughable WMD threat. The world over people knew that was horseshit and thats why any self respecting country (which wont get squeezed by the US) in the UN told you to fuck off! France got noticed only because it had veto and gave enough of a shit to say something about it...
What happened? September 11 happened. It became --you see where I'm going here? --a problem at home....
You're thinking is laughably simple. What did Sept 11th involve ? Aircraft and a bunch of seriously pissed off fanatics. Period. If you invade every country out there you will multiply the pissed off fanatics five times over. Wiping out "terrorists" in Iraq will only fuel more violence. America has a rich diversity of people and the more countries you invade the larger percentage of you're local populace you're going to have pissed off at you. Yeah thats solving problems at home...sure! --you see where I'm going here ? --mayhem at home! Militancy never solved anything unless it was absolutely necessary.
Mathematics and Sex :-D
hmm.... MICROSOFT .Net based CPU ....wouldnt that qualify sufficiently to be a BrainF**K CPU ? :-D
I expect that the .net VM is in ROM...
Squeezing a strapped down portion of a platform (or OS) into ROM isnt particularly new. If fact, Linux has a version of this : http://www.linuxbios.org/
For a minute I read that as "BabylonX" Movie starts filming...
;).
No such luck
ZDNet is reporting that sales of servers using Linux will reach a whopping $9.1 billion by 2008...
Considering Linux (and OSS in general) makes money via support offerings, shouldnt this be added to the overall $$$ amount ? Does 9.1. billion include support charges or simply the cost of hardware ?
Another thing I routinely keep hearing about is that hardware is going to keep become VERY cheap (as a matter of fact there were some articles suggesting it might even become free in the long term). If one cant sell hardware, and cant sell the OS, where the hell does 9.1 billion come from ? "Voluntary donation" ??
The latest headline on a redneck tech newspaper:
Well slap me around and call me Susan! SAMBA Makes 4!
They largely did recon and organized the Northern Alliance to go on the offensive....Your simple view of what happened is based on watching the nightly news and not on doing research or educating yourself about the historical campaign....
5 stars for patriotism but -10 for being blinded by it. If you claim you have "researched" the news and yet not see the obvious in the news its REMARKABLE! When I said "before setting foot" on the place I expected someone to at least read between the lines. I meant they didnt set foot on a battleground. Being in the country and not fighting themselves is as good as being a local tourist.
If it were my country and it was attacked by the Taliban, I would not be so gunshy about sending my soldiers in first hand to finish off the job instead of "using" the Northern Alliance. The Taliban had no aircraft, no tanks, no laser guided munitions, nothing. So exactly what was the purpose of bombing the shit out of them first with all the air/firepower at you're disposal if ground troops could have "finished off" the job anyway ? It's because they didnt want to become kalashnikov fodder like the russians were at the hands of the dug in Taliban who knew the terrain and the guerilla tactics far better. Being patriotic is all fine and great but at least look at the situation like it is. The Red Army is a considerable force to recon with so dont take they're defeat lightly.
You might argue that when one has the firepower why wouldnt one use it. I agree completely. But inspect you're own reasons about why they used it first. It was purely because it made the ground offensive a veritable cakewalk in comparrison to what the soviets faced facing the enemy in the eye on the ground. That was my point exactly - firepower and airpower are what win or lose a battle - not ground troops. They chose this strategy BECAUSE they learned from the Russian experience. Do you're research first before "educating" others.
I would be interested in doing a DDoS attack like this...
Point 1 doesnt make sense because it would make more sense for my service to figure out a way to plug into the rival network and siphon off they're shares. It would get me more notice and wont get me noticed as a nasty SOB.
Point 2 is unlikely because though these agencies are a mean litigating bunch, they are unlikely to condone something like this. More so that *if* they were discovered, they would be in a LOT of trouble (read : law suits galore!)
Point 3 seems more likely. Some guys just can't get enough attention. Downing the SCO site has been done already and people seem to be running out of ripe juicy targets that'll get them noticed.
If your assertation were true, Bush would not have be announcing an increase in troop deployment in Iraq....
Hey I meant the "won" with mild sarcasm. See the point I wanted to make that unlike the Soviets who got thoroughly clobbered with guerilla warfare tactics of the Afgan militia eventually had to pull out because they're ground troops were unable to quell the local uprising. The Americans on the other hand levelled the place to kingdom come even before they set foot on the place. If they attempted a land assault they would have suffered a similar fate as the soviets. The air bombardment and the cruise missile pummeling were the defining difference.
I have been interviewed several times AND have been on the other side of the interview panel just as often. If theres one thing I have noticed is that alarmingly often, people with 7-8 years of work are bungling loggerheads.
Work experience itself is good but like a good degree, its useful only if you actually came across learning something worthwhile from it. If you have 8 years of "work experience" tacking together little corny websites for you're kid brother how the hell are you going to be useful in my team ?
The real "geeks" are the ones who READ out of self motivation and enjoyment about the field they are in - not because they want a nice shiny degree from an Ivy league institute. Anyone whose basically lazy will never cut it big no matter where he came out of.
...not worry about where the food will come from or the housing will come from. It will be provided by the government
:-D
So what you basically mean to say is that improvements in data center technology is a forerunner to communism...
If the last few years and the cold war have taught anything, land assults (robots or humans) have largely become irrelevant to any war. The Soviets attached a great deal of importance to submarines with ballistic missile launch capability while the americans focussed a lot of aircraft and missile delivery systems of they're own.
The ONLY reason the Americans really "won" the Afgan war was because they bombarded the place to a pulp even before a single US soldier set foot onto a real battleground.
If there is really a place for robotics its to replace aircraft and submaries with robotic counterparts because they are the real force multipliers in a battle (not military headcount).
Hey will these babies support Longhorn?
/sarcasm
Like the former Soviet Empire, Communist Yugoslavia, British India, et. al., the Chinese "nation" will disintegrate into smaller parts once a central government becomes unable to control the provinces by brute force.
HAH!...Get the facts right dude, this is Slashdot! British India did not "disintegrate". The British were instrumental in dividing it into India and Pakistan based on fuelling religious differences between otherwise previously peaceful and amicably living communities (Muslims and Hindus). They're "Divide and Rule" policy's ultimate victory was getting the communities to attack one another to the point of demanding they're own separate country. There are even conspiracy theories that indicate that a completely united India would have posed a significant threat to the British in future so they preferred to have the parts fighting rather than turn on them for screwing them over for the past 100 odd years!
Even in Yugoslavia it was basically widespread enthnic clensing that made the company tear from the middle. How do you think such a problem came about to the scale it did ? It's altogether possible it were deliberately instigated and once all hell broke loose its every man for himself.
Now if I were China, I'd be equally paranoid of "hostile" governments attemting to create dissent amongst the country to achieve similar aims. Maybe they're excessivly paranoid and resort to force to quell popular uprising but they're intensions are most likely NOT to torture people for fun as much as to maintain they're "empire"'s integrity.
....used only for formal communications, or by older, less tech-saavy generations
I somehow cant figure out how email requires lesser tech-savvyness than IM. Typically an old person will find some younger "tech savvy" person to set up the mail client or IM client anyway right ?
Assuming a grandpa has his IM and Email client both installed and configged with his alias and email account respectively. To use the IM, all he has to do is GO online and it logs in by default. He just double clicks on a contact's name and starts talking (i.e. type and press Enter). Even easier if someone else messages him since he just has to reply.
Now with an email client, he has to (typically), MANUALLY start the mail client, squint his eyes on all those funny icons with titles all over them, dig through a seperate address book app to find addresses, explicitly write mail messages hitting the "Compose" button, navigate some obscure menu to press "Send" (I doubt if most people mug shortcut keys let alone old people). If it flags some error most elderly folks dont even bother reading them and are left in suspence if the message actually went or not. If he/she uses online mail it only gets worse since he has to go to a site and then do all the above and more.
IM can at best be easier and at worst be AS difficult. The only obstruction I see is that older folks might be more familiar with email and are unwilling to switch because they arent used to adapting as quickly as we are. That doesnt mean they are less tech-savvy, just means they are not as flexible in adapting in general to new things.
This is due to the save file paradigm. Changes only get saved if you tell the computer to. People have long realized this is bad; this is why some programs have autosave.
The trouble with this is that AutoSave sucks bigtime if you're working on a relatively BIG file. Disk I/O is typically a very slow activity and comprises the biggest bottleneck in a computer system. If I have to wait 4-5 seconds every minute to autosave a file it's irritating and breaks my chain of thought. And all this because of a "potential" power failure that might occur once in a month or so (AT WORST!). Anyone who has power failures more often than that might as well buy a UPS because long term outages have a way of damaging computer hardware. And as for AutoSave, if it must be implemented, at least come up with sane file formats that allow only the diff to be stored rather than chugging the whole damn thing to disk.
The question one must focus on is that WHAT does burning CO2 produce ? If it produces CO as one of the byproducts, we arent necessarily improving the situation much - CO is a lethal gas for human beings. On a place like Mars where you dont have to worry about poisoning humans no one could care less but the same doesnt apply on earth.
As per dictionary.com
Forensics: "The use of science and technology to investigate and establish facts in criminal or civil courts of law." or
"The art or study of formal debate; argumentation."
Looks like a curious choice of words for a task like this...
Buy one now and impress your friends
:D
If you're friends get impressed with a Commodore you (and you're friends) need to get out more often.
Now having a phone that doubles up as a wife (minus the sex) is as useless as it gets.
;-D) ...now THAT is something I'll be willing to pay good money for.
But having a phone that learns to nag you're wife so, while shes occupied, you can do more "productive" stuff (like post on Slashdot
China (and quite possibly India too) are inherently wary and more suspicious of a big firm owning every computer they work on. Conspiracy theories aside, its pretty well known that the NSA and other security agencies in the US "work with" Microsoft during they're OS development. Now if I were a government in Asia, I'd rather ask patent lawyers to kiss my ass rather than let a foreign government have the complete ability to spy into my entire computer network.
Thats the simple reason why no matter what M$ does, it'll never gain absolute control over Asian governments.
Does it violate 228 or 288. Also how come it violates "about" 228 patents ? Does the number of patents it violates change depending on the time of day you measure it ? /sarcasm
Ah, but lack of a paper trail will not make your pissed off users forget where they bought their computer.
Maybe so, but it still isnt enough to prove he sold a pirated copy of Windows. Create suspicion, maybe but I doubt if that's enough by itself to conclusively prove the case.
What's the harm to give a free copy to people who are already using your stuff without paying and are likely trying to come clear?
No harm whatsoever. I'm all for free software but the thing is, MS isn't doing this so that everyone will get they're OS free. They are doing this so that eventually they will catch all the bootleggers giving they're OS away and then be able to properly charge everyone for the OS proper in the form of upgrades et. al. They wont go through all this trouble of catching piracy folks if they intend to give they're OS away anyway. As an example, would RedHat try and catch software pirates who peddle Linux ?
This is only a pilot program for the UK, and it requires a proof of purchase
Let me get this straight. Which "pirate" in his right mind is going to sell pirated software to anyone and leave a paper trail long enough to implicate him in the form of a bill ?
Another point, as soon as all the piracy shops hear about this, the few dumb ones who did pirate the copies with a bill will simply stop issuing bills for the copies thus preventing anything tracing back to them.
A third point, Windows might be a large chunk of pirateable software but it's far from being the ONLY piece of it. There are millions of other software titles worthy of pirating. These guys can afford to keep low until MS abandons this program. And abandon it they will because the only way to sustain this is to keep dishing out Windows free, which of course MS cannot possibly do.