"Taking full advantage of the processing power that those multicore architectures potentially make available requires operating systems and development tools that don't exist largely today," Barnett said.
Maybe MS should pay attention to the fact that they have never taken full advantage of any processor's power. Most products they have put out these days just hog system resources, forcing systems to have more powerful processors, more RAM, etc. without ever really harnessing their power. The increase in power is just to make it seem like the bloat-ware is running better than it actually is.
except for those of us boys who can find a date... sheesh... quit talking about us (poor boys) like we are some kind of spastic species from the planet Vorlon X.. it's no wonder everyone calls you a bitch.
There is a difference between offering opportunities that encourage groups of people who are underrepresented in various fields, and being an *ist. As an example, there are plenty of scholarships out there aimed at encouraging/helping women get into the sciences. There are many more examples of such types of programs aimed at other groups, not just women. It has nothing to do with exclusion.
Men are represented in fine numbers in IT, so I don't see what all the fuss is about.
except for those of us women who ARE IT geeks...
sheesh.. quit talking about us (womoen) like we are a mythical species from the planet Xorlon V.. it's no wonder you poor boys can't find a date.
The difference is that the human embryo has the potential to develop a human brain; the animal cells never could.
So does this mean that the limits of "morality" and "ethics" can be defined by something as simple as a chromosome count? I cannot be too impressed with any persons' argument if they feel they must resort to the 'human superiority' complex. I am more in favor of stem cell research on a mass of cells that don't have a neural system than I am of the horrible testing that LIVE animals suffer daily for human medicine and commodities.
I realize that is a slightly off-topic comment, but I feel it has relevence in the fact that many people have double standards about "morals" as they apply to humans (or could-possibly-but-aren't-ever-going-to-be humans) versus other living creatures who experience pain and suffering.
Slashdot Mirror
I would also say that underground lines would have limited-to-no benefit in areas that are on/near fault lines and therefore prone to earthquakes.
"Taking full advantage of the processing power that those multicore architectures potentially make available requires operating systems and development tools that don't exist largely today," Barnett said.
Maybe MS should pay attention to the fact that they have never taken full advantage of any processor's power. Most products they have put out these days just hog system resources, forcing systems to have more powerful processors, more RAM, etc. without ever really harnessing their power. The increase in power is just to make it seem like the bloat-ware is running better than it actually is.
In Solviet Russia, mp3's rip you.. (sorry.. had to)
Given time, if our operation is successful, all that these kids will be able to post is "Current Mood: Depressed".
Make that "Current Mood: Oppressed"
Yea, we're a lot more sensible nowadays, and wear pants.
There is a difference between offering opportunities that encourage groups of people who are underrepresented in various fields, and being an *ist. As an example, there are plenty of scholarships out there aimed at encouraging/helping women get into the sciences. There are many more examples of such types of programs aimed at other groups, not just women. It has nothing to do with exclusion. Men are represented in fine numbers in IT, so I don't see what all the fuss is about.
except for those of us women who ARE IT geeks... sheesh.. quit talking about us (womoen) like we are a mythical species from the planet Xorlon V.. it's no wonder you poor boys can't find a date.
Leave it to Disney to kill off one of the most prominent rhetorical questions of our time.... *sigh*
The difference is that the human embryo has the potential to develop a human brain; the animal cells never could. So does this mean that the limits of "morality" and "ethics" can be defined by something as simple as a chromosome count? I cannot be too impressed with any persons' argument if they feel they must resort to the 'human superiority' complex. I am more in favor of stem cell research on a mass of cells that don't have a neural system than I am of the horrible testing that LIVE animals suffer daily for human medicine and commodities. I realize that is a slightly off-topic comment, but I feel it has relevence in the fact that many people have double standards about "morals" as they apply to humans (or could-possibly-but-aren't-ever-going-to-be humans) versus other living creatures who experience pain and suffering.