One more time, since you had a hard time reading again:
I said "I'm not talking about deciding what code gets submitted" and you said "would probably welcome some GPL'd code from Mr. Gates" which is exactly what I'm not talking about.
The executive branch (which has responsibility for negotiating with other governments) of the US government is not supposed to be bi-partisan. It is supposed to be unified. 'Way too many times has the US been hurt by diplomats not representing their boss, the President.
It shouldn't be at all surprising that the President wants to make sure that his emisearies agree with his policies.
It should be surprising (though it isn't, really) that journalists that claim to be unbiased raise a big stink about it.
I would agree that $750M is probably not peanuts for any one person, but it is something like peanuts for some groups, like the total invested by all venture capitalists over the past 10 years, maybe?
If it were like the lottery it would always have a negative expected return, and generate crime. (Crime generation is an adapted non-fiction opinion from Dashiell Hammett.)
Once in a long while one of the lotterys that has a jackpot that grows until someone gets it will actually have a positive expected return. At that point venture capatilists DO invest in the lottery, buying millions of tickets.
Logically this implies that once inside the nanotube there is no resistance to travel along it.
Let X be the resistance of a nanotube of length Y. Since resistance is independent of length, changing the length of the nanotube does not affect the resistance. Thus, X is also the resistance of a nanotube exactly the same as the first, except with length 2Y. Therefore, the additional Y length of nanotube has no resistance.
I know nothing about nanotubes, and I also know that people are seldom precise in their speech/writing. However, if the quote beginning my post is really true, I think my conclusion inevitably follows.
I'm not talking about deciding what code gets submitted, that's the choice of anyone that wants to submit code. I'm talking about deciding what code gets used in the next kernel. That is the choice of a select few. Sorry you missed that the first time. I don't think that Bill Gates would be smart to use a Linux Flameboy to represent Gates in any computing negotiation, either.
Chief Executives of every nation have to send representatives to negotiate for them, since they can't be everywhere at once. The idea that a Chief Executive should send representatives that have spent money to prove that they don't agree with him is ridiculous.
I know that some of the responses to my post were not trying to understand it, just reacting. Still, I would like to give a little clarification, just in case someone that accidentally misunderstood me cares.
I was not really trying to convince anyone that TV is evil. I was not trying to convince anyone that they needed to get rid of their TV.
I was trying to present a counterpoint to the popular opinion of, "They're forcing me to buy a new television/converter!" that has been expressed so much on this topic.
There is no force involved here. If you don't want to buy a new TV, don't. Television is not a basic human right, and even less a basic human need.
But, even though it's not really relevant to the topic, I still wish that "Probe" had gone more episodes.
I don't have a television, haven't had one for about 9 years, don't miss it, except for Red Green.
I watch TV when I stay in a hotel, stay with family, etc. I never have the desire to get one of my own.
We think that advertisements don't affect us because we don't immediately rush out and buy a Big Mac (Whopper, Coke/Pepsi/Shasta, Bud/Miller/Michelob, Ford/GM/Toyota, whatever) instantly every time we see a commercial. Try doing without TV for a year and see what happens to your purchasing habits. For me, I noticed the biggest difference in less desire to see movies.
I don't think that TV is inherently evil (though it does tend to totally dominate any room it's in, even when off). I do check out DVD's from my local library and watch them on the computer.
"The Bush goverment could start pushing people to conserve energy but I think they would rather let the high oil prices do that for them. "
Economics is much more effective at motivating people to change their behavior than laws. High cost of oil will generate much more funding for new energy source research than government grants ever can.
I don't know if you meant this as a negative or a positive of the Bush administration, assuming (big assumption) it's true.
No, it'a your constitutional right to remove sleeves from all your shirts/jackets. (Some people think that showing skin is related to speech, but they're wrong.)
Sure is interesting. The downloads would be a lot cheaper to produce than iTunes type downloads. (Smaller files, Nintendo doesn't have to pay anyone else royalties on them)
"fairly homogeneous country" implies we're all somewhat similar. "pretending you're all alike" implies that we're not, in fact, very similar.
That statement alone, even without your other wildly unreasoned opinions, convinces me to disbelieve you.
If you think that the culture in Wyoming is the same as the culture in rural Virginia is the same as the culture in New York City is the same as the culture in Phoenix, AZ, you're clueless.
I have no reason to pull up a credit report on my super, since whatever I think about their trustworthiness won't affect their appointment. Plus, I am not likely to trust the company, or my supervisor, with thousands of dollars of my equipment and information.
However, if I were about to sign a contract that would require me to put a lot of money/time/knowledge up front, and expect a large payoff later I WOULD make sure, before I signed the contract, to somehow verify that the other party was likely to pay me.
It is not really worth pointing out something that is a false generality.
If you think that the incentive to steal is more for poor people, you haven't been paying attention. Thieves exist among all income brackets.
One of Parkinson's laws is something like, "Expenses always rise to meet income." This means that how tight your budget is doesn't depend on how much money you have/make.
Spending habits cause money problems much more often than income level does. This is not only my personal experience, but expert advice from people that do real financial counseling (as opposed to people that sell financial products).
But, if you are an ethical OS developer, the people that make applications that run under your OS have as much notice as possible. This way they can release a patch for their own software when the SP comes out.
I am curious. Did MS's own security products have the problems too?
Simply saying to people that their current software won't work for a few weeks because of the update, while offering competing software that is (mysteriously) not in need of an update after this OS patch is (sadly) not surprising either. (unless you're blissfully unaware of similar past events)
And there is no coincidence whatever that these incompatibilities with MAJOR computer security software makers show up while Microsoft attempts to snag a large chunck of the computer security market.
. . . currently the bottleneck for sustained data transfer rate IS data density on the platter. Denser data begets higher sustained data transfer rate.
When the data density of hard drives increases the data transfer speed increases. Imagine one of the tracks on the platter. Suppose that the track contains 1KB. Further suppose that it takes.006 sec to spin that track past the read/write head (that's 10,000 rpm). This means that the data transfer rate from the track is about 1/6 MB/sec.
Now, double the density of data on the platter. This would make 2KB in the same track, increasing the transfer rate to about 1/3 MB/sec.
(Historically the read/write sensitivity, time required to convert the signal to true binary for the computer, and distance to controller card have been speed bottlenecks. However, I think that the current bottleneck is the data transfer rate from the platter to the read/write head.)
Slashdot Mirror
From http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/miscellaneous/003136.html "The number of cell phone subscribers in the United States reached approximately 159 million in 2003, up from 34 million in 1995." This would account for quite a lot of the increase in wiretaps.
This article reprint wasn't posted in case of slashdotting, it was posted to deliberately introduce errors.
One more time, since you had a hard time reading again:
I said "I'm not talking about deciding what code gets submitted"
and you said "would probably welcome some GPL'd code from Mr. Gates"
which is exactly what I'm not talking about.
The executive branch (which has responsibility for negotiating with other governments) of the US government is not supposed to be bi-partisan. It is supposed to be unified. 'Way too many times has the US been hurt by diplomats not representing their boss, the President.
It shouldn't be at all surprising that the President wants to make sure that his emisearies agree with his policies.
It should be surprising (though it isn't, really) that journalists that claim to be unbiased raise a big stink about it.
I would agree that $750M is probably not peanuts for any one person, but it is something like peanuts for some groups, like the total invested by all venture capitalists over the past 10 years, maybe?
If it were like the lottery it would always have a negative expected return, and generate crime. (Crime generation is an adapted non-fiction opinion from Dashiell Hammett.)
Once in a long while one of the lotterys that has a jackpot that grows until someone gets it will actually have a positive expected return. At that point venture capatilists DO invest in the lottery, buying millions of tickets.
"resistance is independent of its length"
Logically this implies that once inside the nanotube there is no resistance to travel along it.
Let X be the resistance of a nanotube of length Y.
Since resistance is independent of length, changing the length of the nanotube does not affect the resistance.
Thus, X is also the resistance of a nanotube exactly the same as the first, except with length 2Y.
Therefore, the additional Y length of nanotube has no resistance.
I know nothing about nanotubes, and I also know that people are seldom precise in their speech/writing. However, if the quote beginning my post is really true, I think my conclusion inevitably follows.
I'm not talking about deciding what code gets submitted, that's the choice of anyone that wants to submit code.
I'm talking about deciding what code gets used in the next kernel. That is the choice of a select few.
Sorry you missed that the first time.
I don't think that Bill Gates would be smart to use a Linux Flameboy to represent Gates in any computing negotiation, either.
Chief Executives of every nation have to send representatives to negotiate for them, since they can't be everywhere at once. The idea that a Chief Executive should send representatives that have spent money to prove that they don't agree with him is ridiculous.
This is OUTRAGEOUS!
And while we're on the topic, why doesn't Mr. Gates have a fair say in discussions about the next Linux kernel?
He represents a large group of computer users.
Just because his ideologies don't mesh with the those of the Linux developers is no reason to exclude him.
There's no reason to think that his past enmity with the Linux population would lead him to influence things in favor of his own ideologies.
I know that some of the responses to my post were not trying to understand it, just reacting.
Still, I would like to give a little clarification, just in case someone that accidentally misunderstood me cares.
I was not really trying to convince anyone that TV is evil.
I was not trying to convince anyone that they needed to get rid of their TV.
I was trying to present a counterpoint to the popular opinion of, "They're forcing me to buy a new television/converter!" that has been expressed so much on this topic.
There is no force involved here. If you don't want to buy a new TV, don't. Television is not a basic human right, and even less a basic human need.
But, even though it's not really relevant to the topic, I still wish that "Probe" had gone more episodes.
I know about all those products, but I still don't think that less advertising affects me just as much as more advertising.
If there is, TV doesn't count as real information (news).
I don't have a television, haven't had one for about 9 years, don't miss it, except for Red Green.
I watch TV when I stay in a hotel, stay with family, etc. I never have the desire to get one of my own.
We think that advertisements don't affect us because we don't immediately rush out and buy a Big Mac (Whopper, Coke/Pepsi/Shasta, Bud/Miller/Michelob, Ford/GM/Toyota, whatever) instantly every time we see a commercial. Try doing without TV for a year and see what happens to your purchasing habits. For me, I noticed the biggest difference in less desire to see movies.
I don't think that TV is inherently evil (though it does tend to totally dominate any room it's in, even when off). I do check out DVD's from my local library and watch them on the computer.
I have looked.
The total cost of the three of the PC's that I own (and all their spare parts) is less than the cost of one Mac Mini.
I will freely admit that MS outmarkets almost anyone (beer and soda market even better, but that's pretty much it).
WordPerfect 8 still outperforms all versions of MS Word, including current ones. (Though I have no idea if current versions of WP are any good.)
I also can't deny that mis-management at WP helped MS squish them, but MS wasn't entirely honest in their dealings with WP either.
"The Bush goverment could start pushing people to conserve energy but I think they would rather let the high oil prices do that for them. "
Economics is much more effective at motivating people to change their behavior than laws. High cost of oil will generate much more funding for new energy source research than government grants ever can.
I don't know if you meant this as a negative or a positive of the Bush administration, assuming (big assumption) it's true.
No, it'a your constitutional right to remove sleeves from all your shirts/jackets. (Some people think that showing skin is related to speech, but they're wrong.)
Sure is interesting. The downloads would be a lot cheaper to produce than iTunes type downloads. (Smaller files, Nintendo doesn't have to pay anyone else royalties on them)
You're a little contradictory there.
"fairly homogeneous country" implies we're all somewhat similar.
"pretending you're all alike" implies that we're not, in fact, very similar.
That statement alone, even without your other wildly unreasoned opinions, convinces me to disbelieve you.
If you think that the culture in Wyoming is the same as the culture in rural Virginia is the same as the culture in New York City is the same as the culture in Phoenix, AZ, you're clueless.
I don't know all the reported details, let alone the real details but:
If the company that she worked for was not paying her what they had agreed on, then they had broken the contract and she was no longer bound.
I have no reason to pull up a credit report on my super, since whatever I think about their trustworthiness won't affect their appointment. Plus, I am not likely to trust the company, or my supervisor, with thousands of dollars of my equipment and information.
However, if I were about to sign a contract that would require me to put a lot of money/time/knowledge up front, and expect a large payoff later I WOULD make sure, before I signed the contract, to somehow verify that the other party was likely to pay me.
It is not really worth pointing out something that is a false generality.
If you think that the incentive to steal is more for poor people, you haven't been paying attention. Thieves exist among all income brackets.
One of Parkinson's laws is something like, "Expenses always rise to meet income." This means that how tight your budget is doesn't depend on how much money you have/make.
Spending habits cause money problems much more often than income level does. This is not only my personal experience, but expert advice from people that do real financial counseling (as opposed to people that sell financial products).
But, if you are an ethical OS developer, the people that make applications that run under your OS have as much notice as possible. This way they can release a patch for their own software when the SP comes out.
I am curious. Did MS's own security products have the problems too?
Simply saying to people that their current software won't work for a few weeks because of the update, while offering competing software that is (mysteriously) not in need of an update after this OS patch is (sadly) not surprising either. (unless you're blissfully unaware of similar past events)
And there is no coincidence whatever that these incompatibilities with MAJOR computer security software makers show up while Microsoft attempts to snag a large chunck of the computer security market.
. . . currently the bottleneck for sustained data transfer rate IS data density on the platter. Denser data begets higher sustained data transfer rate.
When the data density of hard drives increases the data transfer speed increases. .006 sec to spin that track past the read/write head (that's 10,000 rpm). This means that the data transfer rate from the track is about 1/6 MB/sec.
Imagine one of the tracks on the platter. Suppose that the track contains 1KB. Further suppose that it takes
Now, double the density of data on the platter. This would make 2KB in the same track, increasing the transfer rate to about 1/3 MB/sec.
(Historically the read/write sensitivity, time required to convert the signal to true binary for the computer, and distance to controller card have been speed bottlenecks. However, I think that the current bottleneck is the data transfer rate from the platter to the read/write head.)