I care. And a lot of other people care. In fact, even you making that statement was ridiculous.
While the world may have been "bigger" back then (by your definition), the basic principles outlined by the founding fathers were based upon insight into the human mind. Regardless of tools, a human innately craves power. Give any one branch of government too much power, and they will abuse it. That's why the founding father's specifically limited its power.
And that's why I, and other people, care that they are abusing the powers given to them.
younger programmers do not want to learn Java and that is creating far more problems for the platform than malware.
citation needed.
as far as i can tell, most universities and colleges are teaching java at entry level courses, if not throughout the entire cs/software engineering program.
I wonder how far a pastafarian theme park idea would make it in Kentucky.
I see the validity of your point, but by funding one religious theme park, they now are under an arbitrarily big obligation to fund any other theme park with religious connotations with similar amounts of money (assuming they can make some numbers up saying they'll get people to come).
While compiling the Linux kernel with 64 parallel jobs, 1080p video playback was still smooth, windows could be moved fluidly, and there was not nearly as much of a slowdown compared to when this patch was applied.
shouldn't that read "and there was not nearly as much of a slowdown compared to when this patch wasn't applied"?
I'm certainly not an Apple fan, but I used to give them credit for at least providing quality products, even if it was marked up considerably over their competitors.
From what I've heard, it seems like they just haven't been putting as much quality effort into the iPhone 4 as they did for the previous generations.
But maybe that's just what I hear from the interwebs.
I can't speak for the entire country (in fact I can't even really speak for the area I lived in), but where I lived previously while attending college, Verizon FIOS was making a big push. I went to one of the stupid little kiosk stands in the mall, and asked if my house was available. The Verizon rep told me 'nope', and upon further questioning he told me that Time Warner was basically engaging Verizon in long term law suits in an attempt to prolong any sort of real competition as long as they could.
Now, granted, that was a Verizon rep, so I'm sure he was biased, but it seems to make sense.
Competition is not equivalent to lack of opportunity.
Google saw an opportunity to make profits while still innovating in an already saturated market, making it all the more impressive that they've been this successful.
Later google released gmail. We had millions of online email providers, hotmail was really hot that time with MSN-chat integration and your profile page (taking a throw at MySpace)
I'm confused, you're saying that there were tons of companies like this, and then Google released a better product. That looks to me like an OPPORTUNITY that Google capitalized on. God didn't come down and say "oh here Google, take this Gmail product and bedazzle the world with its all-mightiness".
I doubt someone sat at Yahoo thinking "ok, this is slipping away", no they thought they were doing the thing generating the most profit.
I never said they had an all hands on meeting and voted on whether or not to let the email business slip away. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Every large cooperation at a certain point starts to work profit driven and do get greedy in a sense.
Every corporation is profit driven...that's why they're a corporation.
Their short sightedness (re: my original post) is what caused them to fail.
Now, I'm not meteorologist, but I think comparing Google to a hurricane is a piss poor comparison.
Google came to be because there was an opportunity in the market, and a very large one at that.
Saying that "Google happened" like it was some inevitable event pre-planned on the timeline of the Earth is a very poor reason for why Yahoo failed.
Yahoo, in every thing they've done has had the upper hand, and let it slip away. They grab a market, and fail to innovate beyond that. They get greedy with big checks from advertisers and can't see beyond that.
I've been watching it for years. Yahoo lets another one of its markets or products just slip away as they refuse to innovate, and let another company sweep in and take it away.
Slashdot Mirror
JHU has an online program for exactly the use cae you're describing: http://ep.jhu.edu/
Decent program, can get the whole degree online, and it's obviously a well known institute.
You must be new here.
They seem to think this was a credible threat after it happened, hence full body scanners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab#Attack
Exact same situation.
Probably going to go check out Amazon Prime's streaming service.
Now all we need is Netflix to abandon Silverlight...
Who care what they were intended for.
I care. And a lot of other people care. In fact, even you making that statement was ridiculous.
While the world may have been "bigger" back then (by your definition), the basic principles outlined by the founding fathers were based upon insight into the human mind. Regardless of tools, a human innately craves power. Give any one branch of government too much power, and they will abuse it. That's why the founding father's specifically limited its power.
And that's why I, and other people, care that they are abusing the powers given to them.
citation needed.
as far as i can tell, most universities and colleges are teaching java at entry level courses, if not throughout the entire cs/software engineering program.
Stargate wasn't THAT bad.
Alright, Atlantis was, but still...
That may be true for your encounters, but that doesn't discredit the anti-abortion argument.
We can't just say "you believe in x so the fact that you believe y makes it all bullshit".
As the GP was saying, this is a philosophical issue: when does life begin. It's their belief.
I think it's important to note what's been pointed out many times here on slashdot.
In many, many areas there isn't another ISP to jump ship to - there is only one, or dialup.
That's not much of a choice in my book.
I wonder how far a pastafarian theme park idea would make it in Kentucky.
I see the validity of your point, but by funding one religious theme park, they now are under an arbitrarily big obligation to fund any other theme park with religious connotations with similar amounts of money (assuming they can make some numbers up saying they'll get people to come).
I dunno about the rest of you, but I'm sure glad that one's FINALLY been settled.
Now we can get on to the important follow up research, like:
Of dogs and cats, which are cuter?
Can a woodchuck ACTUALLY chuck wood?
I'm excited to see what these researchers choose next.
shouldn't that read "and there was not nearly as much of a slowdown compared to when this patch wasn't applied"?
I'm in a similar boat.
It's a small boat.
I think the fact that you need to put more crap on your phone in order to not have it break is bullshit, personally.
And the irony is? All the money came from the tax payers.
I'm certainly not an Apple fan, but I used to give them credit for at least providing quality products, even if it was marked up considerably over their competitors.
From what I've heard, it seems like they just haven't been putting as much quality effort into the iPhone 4 as they did for the previous generations.
But maybe that's just what I hear from the interwebs.
That's almost as intelligent as this post
that doesn't work so well when you crash into people who were driving safely.
Couldn't have said it any better myself. ... wait ...
So much for that ultimatum:
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/07/14/1448209/OpenSolaris-Governing-Board-Closing-Shop
I can't speak for the entire country (in fact I can't even really speak for the area I lived in), but where I lived previously while attending college, Verizon FIOS was making a big push. I went to one of the stupid little kiosk stands in the mall, and asked if my house was available. The Verizon rep told me 'nope', and upon further questioning he told me that Time Warner was basically engaging Verizon in long term law suits in an attempt to prolong any sort of real competition as long as they could.
Now, granted, that was a Verizon rep, so I'm sure he was biased, but it seems to make sense.
Where do I begin with this one?
Competition is not equivalent to lack of opportunity.
Google saw an opportunity to make profits while still innovating in an already saturated market, making it all the more impressive that they've been this successful.
I'm confused, you're saying that there were tons of companies like this, and then Google released a better product. That looks to me like an OPPORTUNITY that Google capitalized on. God didn't come down and say "oh here Google, take this Gmail product and bedazzle the world with its all-mightiness".
I never said they had an all hands on meeting and voted on whether or not to let the email business slip away. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Every corporation is profit driven...that's why they're a corporation.
Their short sightedness (re: my original post) is what caused them to fail.
Their up front greed, caused them to fail.
Their lack of understanding, caused them to fail.
Should I keep going?
Now, I'm not meteorologist, but I think comparing Google to a hurricane is a piss poor comparison.
Google came to be because there was an opportunity in the market, and a very large one at that.
Saying that "Google happened" like it was some inevitable event pre-planned on the timeline of the Earth is a very poor reason for why Yahoo failed.
Yahoo, in every thing they've done has had the upper hand, and let it slip away. They grab a market, and fail to innovate beyond that. They get greedy with big checks from advertisers and can't see beyond that.
I've been watching it for years. Yahoo lets another one of its markets or products just slip away as they refuse to innovate, and let another company sweep in and take it away.
In theory, I'd prefer the faceless corporations that I get to vote with my feet.
However, as has been reiterated many times on this thread already, there really isn't a choice to vote with your feet.
I wouldn't give a damn about net neutrality if we had real competition in the market, but that's not how it works.
As long as the industry is monopolistic, it should be treated as such with regulations by the government.