The parent was trying to point out that there are typically different types of people who get killed, not that life is more or less important between the groups. I know someone who said they wouldn't move to the US because of the gun crime and made out people were being murdered all over the place, which obviously its not.
From my experience life is much the same (crime wise) between suburbia in the US and UK. Unless you're a crack addict or a street thug, you really have to remove gun related crime from gangs or similar types of people to get some sort of gun crime equivalency.
Depends on who you ask - just because the vocal minority speak the loudest doesnt mean most people dont like the US or that the its different from the varying views from with the US. By the way, I'm British.
I've often wondered if a country would ever take this idea to its logical conclusion. Any tax one pays (be it income, sales, property etc) one could define what proportions of it should go to where. ie. 100% to Defence, or 50% to my local school and 50% to housing for the poor...mmmm...now THAT would be true democracy in action.
But that would mean wanting it both ways. An OS is only obselete IF it seizes to be able to do what you want it to. If you bought a machine from a vendor with an old OS that doesn't do what you want after the new OS has come out, then thats on your head - dont't buy, go to someone else. You should know what you're paying for. If you don't its your fault
MS isn't abandoning XP anytime soon - heck it still supports older version for years after.
I do agree. If one buys an "off-the-shelf" product then thats it - thats what you bought, assuming it does what is advertised. Its purely good business sense to provide patches (ie. security) from that point out. What legal obligation is there?
Perhaps I should go to Land Rover and ask them to update my 1966 Series 2 with a new spanking engine?
True...to an extent. We do have private toll roads here in the US - but they are only viable as 'alternatives' to the existing road system. The point is that Private enterprise can build a viable if there is the need. Currently there isn't and thats why we see very little of it. Pressumeably our taxes would be replaced by tolls if it was all private and no government involvement.
And I do agree on your last point - it is a shame we dont *seem* to do as much large scale projects anymore. But with so much regulation (environmental \ safety) its becoming even more unlikeyl.
What you've got to remember is that companies and other organisations (ie. the major web outlets - not talking personal or low traffic websites) are who you have to convince and thats not going to happen. When you spend thousands of advertising dollars to bring customers to your site why then piss them off and give them a reason to go elsewhere?
But why should we trust the predictions from a guy, with more money than god.
Precisely because he HAS more money than God, made from technology investments, I think qualifies him as someone we should take notice of. Put it like this, whether you like him or not, his money hasn't come from a potato farm in Idaho - he obviously knows a little bit about the tech industry.
Its really not that hard - I LIKE to read political stories relating to tech issues. I DONT like sifting through partisian bickering that has no tech relevance whatosoever and only got through because of an editors bias.
Excellent - I do so love coming to Slashdot where stories are tech-relevant. We all know why this was posted - lets leave the politics to the relevant websites for those that want to read this stuff.
I'd agree that Kyoto doesn't go far enough, but implementing it would certainly be better than nothing.
Actually no. Kyoto is an "on the fencer" that makes people feel like something is happening when its not - thats one of the most dangerous dispositions to be in. Global warming is certainly an issue though I think much of debate makes too certain of speculative reasoning.
Kyoto only vaguely slows down the environmental process. If the "globally we" think that cutting emissions is the way to go then we have to go whole hog to make a serious difference. Basically our economics would be driven into the ground because we'd need to effectively return to the pre-industrial era, certainly when taking population growth into account.
The alternative is to push forward research and development (governmental and private) to allow us to maintain our energy need but reduce the pollution and problems it causes.
Both are bitter pills to swallow, but one thing is for sure in my mind - signing up for Kyoto and thinking you've "done your bit" is only going to make things MUCH worse.
And what historical evidence on a mass scale are you going by? What irrefutible reasoning would cause Dell \ HP \ Gateway to suddenly drop Windows? How do you know _more_ people like Linux? If you're aware of evidence please cite. I'm not trying to start a flame war BUT for how many years have we seen "Is 19xx\20xx the year for Linux on the desktop?" on \.
Saying something is possible, wishing it possible, and it actually happen are all quite different things.
Well, 90 days was the publicly estimated time - the engineers design for the rover to work for that guranteed time. Anything after that is unpredictable, or not guranteed. What were you expecting - the 90th day everything is working hunky-dory and on the 91st everything falls to pieces?
Yes this was my first thought...what, so I install a CD from a political party that asks me some questions and it just um, leaves them on your computer incase you want to look back on them?
This is none story.
as people have said before, this won't stopping people starving. But it contributes to the education of people above that tier to not get to that point and thus be worse off down the road.
But likewise you most likely watch channels that others won't be paying for. Your cable bill won't be that much different than it is now and you'll just get less channels.
This sounds good on the surface but I'm yet to be convinced this will work out.
You speak of bandwidth as if it was a resource that can be reclaimed. Once bandwidth is gone it can't be recovered; you use 100% it has the same allocation as 1%.
You're narrowing too far down - yes bandwith isn't a tangible resource that can be reclaimed but doesn't mean its overhead doesn't scale to some degree. The more bandwidth you use the greater the pipes the broadband company has to lay down, thus the more employees it needs to upgrade and maintain them. I'm sure theres switching\routing equipment that needs to be changed as the bandwidth increases.
And so I'm not convinced cable TV is a better analogy - cable tv is delivered to whomever is on the loop - it requires no extra bandwidth if 1 or 1000 people view it. It doesn't require each box to go out and get the relevant video. If 1000 people are all want to view a video feed through broadband\internet you get 1000 different feeds. Thats why cable TV cab be a flat fee - its usage\overheads are based on number of units.
And yes, thats my point - all broadband company's should start to use a usage fee, perhaps after a threshold. To my mind its fair that you pay for what you use.
you pay for your bills, yes, but you pay a flat fee for what is a reasonable amount of usage. Its very convenient to pay a single $30\mon (or whatever) which is derived from an aggregivation across the customer base. This works for the regular run-of-the-mill internet usage but become unfair once you go across a reasonable threshold. In this case, thats VoIP. There are plenty of others.
Every other utility that I can think of uses a per\usage basis. We could all pay PG&E a flat $150\mon - but it would then be unfair if your neighbor then attached a massive power hungry machine to it, then claiming "he paid for it therefore its his right to have access to that power".
Slashdot Mirror
From my experience life is much the same (crime wise) between suburbia in the US and UK. Unless you're a crack addict or a street thug, you really have to remove gun related crime from gangs or similar types of people to get some sort of gun crime equivalency.
Depends on who you ask - just because the vocal minority speak the loudest doesnt mean most people dont like the US or that the its different from the varying views from with the US. By the way, I'm British.
I've often wondered if a country would ever take this idea to its logical conclusion. Any tax one pays (be it income, sales, property etc) one could define what proportions of it should go to where. ie. 100% to Defence, or 50% to my local school and 50% to housing for the poor...mmmm...now THAT would be true democracy in action.
MS isn't abandoning XP anytime soon - heck it still supports older version for years after.
Perhaps I should go to Land Rover and ask them to update my 1966 Series 2 with a new spanking engine?
And I do agree on your last point - it is a shame we dont *seem* to do as much large scale projects anymore. But with so much regulation (environmental \ safety) its becoming even more unlikeyl.
I think the fact that Steve Jobs made a superior...
Personally I listen to BOTH of them. Each entity has its own strengths and weaknesses and to discount any is folly.
What you've got to remember is that companies and other organisations (ie. the major web outlets - not talking personal or low traffic websites) are who you have to convince and thats not going to happen. When you spend thousands of advertising dollars to bring customers to your site why then piss them off and give them a reason to go elsewhere?
Precisely because he HAS more money than God, made from technology investments, I think qualifies him as someone we should take notice of. Put it like this, whether you like him or not, his money hasn't come from a potato farm in Idaho - he obviously knows a little bit about the tech industry.
Its really not that hard - I LIKE to read political stories relating to tech issues. I DONT like sifting through partisian bickering that has no tech relevance whatosoever and only got through because of an editors bias.
Excellent - I do so love coming to Slashdot where stories are tech-relevant. We all know why this was posted - lets leave the politics to the relevant websites for those that want to read this stuff.
Anything by any company is possible - lets leave out the FUD and work off facts.
Actually no. Kyoto is an "on the fencer" that makes people feel like something is happening when its not - thats one of the most dangerous dispositions to be in. Global warming is certainly an issue though I think much of debate makes too certain of speculative reasoning.
Kyoto only vaguely slows down the environmental process. If the "globally we" think that cutting emissions is the way to go then we have to go whole hog to make a serious difference. Basically our economics would be driven into the ground because we'd need to effectively return to the pre-industrial era, certainly when taking population growth into account.
The alternative is to push forward research and development (governmental and private) to allow us to maintain our energy need but reduce the pollution and problems it causes.
Both are bitter pills to swallow, but one thing is for sure in my mind - signing up for Kyoto and thinking you've "done your bit" is only going to make things MUCH worse.
Saying something is possible, wishing it possible, and it actually happen are all quite different things.
Well, 90 days was the publicly estimated time - the engineers design for the rover to work for that guranteed time. Anything after that is unpredictable, or not guranteed. What were you expecting - the 90th day everything is working hunky-dory and on the 91st everything falls to pieces?
Actually no...not like the 'World' Series - the 'World' was a news journal (I believe) that sponsered the series, thus the "World Series".
I know it removes a bullet point for reasons why to be annoyed by the US, but there you have it.
Yes this was my first thought...what, so I install a CD from a political party that asks me some questions and it just um, leaves them on your computer incase you want to look back on them? This is none story.
actually I thought the parent was quite insightful. Couldn't we include a few wikipedia pages as some sort of textbook type thing?
as people have said before, this won't stopping people starving. But it contributes to the education of people above that tier to not get to that point and thus be worse off down the road.
No you can't, its illegal. Its just not enforced. Just because the authorities are turning a blind eye to what you're doing doesn't make it legal.
oh the irony...I think you'll find that smoking a joint in Holland IS illegal. Its just that its not enforced.
So isn't it you thats confused?
Holy crap...at least that explains my confusion. I always thought PETA stood for "People who Eat Tasty Animals".
But likewise you most likely watch channels that others won't be paying for. Your cable bill won't be that much different than it is now and you'll just get less channels. This sounds good on the surface but I'm yet to be convinced this will work out.
You're narrowing too far down - yes bandwith isn't a tangible resource that can be reclaimed but doesn't mean its overhead doesn't scale to some degree. The more bandwidth you use the greater the pipes the broadband company has to lay down, thus the more employees it needs to upgrade and maintain them. I'm sure theres switching\routing equipment that needs to be changed as the bandwidth increases.
And so I'm not convinced cable TV is a better analogy - cable tv is delivered to whomever is on the loop - it requires no extra bandwidth if 1 or 1000 people view it. It doesn't require each box to go out and get the relevant video. If 1000 people are all want to view a video feed through broadband\internet you get 1000 different feeds. Thats why cable TV cab be a flat fee - its usage\overheads are based on number of units.
And yes, thats my point - all broadband company's should start to use a usage fee, perhaps after a threshold. To my mind its fair that you pay for what you use.
Every other utility that I can think of uses a per\usage basis. We could all pay PG&E a flat $150\mon - but it would then be unfair if your neighbor then attached a massive power hungry machine to it, then claiming "he paid for it therefore its his right to have access to that power".