Actually in 1990/1 we were just leaving the realm of 486s. We'd been using pentium machines for a while but they were extremely limited in the range of 33 to 133. In 1995 we still had p233, PIIs, PIIIs.
Your dates are off quite a bit.
The 486 first went on sale in 1989, and the first Pentiums were not out until March, 1993.
Thank you for pointing this out...people still keep bleating out the "pusher" myth like it was anything other than Joe Friday-era propaganda.
If you disagree, go out and ask any person you might know who has had *any* experience with illegal drugs and ask them how many times a drug dealer has made any effort to seek them (or any other customer) out. The answer will invariably be "Never". There's a reason why Lou Reed wrote a song called "I'm Waiting for My Man" and not "My Man is Waiting for Me". Drugs sell themselves, and no dealer needs to "push" anyone into wanting to purchase them.
The "pusher" myth derives from the cognitive dissonance experienced when middle American parents find out their kids have become "caught up" in drugs, and need to see little Johnny or Janie as a unwitting victim of all the other "druggie scumbags" than as (heaven forfend) willing participants, hence they must have been "pushed"./off-topic rant
Of course, it should be noted that all three currencies you note are considered to be rather undervalued compared to the dollar. The US has been complaining loudly about China in particular keeping the yuan artificially undervalued for some time; had China complied, the dollar would have fallen much further against the yuan.
In response to both your post and your sig, this really is obligatory:
Singer: The trading gap shuffle, we're in a heap of trouble, doing the trading gap shuffle!
Bart: He already sang this song!
Marge: No, that was about the budget gap. This is the trading gap.
Maybe you should actually read your link. The text you quote is the "complete text of the original twelve amendments to the U.S. Constitution", which does not appear in the final passed ten amendments of the Bill of Rights. In other words, the wording you quote was something which was ultimately rejected by the framers.
It requires an upfront investment of time to implement and maintain the system, but it beats the hell out of spending your week re-ghosting all of the computers in the accounting department because some ex-employee decided it would be funny to install a back door, and now you have to lock down every system he had access to and also try to figure out what he could have leaked so you can notify your soon to be ex-customers of what you lost. Feel free to repeat every month or so, depending on the size of your organization.
Honestly, in my experience, I've seen far more cases of mass re-ghosting due to "routine" Windows Updates hosing some critical piece of enterprise software, than from anything like what you describe. In other words, IME for the average IT shop, far more downtime costs are associated with bad implementation practices than bad security practices. YMMV, but I do think the the GP has a point in that for many shops that the impact of actual security issues do not justify the observed costs of enhanced security beyond a certain level.
That is not to say that security is not a good investment even if your business is not particularly security-sensitive, but it is more akin to insuring oneself against rare and catastrophic events...that is, as long as the catastrophe never occurs, it seems like money wasted, but in the event that catastrophe does strike, it is a very good investment indeed.
Actually, rumor has it that RIM will be designing a device that will natively play the CD and auto-install the ringtone. They will call it the Ringleberry.
I personally feel the whole ad blocking idea needs to get over the "but I gave them credit for the view" idea and just not request the things at all.
I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that if Adblock is set to "Remove Ads" instead of "Hide Ads" (which is the default behavior), it does not request the ads.
Getting evidence admitted is one thing, but getting a jury to believe it or give it any weight or credibility is something else entirely.
That may be true, but that certainly doesn't mean that there shouldn't be stringent standards of what evidence should be admissible. How about spectral evidence, should that be admissible on the grounds that the jury wouldn't give it any crediblilty? (In some parts of the US, I personally wouldn't want to test that theory.)
Lots of potential evidence is not admissible: hearsay, non-pertinent prejudicial testimony, etc., and for good reason.
And, by the way, no "radio" stations pay these royalties, only web stations. You probably knew that, but if you didn't, you do now.
Thank you...I pointed this out upthread. Even with all of the anti-RIAA sentiment on/., the fact that over-the-air radio does *not* have to pay any royalties to the RIAA seem to get completely lost in this discussion.
Why? If they are playing copyrighted music, why should they not follow the same rules as the commercial stations?
OK, do you know how much over-the-air commercial radio stations pay to the RIAA for recording royalties? It *is* $0.
It seems to be a little known fact, but regular over-the-airwave radio, since its inception, has only had to pay songwriting royalties (i.e., those collected by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) for any songs they broadcast, but have never had to pay recording royalties ("mechanicals", in the trade). Why? Because it was always seen as a mutually beneficial arrangement: the radio station gets to sell advertising time over free use of the recordings, the copyright holders of the recording get free exposure which helps them sell records.
The whole point here is that they *do* want different rules for internet radio...that the RIAA thinks internet radio *should* pay mechanical royalties over-the-air broadcasters don't, and they've been doing this for over 12 years now, and it most definitely *has* hurt internet radio.
Those who wish to give it a friendlier face would not use such an active verb...
So in other words...because of their bias, they would take the essentially unbiased factual statement, and spin it with language biased to their liking. QED...thank you.
Most such regimes don't care much if at all...but this particular regime does care something about "Most Favored Trading Partner" status (or whatever they call it) with nations who are at least publicly squeamish about such things.
But all that is showing that the Chinese gov't is disputing the *fact* that the OP presented, because obviously, the *fact* presents them in a bad light to the vast majority of the rest of the world. It is not the bias of the statement's language that they question (the OP's point), but the fact itself.
However, if one does establish the events of TS 1989 as fact, and there are some people (even hypothetically) who were in favor of the gov't actions, then the bias is not in the language but in the interpretation. See my Osama bin Laden example above.
The word "killed" carries an unfriendly and negative connotation, even in China.
So when US military personnel prematurely ends the life of an adversary, they don't call it a "kill", because even if the person is an enemy, the word "kill" has too much a negative connotation? I don't think so. If tomorrow's headlines read "US troops kill Osama bin Laden", would that really carry "an unfriendly and negative connotation" about US troops to anyone but Osama supporters?
If there are pro-gov't Chinese who do not deny the fact that "the Chinese government killed student protesters at Tiananmen Square in 1989" and agree that it was the "correct" thing to do (which I am sure there are, even if many don't say so publicly), then I don't see where there is inherent bias in the statement.
What if someone was part of the perpetrating "Chinese government"? Could they not interpret the same sentence as follows?
"the chinese government [which is controlled by the glorious people's communist party] killed [treasonous and criminal] student protesters [who wanted to undermine and likely overthrow our glorious leaders] at Tiananmen Square in 1989 [and they were entirely justified and indeed heroic for doing so]."
While you and the GP (and I, and the vast majority on/.as well) read the original statement with the bias you noted, it is certainly not inconceivable that the statement could be interpreted with precisely the opposite bias, which I think was the GP's point.
Slashdot Mirror
Your dates are off quite a bit.
The 486 first went on sale in 1989, and the first Pentiums were not out until March, 1993.
The Pentium Pro didn't come out until November 1995, Pentium II was May 1997, and Pentium III was February 1999.
You missed a choice...
$) I weren't never no monkey!!
Thank you for pointing this out...people still keep bleating out the "pusher" myth like it was anything other than Joe Friday-era propaganda.
If you disagree, go out and ask any person you might know who has had *any* experience with illegal drugs and ask them how many times a drug dealer has made any effort to seek them (or any other customer) out. The answer will invariably be "Never". There's a reason why Lou Reed wrote a song called "I'm Waiting for My Man" and not "My Man is Waiting for Me". Drugs sell themselves, and no dealer needs to "push" anyone into wanting to purchase them.
The "pusher" myth derives from the cognitive dissonance experienced when middle American parents find out their kids have become "caught up" in drugs, and need to see little Johnny or Janie as a unwitting victim of all the other "druggie scumbags" than as (heaven forfend) willing participants, hence they must have been "pushed". /off-topic rant
That is indeed a powerful argument for living under a rock.
Of course, it should be noted that all three currencies you note are considered to be rather undervalued compared to the dollar. The US has been complaining loudly about China in particular keeping the yuan artificially undervalued for some time; had China complied, the dollar would have fallen much further against the yuan.
In response to both your post and your sig, this really is obligatory:
Singer: The trading gap shuffle, we're in a heap of trouble, doing the trading gap shuffle!
Bart: He already sang this song!
Marge: No, that was about the budget gap. This is the trading gap.
Maybe you should actually read your link. The text you quote is the "complete text of the original twelve amendments to the U.S. Constitution", which does not appear in the final passed ten amendments of the Bill of Rights. In other words, the wording you quote was something which was ultimately rejected by the framers.
Not a great basis for the rest of your rant.
That's not the first time The Onion has been prophetic.
Excellent post...but I'd like to point out that The Tipping Point was written by Malcolm Gladwell. Malcolm McDowell is this guy.
Honestly, in my experience, I've seen far more cases of mass re-ghosting due to "routine" Windows Updates hosing some critical piece of enterprise software, than from anything like what you describe. In other words, IME for the average IT shop, far more downtime costs are associated with bad implementation practices than bad security practices. YMMV, but I do think the the GP has a point in that for many shops that the impact of actual security issues do not justify the observed costs of enhanced security beyond a certain level.
That is not to say that security is not a good investment even if your business is not particularly security-sensitive, but it is more akin to insuring oneself against rare and catastrophic events...that is, as long as the catastrophe never occurs, it seems like money wasted, but in the event that catastrophe does strike, it is a very good investment indeed.
This is the internet...you can say "FUCK" here. In fact, when discussing SCO, I believe it's mandatory.
This is a vindication of us old school proponents of char* theory.
Actually, rumor has it that RIM will be designing a device that will natively play the CD and auto-install the ringtone. They will call it the Ringleberry.
I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that if Adblock is set to "Remove Ads" instead of "Hide Ads" (which is the default behavior), it does not request the ads.
That may be true, but that certainly doesn't mean that there shouldn't be stringent standards of what evidence should be admissible. How about spectral evidence, should that be admissible on the grounds that the jury wouldn't give it any crediblilty? (In some parts of the US, I personally wouldn't want to test that theory.)
Lots of potential evidence is not admissible: hearsay, non-pertinent prejudicial testimony, etc., and for good reason.
Does that mean Apple's target market consists of strippers and nudists?
You didn't...fade out...ka-click...fade in...miss much.
Thank you...I pointed this out upthread. Even with all of the anti-RIAA sentiment on /., the fact that over-the-air radio does *not* have to pay any royalties to the RIAA seem to get completely lost in this discussion.
OK, do you know how much over-the-air commercial radio stations pay to the RIAA for recording royalties? It *is* $0.
It seems to be a little known fact, but regular over-the-airwave radio, since its inception, has only had to pay songwriting royalties (i.e., those collected by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC) for any songs they broadcast, but have never had to pay recording royalties ("mechanicals", in the trade). Why? Because it was always seen as a mutually beneficial arrangement: the radio station gets to sell advertising time over free use of the recordings, the copyright holders of the recording get free exposure which helps them sell records.
The whole point here is that they *do* want different rules for internet radio...that the RIAA thinks internet radio *should* pay mechanical royalties over-the-air broadcasters don't, and they've been doing this for over 12 years now, and it most definitely *has* hurt internet radio.
So in other words...because of their bias, they would take the essentially unbiased factual statement, and spin it with language biased to their liking. QED...thank you.
Most such regimes don't care much if at all...but this particular regime does care something about "Most Favored Trading Partner" status (or whatever they call it) with nations who are at least publicly squeamish about such things.
But all that is showing that the Chinese gov't is disputing the *fact* that the OP presented, because obviously, the *fact* presents them in a bad light to the vast majority of the rest of the world. It is not the bias of the statement's language that they question (the OP's point), but the fact itself.
However, if one does establish the events of TS 1989 as fact, and there are some people (even hypothetically) who were in favor of the gov't actions, then the bias is not in the language but in the interpretation. See my Osama bin Laden example above.
So when US military personnel prematurely ends the life of an adversary, they don't call it a "kill", because even if the person is an enemy, the word "kill" has too much a negative connotation? I don't think so. If tomorrow's headlines read "US troops kill Osama bin Laden", would that really carry "an unfriendly and negative connotation" about US troops to anyone but Osama supporters?
If there are pro-gov't Chinese who do not deny the fact that "the Chinese government killed student protesters at Tiananmen Square in 1989" and agree that it was the "correct" thing to do (which I am sure there are, even if many don't say so publicly), then I don't see where there is inherent bias in the statement.
What if someone was part of the perpetrating "Chinese government"? Could they not interpret the same sentence as follows?
"the chinese government [which is controlled by the glorious people's communist party] killed [treasonous and criminal] student protesters [who wanted to undermine and likely overthrow our glorious leaders] at Tiananmen Square in 1989 [and they were entirely justified and indeed heroic for doing so]."
While you and the GP (and I, and the vast majority on /.as well) read the original statement with the bias you noted, it is certainly not inconceivable that the statement could be interpreted with precisely the opposite bias, which I think was the GP's point.
No, that's cellulite. And thanks for ruining my appetite for the day.