That theory is simplistic to the point of just being wrong. It is like buying a brand new car every year thinking that you are using less energy because each new car gets one mile per gallon better fuel usage. When you say calories out, I assume you are not talking about how many calories you crap out. That is where weight loss is achieved by some from eating lots of fiber. They are eating calories that their body is incapable of digesting. Thus they are literally crapping out the weight. I have yet to meet a single person that has spent the energy and time to actually be able to count the number of calories taken in and expelled. I have never heard of any scientific study that has actually bothered to try to count all calorie input and output.
Can anyone point to a single study that has actually done a real comparison of calories in vs. calories out? It would need to include calories expelled in places not normally thought of such as loss of hair, skin, boogers, and in particular urine and feces. I don't think I have ever even heard of any studies that even tracked actual loss of calories via burning into body heat. I'm not even sure we have the technology to do it.
And how are thy going to try to spin the environmental cost this will have?
For a long time I have thought that if political wanted to appeal to multiple sides of the political spectrum, they would give a good tax break to businesses for getting over a certain percentage of telecommuters. They would also give the employees a tax break so that they would push for telecommuting as part of their compensation. This make them business friendly, environmentalist friendly, and family friendly all in one fell swoop. If even 20% of the population could be removed from the roads, we would see less wear on the roads, as well as less need for widening roads, as well as less traffic congestion. The biggest question from a political point of view would be concerning how much gas taxes would be lost compared to savings on roadways, and how hard the oil companies would fight it.
Let me start with the bad... Your recommendation at the end to stop dieting and reading dieting books is in direct contradiction to your recommendation that people go on a diet and read a dieting book.
That being said, you are right. Many people don't realize that the reason they 'need' to eat so much fiber to stay regular is because they have taken all of the fat out of their diet; as well as not realizing that the major point of whole grain is to put food in your body that will pass through without being digested. They might as well eat a hamburger cut with sawdust.
Exercise is one of the weight loss myths. While my wife can drop 5 pounds in a week with just an our on a treadmill today, I have never been able to lose a single pound through exercise. In fact, for whatever reason exercise doesn't make me burn fat, and DOES make me build muscle, so the more I exercise, the more I weigh. I also am constantly hungry, and devoid of energy. No, doubt, I am healthier with with a bunch of muscle underneath the fat, but I do look worse, and the medical industry says I am less healthy.
Conversely, if I go close to a carnivorous diet, I have a ton of energy, don't feel nearly as hungry, and lose weight down to what I consider an idea weight very quickly whether I get exercise or not. This happens whether I eat in moderation, or gorge myself.
So, no, eating in moderation with exercise is simply not an option for a very large portion of the population to maintain a healthy weight.
Well put. It can get even worse than that though. Many years ago, before the internet, I lived up the street from an intersection that had two lanes that made a right hand turn. Here in California, it is legal to make a right hand turn on a red light if the way is clear, and you make a complete stop first. Because, the next turn we usually needed to take after the intersection was a left, we often needed to be in the left hand right turn lane. This led us to discuss whether making a right on red applied to any lane other than the far right lane. Neither of us knew the answer. We didn't want to be jerks, and sit through lights, holding up traffic if the turn was legal. We also did not want to get a ticket for running a red light.
So, we decided to find out if it was legal or not. The next cop we saw, we asked him, as he was one of the people that would be writing tickets if it was illegal. He did not know. We asked a couple of other police. They did not know. We called the police station, and no one there could answer the question. The best we got was "I doubt I would write a ticket for that." Not very reassuring. So, we called the DMV. They could not tell us if the turn was illegal or not. Now, it is possible that we could have found a lawyer or judge that could have answered the question, but is it really reasonable to require your entire population to hire professionals just to find out if they can turn right?
It seems to me that a government has a serious problem when neither the people who's job it is to enforce the law, nor the people who's job it is to test citizens on their understanding of the law, know what is legal themselves.
You would be wrong. For the reader to have nothing else to draw upon, the reader would have to be retarded, as to have any access to the writers command of the English language, there would have to be some kind of content. Your theory would require that the reader not understand any of the content.
Of course the exceptions to this would be if the only content was communication with the sole purpose of showing command of the English language with no other content, and communication with grammar and/or spelling, so bad that the content cannot be deciphered.
For example, I would not even think of trying to convince you that your misuse of the English language is a big deal. Given that I only had to go back 3 posts to find you using a period to end a question, and in your post right here, you type the word "English" with a lower case 'e', it is clear that either you do not have a decent command of the English language, you are arguing a point that you actually disagree with, or you have never bothered to see if you actually live up to the standards that you expect of those around you.
If you look, you will see that the word is used three times, and the first does not have the typo. I'm sure you are well aware that typos tend to group. If you make a typo, you are more likely to make the same typo multiple times. If it had been a spelling mistake, it still would not be a big deal, as you clearly understand with your "[sic]". Of course the misspelling theory would require that the first time lose was used, that it had a typo in it to create a correct spelling.
Actually my son is already better educated in the English language than you. He already understands that there are times that being very careful is important, and that there are times when it is not. Fifth grade homework assignment? Important. Internet forum post? Not important.
I will definitely teach him to differentiate between a typo and someone using wrong words, so you don't have to worry, he will continue to be better than you, as I assume that if you haven't figure out the difference between these items yet, you probably never will.
On the other hand it is nice that you agree with me, as it is pretty well evident that complaining about grammar and spelling in forums translates to "I agree 100% with the content of your post, but since I want to argue about it, I'll complain about spelling or grammar, even when it is obviously a typo."
The problem isn't with giving a complement. The problem isn't the idea that of telling an opponent that you think they played well. The problem is that "Good Game" has become a way to be a jerk, just as if, after a kid lost in a spelling bee, you were to lean over to the person next to you and say, "That kid is 'Special'". With air quotes and all. Or, if your pal introduces you to his new girlfriend, and you look at him and quip, "She's a real winner". These are not compliments. There common usage as made sarcasm the default usage of them. "Good Game" falls into the same category.
While you can examples of how someone can just barely lose, yet still play well, that is not when "Good Game" is usually used. It is usually used when kids are lined up after a game, and told to say it to each other, no matter how well or badly they played. It is usually used as a way to rub salt into the wounds of a recent loss. The kids definitely know this, and most of the adults do too.
The difference is the same difference that my kid perceives when I put him in his bead. If I pick him up, tell him it is bed time, and put him in bed, he is happy. He will chat with me. All is good. If I pick him up and tell him he is in trouble, and put him in his bed, he is very upset and cries. Your explanation that "Time Out" is inherently a punishment makes no sense, in that I doubt that every NFL player starts to see what it is that they did wrong when a "Time Out" is called. I truly doubt that anyone is sports start looking at what they did wrong when a "Time Out" is called. Given that the etymology of the term comes from sports, it is clear that the coining of the term was specifically for the purpose of not telling kids that what they did was wrong.
I recently had to do a double take concerning the everyone wins mentality. We have thought our 3 year old son that when you lose, you give the other person a grin and say "I'll get you next time.". When we race to the car, or play video games, sometimes he wins, and more importantly sometimes he looses. When he wins, we tell him that we will get him next time. This to me says that I acknowledge you won, and that I definitely want to play again. But, when we do, I will look to give you a much bigger challenge.
We took him to a chess club, so that he could get some practice playing against people other than me, my wife, and Chess Master. When he lost, he told the other kid that he would get him next game, and suddenly there was a room full of disapproving eyes on us.
To me, the "Good Game" line has always been a PC way to be an ass. If you are the looser, telling the winner that they played a good game seems kind of stupid. If you are the winner, it always comes across as condescending.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I am understanding what you wrote, but if you are saying that there is a solution that will would give me a "Performance Rating" of what I would expect from an Athlon labeled as "Athlon 2600+", I would be interested in hearing what it is. I have never been an Over/Under clocker, so am unfamiliar with what can be safely achieved in under clocking. My wife currently has a Via SP12000EN, and it is adequate for web browsing, email and word processing. If there is an AMD solution that can still run fanless off of the fanless 80 watt power supply, I would be interested in it.
This is a little off topic, but your post kind of points out the current problem of parents having punishments that are not punishments. It is now considered proper parenting to no longer teach children right from wrong. Now your only supposed to teach your kid right, and hope that they are never faced with wrong. The epitome of this is the "Time Out". Instead of telling the kid that they are in trouble and to go stand in a corner, or giving them a quick spanking, the parents have a "Time Out". You know like in football, or other games. It's not that your in trouble. It's just that we need to pause the game to gather ourselves back up. So, lets spend a few minutes sitting on this pretty little park bench we bought that has "Time Out" engraved in it. Weee!!!
Most people don't seem to know that Pee Wee did not start out as a children's show. I can't recall where I saw them, but I distinctly remember seeing Pee Wee Herman skits that were definitely not for children, well before the children's show started. I still remember the skit with Pee Wee taping mirrors to his shoes so that he could look up Dotty's (I believe) skirt. I was quite surprised when the Saturday morning show was announced.
I don't recall the early episodes, but the last time I saw a Seasame Street, Oscer was a person that children were encouraged to interact with. I wouldn't mind Oscer so much if the kids were encouraged to run him out of town, as encouraging children to play with bums is really not the best idea. Even given that, I wouldn't think of labeling the shows as Adult Only.
Of course I do find it odd that Seaseme street gets labeled adult only, but Shrek 2, with a character literally giving himself a blow job in the middle of of the town square, gets advertised directly to children, and even get happy meal toys.
I think you have it partially right. The problems we have with "Teenagers" is that there is no such thing as "Teenagers" when compared to children and adults. The problems we see is that we have taken a group that for 10,000 years was considered adults. A group that fought wars, got married, had children, ran businesses, created communities, and built nations. In just a few short generations, we have redefined them as children. We have stripped them of their rights, and told them that they have no responsibility for their actions. Once in a while we will pull one out of the crowd, and punish him as an adult, but right up until that point, he is classified as a child by our laws.
I suspect that we would have similar problems with the 35-45 year old set if we did the same thing to them.
I will be calling 2007 the year of Linux. This last year was what I would call the tipping point. The specific thing that decided it for me was when my wife was having a play date for our 3 year old son at our house. I came out of my office to get some coffee, and there were 4 stay at home moms discussing which of them had started running Linux, and which of them were still on Windows. To me, that was an indication that Linux had officially arrived.
Ever since XP was released with their activation, it was clear that the end was coming for MS. As others have said, and is obvious to anyone who has installed a major Linux Distro in the last year, Linux is ready. The only thing keeping Windows in it's dominant position now is momentum. Many people still need Windows for specific applications, and some people still game on them. But as people upgrade, many of these people have older systems that they are using as secondary systems. What do you think will happen to all of these system when MS decides to EOL XP, and stops authorizing them. These systems will still need to be reinstalled periodically. These machines are often still plenty powerful enough to run a modern OS. What do you think these systems will run? As more homes have Linux systems, more commercial software will be available for it.
I have recently been finding myself thinking almost the opposite. When I saw that for $150 I could buy a new motherboard and memory that would well over double the speed of my computer, double my memory, and bring my 3 generation old video card that runs everything I play just fine up to being just one generation behind the curve, all while cutting my electrical usage in half, I started looking at the machines around my house. I was amazed at how fast the new system was, but what amazed me more was that the Alienware PC I bought in 2000 (handed down to my son a few years ago) still runs everything I use adequately. Obviously if I am re-encoding a DVD, I would rather do it in literally 10th the time, and this machine is not a full decade old, but it is fully usable with current versions of software. I suspect that this has as much to do with the fact that new machines are not really fast enough to do anything truly revolutionary over the what we had in 2000, but it still amazes me that a 7 year old machine can be considered anything but a retro system.
This is why I have started to look more at power consumption than speed lately. I would plunk down money faster for an AthlonX2 2600+ that was fanless and used 20 watts than I would for an AthlonX2 5600+ that requires a fan and uses 50 watts.
That system already exists. It is called "not having insurance". Insurance companies need to charge MORE for their premiums than they pay out in benefits. If they can pinpoint exactly how much they will be paying out for your benefits because they have good enough data to charge you the "right" premium, they would have to charge you the same amount you would pay without insurance plus a little for overhead and profit.
The point of insurance is because people like me will hardly ever go to the doctor, and other people will go more often.
I have heard this argument many times. The problem with it is that the local phone company is not the same company as the ISP with the same name. Take Verizon for example. Verizon ISP and Verizon Telephone are not the same company. Verizon ISP, which is the company that sold the DSL connection, is in no way hurt by Vonage, so no, Vonage is not competing with Verizon ISP.
Now, if we are going to say that Verizon ISP is not profitable on it's own, and requires the high margin POTS lines to subsidize it, then we have a classic anti-trust case where a monopoly is using it's monopoly position to control a different industry.
Sure I will explain a bit better. I will use PDAs as an example. The complaint isn't that companies won't let people use anything but company approved PDAs. The complaint is that many companies won't allow PDAs at all, even when it would significantly help a person do their job. If your company has a process to get people the tools they need to do their jobs, that is great, but it is not the norm. It is very common for administrators to spread FUD about products if they just don't feel like supporting them. PDA are a perfect example of that.
When you talk about not backing up PCs, you actually support my point. Administrators that are complaining that laptops are a problem because they are hard to back up, are generally just spreading FUD. You seem to agree that the effort and cost of backing up PCs often just makes it not worth bothering with. Can you imagine what the mainframe guys would have said if in 1982 they were told that all of the terminals on peoples desks were going to be replaced with PCs, and that backups just were not going to be done because it wasn't worth it?
The mainframe comments make complete sense if you are familiar with pre-PC computing. Prior to the personal computer, all software was run on the mainframe. People started bringing in their Apples and Commodores. There were not business cases for it. People just did it because they could get more work done with less effort. It wasn't until the release of the IBM PC that companies really started authorizing desktop computers. Even well after the PC was introduced, much of the software that would today be relegated to the PC because it is more suited to the task, was run on mainframes. That is why you could get things like Wordperfect for VMS. When the PC was first entering businesses, it wasn't always clear what best to run on the PC vs. the Mainframe. Heck, even today, it isn't always clear what belongs where. The division of labor between the two kinds of systems evolved over time as people experimented with software on the two different platforms.
Of course, this division of labor, and the huge benefits we get from them didn't happen until, first, users went around IT by using their personal, non-authorized equipment to do work, and second, companies started to work with the technology instead of complaining about it and trying to lock it out.
We are currently faced with an almost identical situation. People have been going around IT to use personal equipment that helps them do their job better and easier. Some companies/administrators have started to realize that these devices are good, and have started to work with them instead of trying to fight them. This is great. Other companies/administrators are fighting them. We are already finding that some tasks are better on these other devices than on PCs. It is inevitable that these devices will become common in the work place. Administrator that fight it are generally just making things difficult for their customers because they don't want to deal with it. That is why I find most of the complains from PC administrators to be ridiculous. Virtually all of their complaints that they make against PDAs have already been made with equal validity against PCs. These PC administrators should be thankful that the arguments didn't gain traction, or their jobs would never have existed.
I will ignore the paragraph about the network belonging to the company, and the incredibly unlikely event that plugging something in will physically break it, because the same could be said of the company's electrical wiring. The electrical wiring in the building is just as much the property of the company as the network, and faulty equipment has caused many a fire from being plugged in. Basically, the "it's the companies network" is no different except that "it's on a computer". Saying "it's on a computer so it's totally different" is a poor argument that has been debunked over and over again. If the company electrician started going around to p
I can honestly say I am unfamiliar with the term "Truther". Is that another ad hominim attack? Are you are trying to say that this whole thing has been because you didn't like the word "steal" being use? If so, you again fall into the ignorant, or dishonest camp. It was clear from my original post that I working from other peoples definition. The fact that you have already read this snippet...
"Why do you keep using the word "steal" and its derivatives?"
Because the original post you started arguing against was a complaint that the word "steal" is in appropriate for what people are doing when they copy other people's ideas. You probably didn't get that with the reading disorders and all. ... indicates that dishonest is the more likely of the two.
That is why the word "steal" was in quotes. Putting text in quotes is a writing technique to let those reading know that the writer is quoting something previously said. Your proper use of quotes shows that you do understand this. Just as using others ideas without permission is not "Piracy", it is also not "Stealing", but I am sure you have read enough to know that these two terms are consistently used to refer to using ideas without compensation. The problem is that it is only used inconsistently, which of course is the point of the original post you started arguing against.
It seems the problem now is that you are using a non-standard use of the word "property". The generally accepted definition of the word "property" used in this context is exclusive use or rights to a thing. In fact the term "Intellectual Property" was specifically coined to indicate that ideas are owned in the sense that an individual or specific group have exclusive use or rights to the ideas. I can certainly accept that words can have different meanings, and that language is a fluid thing, but the definition of "Property" in this case is pretty clearly defined. So, by definition, an idea is not property if the "owner" has no say in how it is used. Thus the two original premises stand.
"You mean this? "Claiming something in terms of absolutes is often a sign of ignorance." That is just a general statement. I see nothing personal about it."
Oh, come on, you were clearly directing this at me. You had just accused me of seeing the issue in absolute terms. I'm not buying the dumb act on that one. It's not even partially believable.
"Ideas are definitely not property that can be stolen. Even if you "steal" one of my ideas, I still have the idea. They are still property. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that says otherwise."
So, if it we take the media industries definition and call it stealing, is it not also true that it is just as much stealing to use pre-copyright ideas without compensation as it is to use post-copyright ideas without compensation?
Slashdot Mirror
That theory is simplistic to the point of just being wrong. It is like buying a brand new car every year thinking that you are using less energy because each new car gets one mile per gallon better fuel usage. When you say calories out, I assume you are not talking about how many calories you crap out. That is where weight loss is achieved by some from eating lots of fiber. They are eating calories that their body is incapable of digesting. Thus they are literally crapping out the weight. I have yet to meet a single person that has spent the energy and time to actually be able to count the number of calories taken in and expelled. I have never heard of any scientific study that has actually bothered to try to count all calorie input and output.
Can anyone point to a single study that has actually done a real comparison of calories in vs. calories out? It would need to include calories expelled in places not normally thought of such as loss of hair, skin, boogers, and in particular urine and feces. I don't think I have ever even heard of any studies that even tracked actual loss of calories via burning into body heat. I'm not even sure we have the technology to do it.
And how are thy going to try to spin the environmental cost this will have?
For a long time I have thought that if political wanted to appeal to multiple sides of the political spectrum, they would give a good tax break to businesses for getting over a certain percentage of telecommuters. They would also give the employees a tax break so that they would push for telecommuting as part of their compensation. This make them business friendly, environmentalist friendly, and family friendly all in one fell swoop. If even 20% of the population could be removed from the roads, we would see less wear on the roads, as well as less need for widening roads, as well as less traffic congestion. The biggest question from a political point of view would be concerning how much gas taxes would be lost compared to savings on roadways, and how hard the oil companies would fight it.
Let me start with the bad... Your recommendation at the end to stop dieting and reading dieting books is in direct contradiction to your recommendation that people go on a diet and read a dieting book.
That being said, you are right. Many people don't realize that the reason they 'need' to eat so much fiber to stay regular is because they have taken all of the fat out of their diet; as well as not realizing that the major point of whole grain is to put food in your body that will pass through without being digested. They might as well eat a hamburger cut with sawdust.
Exercise is one of the weight loss myths. While my wife can drop 5 pounds in a week with just an our on a treadmill today, I have never been able to lose a single pound through exercise. In fact, for whatever reason exercise doesn't make me burn fat, and DOES make me build muscle, so the more I exercise, the more I weigh. I also am constantly hungry, and devoid of energy. No, doubt, I am healthier with with a bunch of muscle underneath the fat, but I do look worse, and the medical industry says I am less healthy.
Conversely, if I go close to a carnivorous diet, I have a ton of energy, don't feel nearly as hungry, and lose weight down to what I consider an idea weight very quickly whether I get exercise or not. This happens whether I eat in moderation, or gorge myself.
So, no, eating in moderation with exercise is simply not an option for a very large portion of the population to maintain a healthy weight.
Well put. It can get even worse than that though. Many years ago, before the internet, I lived up the street from an intersection that had two lanes that made a right hand turn. Here in California, it is legal to make a right hand turn on a red light if the way is clear, and you make a complete stop first. Because, the next turn we usually needed to take after the intersection was a left, we often needed to be in the left hand right turn lane. This led us to discuss whether making a right on red applied to any lane other than the far right lane. Neither of us knew the answer. We didn't want to be jerks, and sit through lights, holding up traffic if the turn was legal. We also did not want to get a ticket for running a red light.
So, we decided to find out if it was legal or not. The next cop we saw, we asked him, as he was one of the people that would be writing tickets if it was illegal. He did not know. We asked a couple of other police. They did not know. We called the police station, and no one there could answer the question. The best we got was "I doubt I would write a ticket for that." Not very reassuring. So, we called the DMV. They could not tell us if the turn was illegal or not. Now, it is possible that we could have found a lawyer or judge that could have answered the question, but is it really reasonable to require your entire population to hire professionals just to find out if they can turn right?
It seems to me that a government has a serious problem when neither the people who's job it is to enforce the law, nor the people who's job it is to test citizens on their understanding of the law, know what is legal themselves.
You would be wrong. For the reader to have nothing else to draw upon, the reader would have to be retarded, as to have any access to the writers command of the English language, there would have to be some kind of content. Your theory would require that the reader not understand any of the content.
Of course the exceptions to this would be if the only content was communication with the sole purpose of showing command of the English language with no other content, and communication with grammar and/or spelling, so bad that the content cannot be deciphered.
For example, I would not even think of trying to convince you that your misuse of the English language is a big deal. Given that I only had to go back 3 posts to find you using a period to end a question, and in your post right here, you type the word "English" with a lower case 'e', it is clear that either you do not have a decent command of the English language, you are arguing a point that you actually disagree with, or you have never bothered to see if you actually live up to the standards that you expect of those around you.
If you look, you will see that the word is used three times, and the first does not have the typo. I'm sure you are well aware that typos tend to group. If you make a typo, you are more likely to make the same typo multiple times. If it had been a spelling mistake, it still would not be a big deal, as you clearly understand with your "[sic]". Of course the misspelling theory would require that the first time lose was used, that it had a typo in it to create a correct spelling.
Actually my son is already better educated in the English language than you. He already understands that there are times that being very careful is important, and that there are times when it is not. Fifth grade homework assignment? Important. Internet forum post? Not important.
I will definitely teach him to differentiate between a typo and someone using wrong words, so you don't have to worry, he will continue to be better than you, as I assume that if you haven't figure out the difference between these items yet, you probably never will.
On the other hand it is nice that you agree with me, as it is pretty well evident that complaining about grammar and spelling in forums translates to "I agree 100% with the content of your post, but since I want to argue about it, I'll complain about spelling or grammar, even when it is obviously a typo."
The problem isn't with giving a complement. The problem isn't the idea that of telling an opponent that you think they played well. The problem is that "Good Game" has become a way to be a jerk, just as if, after a kid lost in a spelling bee, you were to lean over to the person next to you and say, "That kid is 'Special'". With air quotes and all. Or, if your pal introduces you to his new girlfriend, and you look at him and quip, "She's a real winner". These are not compliments. There common usage as made sarcasm the default usage of them. "Good Game" falls into the same category.
While you can examples of how someone can just barely lose, yet still play well, that is not when "Good Game" is usually used. It is usually used when kids are lined up after a game, and told to say it to each other, no matter how well or badly they played. It is usually used as a way to rub salt into the wounds of a recent loss. The kids definitely know this, and most of the adults do too.
The difference is the same difference that my kid perceives when I put him in his bead. If I pick him up, tell him it is bed time, and put him in bed, he is happy. He will chat with me. All is good. If I pick him up and tell him he is in trouble, and put him in his bed, he is very upset and cries. Your explanation that "Time Out" is inherently a punishment makes no sense, in that I doubt that every NFL player starts to see what it is that they did wrong when a "Time Out" is called. I truly doubt that anyone is sports start looking at what they did wrong when a "Time Out" is called. Given that the etymology of the term comes from sports, it is clear that the coining of the term was specifically for the purpose of not telling kids that what they did was wrong.
I recently had to do a double take concerning the everyone wins mentality. We have thought our 3 year old son that when you lose, you give the other person a grin and say "I'll get you next time.". When we race to the car, or play video games, sometimes he wins, and more importantly sometimes he looses. When he wins, we tell him that we will get him next time. This to me says that I acknowledge you won, and that I definitely want to play again. But, when we do, I will look to give you a much bigger challenge.
We took him to a chess club, so that he could get some practice playing against people other than me, my wife, and Chess Master. When he lost, he told the other kid that he would get him next game, and suddenly there was a room full of disapproving eyes on us.
To me, the "Good Game" line has always been a PC way to be an ass. If you are the looser, telling the winner that they played a good game seems kind of stupid. If you are the winner, it always comes across as condescending.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I am understanding what you wrote, but if you are saying that there is a solution that will would give me a "Performance Rating" of what I would expect from an Athlon labeled as "Athlon 2600+", I would be interested in hearing what it is. I have never been an Over/Under clocker, so am unfamiliar with what can be safely achieved in under clocking. My wife currently has a Via SP12000EN, and it is adequate for web browsing, email and word processing. If there is an AMD solution that can still run fanless off of the fanless 80 watt power supply, I would be interested in it.
I'm guessing not much, since the pictures shows are renderings. Just look at them.
This is a little off topic, but your post kind of points out the current problem of parents having punishments that are not punishments. It is now considered proper parenting to no longer teach children right from wrong. Now your only supposed to teach your kid right, and hope that they are never faced with wrong. The epitome of this is the "Time Out". Instead of telling the kid that they are in trouble and to go stand in a corner, or giving them a quick spanking, the parents have a "Time Out". You know like in football, or other games. It's not that your in trouble. It's just that we need to pause the game to gather ourselves back up. So, lets spend a few minutes sitting on this pretty little park bench we bought that has "Time Out" engraved in it. Weee!!!
Most people don't seem to know that Pee Wee did not start out as a children's show. I can't recall where I saw them, but I distinctly remember seeing Pee Wee Herman skits that were definitely not for children, well before the children's show started. I still remember the skit with Pee Wee taping mirrors to his shoes so that he could look up Dotty's (I believe) skirt. I was quite surprised when the Saturday morning show was announced.
I don't recall the early episodes, but the last time I saw a Seasame Street, Oscer was a person that children were encouraged to interact with. I wouldn't mind Oscer so much if the kids were encouraged to run him out of town, as encouraging children to play with bums is really not the best idea. Even given that, I wouldn't think of labeling the shows as Adult Only.
Of course I do find it odd that Seaseme street gets labeled adult only, but Shrek 2, with a character literally giving himself a blow job in the middle of of the town square, gets advertised directly to children, and even get happy meal toys.
But DeVille was a villain. It's not as bad showing a villain killing all of the babies in the vicinity by smoking a cigarette.
I think you have it partially right. The problems we have with "Teenagers" is that there is no such thing as "Teenagers" when compared to children and adults. The problems we see is that we have taken a group that for 10,000 years was considered adults. A group that fought wars, got married, had children, ran businesses, created communities, and built nations. In just a few short generations, we have redefined them as children. We have stripped them of their rights, and told them that they have no responsibility for their actions. Once in a while we will pull one out of the crowd, and punish him as an adult, but right up until that point, he is classified as a child by our laws.
I suspect that we would have similar problems with the 35-45 year old set if we did the same thing to them.
I will be calling 2007 the year of Linux. This last year was what I would call the tipping point. The specific thing that decided it for me was when my wife was having a play date for our 3 year old son at our house. I came out of my office to get some coffee, and there were 4 stay at home moms discussing which of them had started running Linux, and which of them were still on Windows. To me, that was an indication that Linux had officially arrived.
Ever since XP was released with their activation, it was clear that the end was coming for MS. As others have said, and is obvious to anyone who has installed a major Linux Distro in the last year, Linux is ready. The only thing keeping Windows in it's dominant position now is momentum. Many people still need Windows for specific applications, and some people still game on them. But as people upgrade, many of these people have older systems that they are using as secondary systems. What do you think will happen to all of these system when MS decides to EOL XP, and stops authorizing them. These systems will still need to be reinstalled periodically. These machines are often still plenty powerful enough to run a modern OS. What do you think these systems will run? As more homes have Linux systems, more commercial software will be available for it.
I have recently been finding myself thinking almost the opposite. When I saw that for $150 I could buy a new motherboard and memory that would well over double the speed of my computer, double my memory, and bring my 3 generation old video card that runs everything I play just fine up to being just one generation behind the curve, all while cutting my electrical usage in half, I started looking at the machines around my house. I was amazed at how fast the new system was, but what amazed me more was that the Alienware PC I bought in 2000 (handed down to my son a few years ago) still runs everything I use adequately. Obviously if I am re-encoding a DVD, I would rather do it in literally 10th the time, and this machine is not a full decade old, but it is fully usable with current versions of software. I suspect that this has as much to do with the fact that new machines are not really fast enough to do anything truly revolutionary over the what we had in 2000, but it still amazes me that a 7 year old machine can be considered anything but a retro system.
This is why I have started to look more at power consumption than speed lately. I would plunk down money faster for an AthlonX2 2600+ that was fanless and used 20 watts than I would for an AthlonX2 5600+ that requires a fan and uses 50 watts.
That system already exists. It is called "not having insurance". Insurance companies need to charge MORE for their premiums than they pay out in benefits. If they can pinpoint exactly how much they will be paying out for your benefits because they have good enough data to charge you the "right" premium, they would have to charge you the same amount you would pay without insurance plus a little for overhead and profit.
The point of insurance is because people like me will hardly ever go to the doctor, and other people will go more often.
I have heard this argument many times. The problem with it is that the local phone company is not the same company as the ISP with the same name. Take Verizon for example. Verizon ISP and Verizon Telephone are not the same company. Verizon ISP, which is the company that sold the DSL connection, is in no way hurt by Vonage, so no, Vonage is not competing with Verizon ISP.
Now, if we are going to say that Verizon ISP is not profitable on it's own, and requires the high margin POTS lines to subsidize it, then we have a classic anti-trust case where a monopoly is using it's monopoly position to control a different industry.
Sure I will explain a bit better. I will use PDAs as an example. The complaint isn't that companies won't let people use anything but company approved PDAs. The complaint is that many companies won't allow PDAs at all, even when it would significantly help a person do their job. If your company has a process to get people the tools they need to do their jobs, that is great, but it is not the norm. It is very common for administrators to spread FUD about products if they just don't feel like supporting them. PDA are a perfect example of that.
When you talk about not backing up PCs, you actually support my point. Administrators that are complaining that laptops are a problem because they are hard to back up, are generally just spreading FUD. You seem to agree that the effort and cost of backing up PCs often just makes it not worth bothering with. Can you imagine what the mainframe guys would have said if in 1982 they were told that all of the terminals on peoples desks were going to be replaced with PCs, and that backups just were not going to be done because it wasn't worth it?
The mainframe comments make complete sense if you are familiar with pre-PC computing. Prior to the personal computer, all software was run on the mainframe. People started bringing in their Apples and Commodores. There were not business cases for it. People just did it because they could get more work done with less effort. It wasn't until the release of the IBM PC that companies really started authorizing desktop computers. Even well after the PC was introduced, much of the software that would today be relegated to the PC because it is more suited to the task, was run on mainframes. That is why you could get things like Wordperfect for VMS. When the PC was first entering businesses, it wasn't always clear what best to run on the PC vs. the Mainframe. Heck, even today, it isn't always clear what belongs where. The division of labor between the two kinds of systems evolved over time as people experimented with software on the two different platforms.
Of course, this division of labor, and the huge benefits we get from them didn't happen until, first, users went around IT by using their personal, non-authorized equipment to do work, and second, companies started to work with the technology instead of complaining about it and trying to lock it out.
We are currently faced with an almost identical situation. People have been going around IT to use personal equipment that helps them do their job better and easier. Some companies/administrators have started to realize that these devices are good, and have started to work with them instead of trying to fight them. This is great. Other companies/administrators are fighting them. We are already finding that some tasks are better on these other devices than on PCs. It is inevitable that these devices will become common in the work place. Administrator that fight it are generally just making things difficult for their customers because they don't want to deal with it. That is why I find most of the complains from PC administrators to be ridiculous. Virtually all of their complaints that they make against PDAs have already been made with equal validity against PCs. These PC administrators should be thankful that the arguments didn't gain traction, or their jobs would never have existed.
I will ignore the paragraph about the network belonging to the company, and the incredibly unlikely event that plugging something in will physically break it, because the same could be said of the company's electrical wiring. The electrical wiring in the building is just as much the property of the company as the network, and faulty equipment has caused many a fire from being plugged in. Basically, the "it's the companies network" is no different except that "it's on a computer". Saying "it's on a computer so it's totally different" is a poor argument that has been debunked over and over again. If the company electrician started going around to p
It seems the problem now is that you are using a non-standard use of the word "property". The generally accepted definition of the word "property" used in this context is exclusive use or rights to a thing. In fact the term "Intellectual Property" was specifically coined to indicate that ideas are owned in the sense that an individual or specific group have exclusive use or rights to the ideas. I can certainly accept that words can have different meanings, and that language is a fluid thing, but the definition of "Property" in this case is pretty clearly defined. So, by definition, an idea is not property if the "owner" has no say in how it is used. Thus the two original premises stand.
"You mean this? "Claiming something in terms of absolutes is often a sign of ignorance." That is just a general statement. I see nothing personal about it."
Oh, come on, you were clearly directing this at me. You had just accused me of seeing the issue in absolute terms. I'm not buying the dumb act on that one. It's not even partially believable.
"Ideas are definitely not property that can be stolen. Even if you "steal" one of my ideas, I still have the idea. They are still property. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that says otherwise."
So, if it we take the media industries definition and call it stealing, is it not also true that it is just as much stealing to use pre-copyright ideas without compensation as it is to use post-copyright ideas without compensation?