I've got a 750Mhz Duron machine with 512MB ram and a 20GB hdd at home right now hooked up to a 15" CRT that I bought in 1995. It's due to be gotten rid of at my next upgrade cycle, though.
I've also still got my dual p3 motherboard with 2x450Mhz CPUs and 256MB ram in it sitting in a box, but it's not in a case or in use in any way. I had a couple of 200Mhz machines around until 2-3 years ago, too, and I managed to keep my family's first computer, a 33Mhz 486DX that we upgraded to a whopping 8MB of RAM and a 100MB hdd up and running until around 2002 or so.
Man, this thread is bringing back some memories of a time long in the past.
Guys like this like to throw a fit whenever they get some sort of death threat or other violent threat as if there was a real risk of it happening. The source needs to be taken into consideration with this stuff. How likely is it that the person actually meant the threat rather than that they were just being an annoying asshole? If they did mean it, how likely is it that they can or will follow through with it?
Just because someone says "I'm going to kill you" doesn't mean I actually think they are. I'm certain 99% (or more) of supposed "death threats", especially in places like Australia, the US, western Europe, etc. are a bigger sign of the threatener being an immature loudmouth than of them being an actual physical threat or having any intention of even trying to be one.
As a primarily Perl developer myself (I do Java, C#, and even a bit of C and C++ on my own for everything from web apps to Android apps to small games), I've seen the demand to vary quite a bit depending on region and the pay to be all over the place even within the same city. I'm not sure I ever see much Perl within the US. My co-workers in London tell me that while it's not the biggest Perl job market over there, you can reasonably make a living at it rather than being the struggle it is here.
I've worked my way up at the same small company from an entry level developer with no degree and just a few months of on the job experience combined in Tcl spread out over a couple of years (and a good bit of hobby C and Perl) at $42k/yr to being the architect/designer for new features on our core platform (integrations with other companies' platforms, etc) and for new applications from the ground up at around $70k/yr and probably a good bit more very soon.
I rarely see more than 2 or 3 Perl related jobs in the metro area at a time and frequently only 1 of them is a true Perl development job while the others just may include the occasional Perl. I've interviewed for jobs (and been offered) senior level Perl developer jobs as low as $45k/yr and as high as the $70k I'm getting now. Of course, in comparison, I don't think I know any.Net guys getting less than $60k/yr and most of the really good ones that I know are pulling in $90k-$120k, so even the upper range of Perl dev pay here seems relatively low in comparison.
Yes, I know who/what Spider-Man 2099 was. The whole 2099 universe was a re-imagining of various Marvel heroes in the year 2099. It is still part of the Marvel universe and the Spider-Man franchise. So my point that natural web shooters are not a new idea to Spider-Man and was used by Marvel long before the movies still stands.
I agree. Plus natural web shooters rather than mechanical aren't new to the Spider-Man franchise. Spider-Man 2099 had the character develop natural web shooters rather than building mechanical ones.
What do you mean "stuck in a small cube"? I've got tons of space. My employer has reduced our local development team from 7 people down to just me and now I've got the entire area to myself.
Ah, interesting. I actually wanted a plausible answer, if there was one. Those are the ones that should be investigated or at least known about if you're going to claim that the people saying cell phones cause cancer are just crazies and those trying to profit from them. That's why I asked here, rather than asking the crazy people, though. I figured someone here might have a plausible, if unlikely, answer. I really didn't expect anything other than nonsense to come from most people who believe this stuff or those trying to make a profit.
It's also nice to know what that kernel of truth is (or may be) that led up to the insanity when misunderstood and/or blown out of proportion.
So, what supposedly makes cell phones more dangerous than a standard cordless phone that we've used for years without panic or the giant fucking TVs most of us have in our houses, computes and monitors that we sit very close to most of the day at work, etc?
Of course, I think perhaps the biggest clue that this is a load of shit is that it's nearly impossible to find a source that isn't clearly some fear mongering asshole (who may not believe what they are saying themselves) or some uneducated jackass just repeating what they have read on the websites run by fear mongering assholes.
I agree completely. Back in my younger, whinier, more idealistic days where I thought maybe you could make the world fair, I had more than one middle manager tell me (paraphrased, but nearly exact wording) "Yep, it's bullshit. But if you don't do it, my boss is going to tell me to fire you. If I don't do that, my boss is going to fire me and then fire you anyway."
Over the years I've learned that it's better for everyone to just get the job done. If it's the same person making the same mistaking (or just not caring about anyone else's time as long as they get what they want) on a regular basis, then it may be time to bring it up. If it's the occasional honest mistake or even the occasional uncaring asshole, it usually makes everyone's life easier to just do what you know is going to have to be done in the end so that you can get back to business as usual asap.
You really think people wouldn't fall for this? Average, non-technical, uninformed computer users? Hell, Slackware had to artifically inflate their version number several years back due to confusion from Linux users because Red Hat's version number was so much higher. This was back in 1999, when the only people using Linux were, for the most part, pretty strong from a technical standpoint (I mean even moreso than today).
Damn it. I forgot to put by tags in there or use a better selection for the type of content... sorry for the long list which is not properly broken up.
I don't see anywhere that I said that consoles are inherently better than PCs for gaming because they're simpler. I said they're simpler and some people, such as myself, feel that benefits their current lifestyle and desires moreso than the added flexibility and added complexity of a gaming PC.
There's no lack of technical understanding or competence keeping me from having a full on gaming PC. I installed my first sound card/cd-rom combo back in '93 or '94. I've built every PC I've owned since then from individual parts. I currently manage 16 servers, both Linux and Windows, with replicated database servers, load balanced web servers, etc. and 4 more servers coming. I also am the sr software developer where I work and lead development on a few projects with a code base of 500k+ lines of in house developed Perl (yeah, you feel sorry for me now, don't you?) and some C# web apps. There is no complexity to it that I don't understand, just a little bit of complexity that mostly results in dull, tedious work if it acts up, that I don't feel that I personally benefit from given my preferred usage.
The only problem I see in the posts above is the assumption that everyone has, or at least should have, the same goals. Anyone who doesn't have the same goals must not know what they're doing rather than just getting enjoyment from different things. There are advantages and disadvantages to both PCs and consoles. Which one is the better choice for a person just depends on exactly what they want to get out of it. I spend all day dealing with technical complexities. When I come home, I want to grab my xbox 360 disc and throw it in my xbox 360 and play. If an update is needed, it installs. I don't want to track down the patch to make it work on my new pc with my new OS, to use an example from one of the posts above. It's not hard, it's just tedious and dull to me and not what I want to do with my evening. If someone else enjoys that sort of stuff or at least finds it to be worthwhile to get the gaming experience that they want, no problem, do what you enjoy and have fun with it. Sure, eventually I just flat out won't be able to play some of those games (short of an emulator on a pc). That's alright, I've factored that into my decision and I'm ok with it. 99% of them I won't want to play in 10 or 20 years anyway. I keep the old consoles because they're an interesting part of my life and personal history, not necessarily because I intend to replay all of those games again. Much like someone else might keep a bunch of baseball cards or comic books, many of which they'll never look at again.
I do. I've got the following all working and playable:
NES
SNES
JVC X'Eye (Genesis clone with build in Sega CD)
N64
PSX
Dreamcast
PS2
Xbox
Xbox 360
Gamecube
Wii
That said, thew newer consoles are more likely to break, which does bother me. I don't foresee my Xbox 360 or PS2 (which I have had to replace since relase) working in 20 years like my NES still does.
I like consoles because I know that even in 5 years, if a game is released for my xbox 360 (or wii, or whatever), then it'll work on that console. I can build a PC this year and I've still got to check every game to be sure it'll work. For the next 1-2 years, it'll probably work, after that, all bets are off. Maybe it'll work as long as I turn down some of the graphical options or maybe it'll be completely unplayable. This is especially true if I'm building a PC that has a cost in the same range as a game console.
Then you've got various hardware and software compatibility issues to worry about. I have to assume that stuff isn't as big of a deal as back when I did play a lot of PC games in the DOS/Win 3.2/early win95 days, but judging by posts on forums the problem still exists.
Some people are ok with that to have the "better" (which is really opinion anyway and varies between games) controls, the usually better graphics on the PC version of a game if a console is more than a year or so old, the mods from the game community, etc. I can certainly understand that and there are times where I think about getting back into PC gaming because of those reasons, particularly the community mods. In the end, though, for me and for most console gamers I personally know, the known ability to just buy the game, stick it in the console, and get playing wins out.
It also seems like there are more games released for console that do not make it to PC than the other way around. I may be wrong on that due to not following PC only games, though.
I think you're giving them too much credit in saying that they lack understanding of the purpose of the first amendment. I'm normally a fan of the old "Never attribute to malice that which can just as easily be attributed to ignorance" (or something like that) quote. When it comes to politicians, especially at the upper levels of our national government, I do tend to find it far more likely that they're willfully malicious. I'm sure they understand the first amendment perfectly, they just don't like it and know they can just ignore it and will probably be long since dead before the nation's people start fighting back in any way that could seriously hurt them (or whoever is in office at that point, since these guys are supposed to be long since dead).
That would be because the people who make these same bad decisions over and over are not the ones who suffer the consequences. Even if they DID "suffer" from these and never hold a job again, etc. they still have enough money to live more extravagantly than most of us can imagine for the rest of their lives. They have absolutely no reason to not do what makes them the most amount of money right now at any cost. That goes for the owners of the mega -corps and the government bodies "regulating" them. There is no "we" considering this from my standpoint, only a "they" considering this.
This is exactly what I do. I only need to print a couple pages every 1-2 years that I can't just print at work. So when that day comes, I try to print on my current printer. If it's being troublesome or the ink cartridges are no longer good, I go buy the cheapest $20-$30 printer I can find.
Of course, that doesn't solve the article's problem of what to do with the old printer that probably works just fine once you buy $80 worth of ink for it. I usually try to give mine away for awhile to any friends or relatives who might be interested and then throw it out if I can't get rid of it. Next time around I may put it up on freecycle.
All I've got to say is to reiterate what I've already said to the other people who have replied in your defense with some odd sense of entitlement. Don't buy an iPhone if it doesn't do what you need. You made the decision to buy an iPhone even though you have no way to pay for the applications for it. The software developer did not force that decision on you. The developer probably did not even suggest you do so.
Yes, and maybe the city should give me some money because they couldn't be bothered to make a shorter path for me to drive to work, wasting my time driving there and money for fuel and vehicle maintenance. Oh, no, that's right. I chose where I live and where I work. I could have tried to get a house closer to work or found a job closer to my house, but I made the decision and now both the benefits and down sides are mine to deal with.
This jackass bought an iPhone even though he can't pay for the apps for it and so now thinks he's entitled to get them for free because he made a bad decision.
Reinventing the wheel to fill a gap in a market not covered by current options is what drives innovation and a fair market. Software development, especially for the sort of small scale apps generally seen on a phone, are not something that has an unreasonable barrier to entry. If you see a gap, fill it.
They don't want to sell their product to you, so that gives you the right to take it anyway?
Is that really that unreasonable? Why should you be denied a copy of some software simply because they have made it impossible for you to pay for it? Clearly, no sale is being lost.
Is it unreasonable? Somewhat. Someone has put their time and effort into something and has determined how much they would like to be paid for you to make use of their time and effort and how they would like to be paid for it. You argue they are not losing anything. But, hey, I'm not losing anything if you take a nap on my couch while I'm at work and not using it, but I'm not going to let you do that and you probably don't think I'm being unreasonable.
What's more unreasonable is the sense of entitlement you and the poster I replied to seem to have. The poster lives somewhere that the iPhone can't purchase apps and wants apps on your phone? Perhaps he shouldn't have bought an iPhone. It seems like common sense to me. If a product does not do what I want or need, I don't buy it. Instead he went and bought something that doesn't do what he needs and then feels that he's entitled to something someone else created for free just because he put himself in a position to not be able to properly pay creator for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got a 750Mhz Duron machine with 512MB ram and a 20GB hdd at home right now hooked up to a 15" CRT that I bought in 1995. It's due to be gotten rid of at my next upgrade cycle, though.
I've also still got my dual p3 motherboard with 2x450Mhz CPUs and 256MB ram in it sitting in a box, but it's not in a case or in use in any way. I had a couple of 200Mhz machines around until 2-3 years ago, too, and I managed to keep my family's first computer, a 33Mhz 486DX that we upgraded to a whopping 8MB of RAM and a 100MB hdd up and running until around 2002 or so.
Man, this thread is bringing back some memories of a time long in the past.
Guys like this like to throw a fit whenever they get some sort of death threat or other violent threat as if there was a real risk of it happening. The source needs to be taken into consideration with this stuff. How likely is it that the person actually meant the threat rather than that they were just being an annoying asshole? If they did mean it, how likely is it that they can or will follow through with it?
Just because someone says "I'm going to kill you" doesn't mean I actually think they are. I'm certain 99% (or more) of supposed "death threats", especially in places like Australia, the US, western Europe, etc. are a bigger sign of the threatener being an immature loudmouth than of them being an actual physical threat or having any intention of even trying to be one.
Well, I do use Comcast to access the majority of my adult films.
As a primarily Perl developer myself (I do Java, C#, and even a bit of C and C++ on my own for everything from web apps to Android apps to small games), I've seen the demand to vary quite a bit depending on region and the pay to be all over the place even within the same city. I'm not sure I ever see much Perl within the US. My co-workers in London tell me that while it's not the biggest Perl job market over there, you can reasonably make a living at it rather than being the struggle it is here.
.Net guys getting less than $60k/yr and most of the really good ones that I know are pulling in $90k-$120k, so even the upper range of Perl dev pay here seems relatively low in comparison.
I've worked my way up at the same small company from an entry level developer with no degree and just a few months of on the job experience combined in Tcl spread out over a couple of years (and a good bit of hobby C and Perl) at $42k/yr to being the architect/designer for new features on our core platform (integrations with other companies' platforms, etc) and for new applications from the ground up at around $70k/yr and probably a good bit more very soon.
I rarely see more than 2 or 3 Perl related jobs in the metro area at a time and frequently only 1 of them is a true Perl development job while the others just may include the occasional Perl. I've interviewed for jobs (and been offered) senior level Perl developer jobs as low as $45k/yr and as high as the $70k I'm getting now. Of course, in comparison, I don't think I know any
Yes, I know who/what Spider-Man 2099 was. The whole 2099 universe was a re-imagining of various Marvel heroes in the year 2099. It is still part of the Marvel universe and the Spider-Man franchise. So my point that natural web shooters are not a new idea to Spider-Man and was used by Marvel long before the movies still stands.
I agree. Plus natural web shooters rather than mechanical aren't new to the Spider-Man franchise. Spider-Man 2099 had the character develop natural web shooters rather than building mechanical ones.
Has your wife been slipping me decaf, too?
What do you mean "stuck in a small cube"? I've got tons of space. My employer has reduced our local development team from 7 people down to just me and now I've got the entire area to myself.
Ah, interesting. I actually wanted a plausible answer, if there was one. Those are the ones that should be investigated or at least known about if you're going to claim that the people saying cell phones cause cancer are just crazies and those trying to profit from them. That's why I asked here, rather than asking the crazy people, though. I figured someone here might have a plausible, if unlikely, answer. I really didn't expect anything other than nonsense to come from most people who believe this stuff or those trying to make a profit.
It's also nice to know what that kernel of truth is (or may be) that led up to the insanity when misunderstood and/or blown out of proportion.
So, what supposedly makes cell phones more dangerous than a standard cordless phone that we've used for years without panic or the giant fucking TVs most of us have in our houses, computes and monitors that we sit very close to most of the day at work, etc?
Of course, I think perhaps the biggest clue that this is a load of shit is that it's nearly impossible to find a source that isn't clearly some fear mongering asshole (who may not believe what they are saying themselves) or some uneducated jackass just repeating what they have read on the websites run by fear mongering assholes.
I agree completely. Back in my younger, whinier, more idealistic days where I thought maybe you could make the world fair, I had more than one middle manager tell me (paraphrased, but nearly exact wording) "Yep, it's bullshit. But if you don't do it, my boss is going to tell me to fire you. If I don't do that, my boss is going to fire me and then fire you anyway."
Over the years I've learned that it's better for everyone to just get the job done. If it's the same person making the same mistaking (or just not caring about anyone else's time as long as they get what they want) on a regular basis, then it may be time to bring it up. If it's the occasional honest mistake or even the occasional uncaring asshole, it usually makes everyone's life easier to just do what you know is going to have to be done in the end so that you can get back to business as usual asap.
That feature is covered by the base "No chicks" edition 360.
You really think people wouldn't fall for this? Average, non-technical, uninformed computer users? Hell, Slackware had to artifically inflate their version number several years back due to confusion from Linux users because Red Hat's version number was so much higher. This was back in 1999, when the only people using Linux were, for the most part, pretty strong from a technical standpoint (I mean even moreso than today).
Damn it. I forgot to put by
tags in there or use a better selection for the type of content... sorry for the long list which is not properly broken up.
I don't see anywhere that I said that consoles are inherently better than PCs for gaming because they're simpler. I said they're simpler and some people, such as myself, feel that benefits their current lifestyle and desires moreso than the added flexibility and added complexity of a gaming PC.
There's no lack of technical understanding or competence keeping me from having a full on gaming PC. I installed my first sound card/cd-rom combo back in '93 or '94. I've built every PC I've owned since then from individual parts. I currently manage 16 servers, both Linux and Windows, with replicated database servers, load balanced web servers, etc. and 4 more servers coming. I also am the sr software developer where I work and lead development on a few projects with a code base of 500k+ lines of in house developed Perl (yeah, you feel sorry for me now, don't you?) and some C# web apps. There is no complexity to it that I don't understand, just a little bit of complexity that mostly results in dull, tedious work if it acts up, that I don't feel that I personally benefit from given my preferred usage.
The only problem I see in the posts above is the assumption that everyone has, or at least should have, the same goals. Anyone who doesn't have the same goals must not know what they're doing rather than just getting enjoyment from different things. There are advantages and disadvantages to both PCs and consoles. Which one is the better choice for a person just depends on exactly what they want to get out of it. I spend all day dealing with technical complexities. When I come home, I want to grab my xbox 360 disc and throw it in my xbox 360 and play. If an update is needed, it installs. I don't want to track down the patch to make it work on my new pc with my new OS, to use an example from one of the posts above. It's not hard, it's just tedious and dull to me and not what I want to do with my evening. If someone else enjoys that sort of stuff or at least finds it to be worthwhile to get the gaming experience that they want, no problem, do what you enjoy and have fun with it. Sure, eventually I just flat out won't be able to play some of those games (short of an emulator on a pc). That's alright, I've factored that into my decision and I'm ok with it. 99% of them I won't want to play in 10 or 20 years anyway. I keep the old consoles because they're an interesting part of my life and personal history, not necessarily because I intend to replay all of those games again. Much like someone else might keep a bunch of baseball cards or comic books, many of which they'll never look at again.
I do. I've got the following all working and playable: NES SNES JVC X'Eye (Genesis clone with build in Sega CD) N64 PSX Dreamcast PS2 Xbox Xbox 360 Gamecube Wii
That said, thew newer consoles are more likely to break, which does bother me. I don't foresee my Xbox 360 or PS2 (which I have had to replace since relase) working in 20 years like my NES still does.
I like consoles because I know that even in 5 years, if a game is released for my xbox 360 (or wii, or whatever), then it'll work on that console. I can build a PC this year and I've still got to check every game to be sure it'll work. For the next 1-2 years, it'll probably work, after that, all bets are off. Maybe it'll work as long as I turn down some of the graphical options or maybe it'll be completely unplayable. This is especially true if I'm building a PC that has a cost in the same range as a game console.
Then you've got various hardware and software compatibility issues to worry about. I have to assume that stuff isn't as big of a deal as back when I did play a lot of PC games in the DOS/Win 3.2/early win95 days, but judging by posts on forums the problem still exists.
Some people are ok with that to have the "better" (which is really opinion anyway and varies between games) controls, the usually better graphics on the PC version of a game if a console is more than a year or so old, the mods from the game community, etc. I can certainly understand that and there are times where I think about getting back into PC gaming because of those reasons, particularly the community mods. In the end, though, for me and for most console gamers I personally know, the known ability to just buy the game, stick it in the console, and get playing wins out.
It also seems like there are more games released for console that do not make it to PC than the other way around. I may be wrong on that due to not following PC only games, though.
I think you're giving them too much credit in saying that they lack understanding of the purpose of the first amendment. I'm normally a fan of the old "Never attribute to malice that which can just as easily be attributed to ignorance" (or something like that) quote. When it comes to politicians, especially at the upper levels of our national government, I do tend to find it far more likely that they're willfully malicious. I'm sure they understand the first amendment perfectly, they just don't like it and know they can just ignore it and will probably be long since dead before the nation's people start fighting back in any way that could seriously hurt them (or whoever is in office at that point, since these guys are supposed to be long since dead).
Not to mention that's not even the domain for the site he's referring to. Sadly, the real one has a hyphen which solves the reading problem.
That would be because the people who make these same bad decisions over and over are not the ones who suffer the consequences. Even if they DID "suffer" from these and never hold a job again, etc. they still have enough money to live more extravagantly than most of us can imagine for the rest of their lives. They have absolutely no reason to not do what makes them the most amount of money right now at any cost. That goes for the owners of the mega -corps and the government bodies "regulating" them. There is no "we" considering this from my standpoint, only a "they" considering this.
This is exactly what I do. I only need to print a couple pages every 1-2 years that I can't just print at work. So when that day comes, I try to print on my current printer. If it's being troublesome or the ink cartridges are no longer good, I go buy the cheapest $20-$30 printer I can find. Of course, that doesn't solve the article's problem of what to do with the old printer that probably works just fine once you buy $80 worth of ink for it. I usually try to give mine away for awhile to any friends or relatives who might be interested and then throw it out if I can't get rid of it. Next time around I may put it up on freecycle.
Verizon is not Congress. I hope that helps clear up some of your confusion... or was that an off topic joke mixed in with a serious post?
The second part of your post I agree with. Rules like that are unclear, not to mention a really bad business decision to actually enforce.
All I've got to say is to reiterate what I've already said to the other people who have replied in your defense with some odd sense of entitlement. Don't buy an iPhone if it doesn't do what you need. You made the decision to buy an iPhone even though you have no way to pay for the applications for it. The software developer did not force that decision on you. The developer probably did not even suggest you do so.
Yes, and maybe the city should give me some money because they couldn't be bothered to make a shorter path for me to drive to work, wasting my time driving there and money for fuel and vehicle maintenance. Oh, no, that's right. I chose where I live and where I work. I could have tried to get a house closer to work or found a job closer to my house, but I made the decision and now both the benefits and down sides are mine to deal with.
This jackass bought an iPhone even though he can't pay for the apps for it and so now thinks he's entitled to get them for free because he made a bad decision.
Reinventing the wheel to fill a gap in a market not covered by current options is what drives innovation and a fair market. Software development, especially for the sort of small scale apps generally seen on a phone, are not something that has an unreasonable barrier to entry. If you see a gap, fill it.
They don't want to sell their product to you, so that gives you the right to take it anyway?
Is that really that unreasonable? Why should you be denied a copy of some software simply because they have made it impossible for you to pay for it? Clearly, no sale is being lost.
Is it unreasonable? Somewhat. Someone has put their time and effort into something and has determined how much they would like to be paid for you to make use of their time and effort and how they would like to be paid for it. You argue they are not losing anything. But, hey, I'm not losing anything if you take a nap on my couch while I'm at work and not using it, but I'm not going to let you do that and you probably don't think I'm being unreasonable.
What's more unreasonable is the sense of entitlement you and the poster I replied to seem to have. The poster lives somewhere that the iPhone can't purchase apps and wants apps on your phone? Perhaps he shouldn't have bought an iPhone. It seems like common sense to me. If a product does not do what I want or need, I don't buy it. Instead he went and bought something that doesn't do what he needs and then feels that he's entitled to something someone else created for free just because he put himself in a position to not be able to properly pay creator for it.