Companies who are not deploying Linux as of now because of the costs of retraining users to use an office suite other then MS Office, and the problems with imperfect interoperability with MS Office docs in other office suites.
My company has a significant number of daily-use files and periodic procedures that would be expensive to rebuild using a new office suite -- these are patched-together items that have evolved over many years.
Would it theoretically be better to build new from scratch using OO or some other suite? Sure. Can we afford the down-time and development costs required to do so? No.
This would, however, enable us to deploy Linux on our desktops without losing too much functionality, which would (hopefully) save us a ton of cash on the support and licensing sides.
It just seems like a dangerous practice to be able to claim that national security trumps the constitution or seemingly substantive claims that constitutional rights have been violated.
Just wait until this goes to the 6th Circuit Court on appeal -- that's exactly what they'll rule (as they have in the past).
Not so fast, there, bucko -- this will go to the 6th Cicruit Court on appeal, who consistently rule in favor of national security over civil liberties.
For the sun, how the heck do you measure longitude on a sphere with no permanent features?
No permanent features -- but there are periodic relative positions than can be used to assign longitude. The easiest one, of course, would be the relative position of the Earth. Since we know the Earth's orbit, we can just use trig, along with the date and time, to determine longitude on the sun.
Yes, it's not direct observation, but it works -- and it's no less arbitrary that Greenwich being Earth longitude zero.
Trivia: The coordinates of the July 31st sunspot were 65 W, 13 S. It if had popped up at those coordinates on Earth, it would have been in Bolivia, making it a "South American" sunspot.
Seeing that longitudinal zero is completely arbitrary (both for Earth and Sol), I find this statement to be laughable.
If this sunspot had popped up at those coordinates on Earth, I think we'd actually all be dead, or at least severely discomforted.
... but if you watch the Weather Channel, they're almost praying for some... The recent "tracking" of Chris showed almost despondent correspondents (pretending to show relief at Chris' dissipation) when Chris fizzled.
Hurricanes are exciting, especially to people who study them. Weather correspondents make a living based on phenomena like hurricanes -- so why wouldn't they be disappointed?
Also, dire predictions boost ratings and sell airtime. This is why the chance of snowfall is always hyped in the winter, etc.
Sure, thanks for pointing out that some people in all fields have a predilection for sensationalism -- but anyone who doesn't take all such predictions with a grain of salt needs some critical thinking skills.
I'm not sure, but so far I don't recall any hurricanes well into the season
Just as anecdotal evidence is not proof of something, anecdotal evidence is also not proof that something is false. We have an imperfect understanding of weather, and while all the conditions indicate that something is likely, it does not mean that something will happen. Also, note that the hurricane estimates for this season were revised downward based upon new, more current, readings in early August.
One more thing to note -- hurricane season isn't in full-swing until mid-August (now). A light June/July may be insignificant compared to what happens during peak season, Aug-Oct. Related to that, maybe a lack of early hurricanes bodes poorly for the rest of the season -- there is a lot of energy yet to be dissipated.
considerately, responsibly and at appropriate times
I'll answer, since those terms came from my OP.
Considerately: This means respectfully of others. Like, not using it in a theater, as you mention -- but it also means not using it when socially engaged with other people.
Responsibly -- haha, use as a weapon. No, I meant not prank calling, etc.
At the appropriate times -- like not at mealtimes, and not late at night. Study after study has shown that kids who are up late perform worse in school than kids who go to bed early and get up early.
That's an excellent idea that cell phone companies will lose the last of their razor thin profits on.
Why is that? They would be providing almost no service for what, and extra $20 tacked on to mom and/or dad's cell phone bill? Sounds pretty profitable to me.
In my experience, many problems with family harmony can be either traced back to cell phone use -- or cell phones helped compound the problem.
And before cell phones, those same problems could be traced to regular telephone use. And before regular phones, those same problems could be traced to the same underlying factor: kids trying to establish their independence.
Cell phones aren't causing those problems, they are just a manifestation of other problems -- some of which are just part of the normal process of growing up/raising kids.
Why not just lock out all numbers except 'home' and '$parentsoffice' during proscribed times? Allow general use during the time they are allowed to watch TV -- then they can choose between the two.
Finally, one more thing -- ban cell phones from mealtimes, and from family time.
The trick isn't to ban kids from using cell phones -- the trick is to teach them to use them considerately, responsibly, and at appropriate times.
That said, I won't let my kids have a cell phone until they are allowed to go off and do things unsupervised -- their tween years. Then I won't feel comfortable unless I know that IF they needed to contact me, they could.
Now, back to TFA -- I think the health concerns are probably overstated, and are for me a minor concern compared to the social and psychological well-being of my kids.
You could have keft out "12) ???" -- there's no question marks, you've summed up his business plan perfectly without it.
What I'm amazed by is that this business model continues to work post-dotcom-bust. I do understand that there are massive tax penalties for some of the VC firms out there if they don't invest the capital, but really... Roberts must have some good connections and be pretty charismatic.
Anyone here ever worked with/for him, or dealt with him on a professional basis?
so it is not a stretch to believe this service will be launched sometime in the very near future
I beg to differ. That's like saying it's not a stretch to think Duke Nukem Forever will be out soon, since the most recent development for it has also been for WinXP.
Somehow the con just goes on and on... and somehow there's always a few gullible angels around willing to perpetuate it.
What I love most is the brazen use of word "Phantom" in the name... I mean, why not just call it "Vaporware Console"?
Anyway, here's a better analysis of both the company and of Tim Robert's curious (for lack of a better word) resume history.
It was Greeks bearing a gift bearing Greeks. And if a few of those Greeks was carring presents, say birthday presents to give to somebody after the battle or something, then it would be Greeks bearing a gift bearing Greeks bearing gifts.
And if instead of a horse they had built large wooden bears, it would be Greeks gifting bears.
Plus, with the proclivity of Greeks to be naked, you could end up with: Greeks gifting bears bearing Greeks being bare bearing gifts.
My head hurts now. But "What if we build a large wooden badger..." will be stuck in my mind all day, at least that's a plus.
I think those kind of videos are a little harder to find on Youtube, have you heard of Pornotube? Dunno if it's recovered from its slashdotting yesterday.
Sony joined the battle for the hearts, minds and pocketbooks of people whose major means of communication is instant messaging and Web based phone calling.
(emphasis mine)
You forgot soul.
Oh wait, I forgot that people who use text messaging as a primary means of communication don't have souls. My bad.
Well, you can't fool all the people all the time...
But this is a winner-take-all elective system with inequitable vote weight (thanks, Electoral College!) so you need only to fool less than half the people who vote once every four years.
Total shipments are not important -- there will be a lot of extra inventory at year-end. I'd rather see sales projections. These numbers also fail to include non-physical distribtuin (eg, downloading) which will continue to account for an increasing proportion of sales.
Also, as mentioned in TFS, this is largely due to the release of two new consoles prior to year-end. I don't know how to normalize for that, but it means that these figures cannot be used to analyze trends.
We orbit not the Sun, but the center of mass of the Solar system, which is actually outside the Sun itself.
Just wanted to add that it's not fixed relative to the sun and planetary orbitals, either, and that this results in Earth's distance from the sun being a complex wave function over time.
I haven't done the math behind it, but for each major body in the solar system, you've a vector proportional to the size of the body and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, whose angle is determined by the relative location of the body. Since both the distance and the relative location are wave functions based on the orbit of the body, it's possible to describe a complex wave function to determine the position of the systemic center of mass of the system.
Where I (mentally) get stuck is the vectors are themselves dependent on the location of the center of mass, so you end up with a recursive function that's beyond my meager (and rusty) math skills.
Never mind, of course, the near infinite small particles whose mass, when taken together, is significant.
At any rate, to get back to your post -- the truth is, that at any given moment, the forces acting on the Earth (or any other celestial body) that cause orbit are comprised primarily of the gravitational pulls of all the objects in the system. This is also true for any group of bodies in the system. What it all comes down to is where you decide to draw the lines, and those lines are arbitrary, and, I suspect, meaningless to serious theoretical astronomical mathematicians.
Of course it can. That's what Quirks Mode, which most modern browsers have, is for.
But isn't the purpose of standards to not have to have Quirks Mode? To not have to plan for so many exceptions and spend time and/or money preparing for them?
Not all browser bugs can actually be used in websites. For instance, I can't think of a possible abuse of IE being unable to display code marked as XHTML (This, by the way, is quite stupid - especially since text files are rendered as if they were HTML, yet XHTML files can't be rendered as HTML). I also can't see a way to abuse position:fixed not being supported, or:hover.
It's not about potential for abuse. It's about ease of development (though of course, potential for abuse must always be considered).
No, I'm quite sure he doesn't (or at least didn't). As quoted here:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."
Slashdot Mirror
My company has a significant number of daily-use files and periodic procedures that would be expensive to rebuild using a new office suite -- these are patched-together items that have evolved over many years.
Would it theoretically be better to build new from scratch using OO or some other suite? Sure. Can we afford the down-time and development costs required to do so? No.
This would, however, enable us to deploy Linux on our desktops without losing too much functionality, which would (hopefully) save us a ton of cash on the support and licensing sides.
Yes, it's not direct observation, but it works -- and it's no less arbitrary that Greenwich being Earth longitude zero.
If this sunspot had popped up at those coordinates on Earth, I think we'd actually all be dead, or at least severely discomforted.
Also, dire predictions boost ratings and sell airtime. This is why the chance of snowfall is always hyped in the winter, etc.
Sure, thanks for pointing out that some people in all fields have a predilection for sensationalism -- but anyone who doesn't take all such predictions with a grain of salt needs some critical thinking skills.
Just as anecdotal evidence is not proof of something, anecdotal evidence is also not proof that something is false. We have an imperfect understanding of weather, and while all the conditions indicate that something is likely, it does not mean that something will happen. Also, note that the hurricane estimates for this season were revised downward based upon new, more current, readings in early August.
One more thing to note -- hurricane season isn't in full-swing until mid-August (now). A light June/July may be insignificant compared to what happens during peak season, Aug-Oct. Related to that, maybe a lack of early hurricanes bodes poorly for the rest of the season -- there is a lot of energy yet to be dissipated.
Considerately: This means respectfully of others. Like, not using it in a theater, as you mention -- but it also means not using it when socially engaged with other people.
Responsibly -- haha, use as a weapon. No, I meant not prank calling, etc.
At the appropriate times -- like not at mealtimes, and not late at night. Study after study has shown that kids who are up late perform worse in school than kids who go to bed early and get up early.
Cell phones aren't causing those problems, they are just a manifestation of other problems -- some of which are just part of the normal process of growing up/raising kids.
Why not just lock out all numbers except 'home' and '$parentsoffice' during proscribed times? Allow general use during the time they are allowed to watch TV -- then they can choose between the two.
Finally, one more thing -- ban cell phones from mealtimes, and from family time.
The trick isn't to ban kids from using cell phones -- the trick is to teach them to use them considerately, responsibly, and at appropriate times.
That said, I won't let my kids have a cell phone until they are allowed to go off and do things unsupervised -- their tween years. Then I won't feel comfortable unless I know that IF they needed to contact me, they could.
Now, back to TFA -- I think the health concerns are probably overstated, and are for me a minor concern compared to the social and psychological well-being of my kids.
You could have keft out "12) ???" -- there's no question marks, you've summed up his business plan perfectly without it.
What I'm amazed by is that this business model continues to work post-dotcom-bust. I do understand that there are massive tax penalties for some of the VC firms out there if they don't invest the capital, but really... Roberts must have some good connections and be pretty charismatic.
Anyone here ever worked with/for him, or dealt with him on a professional basis?
If archival is the purpose, then post as AC.
Somehow the con just goes on and on... and somehow there's always a few gullible angels around willing to perpetuate it.
What I love most is the brazen use of word "Phantom" in the name... I mean, why not just call it "Vaporware Console"?
Anyway, here's a better analysis of both the company and of Tim Robert's curious (for lack of a better word) resume history.
I think you just won the Slashdot poetry contest. Please see CowboyNeal to claim your prize.
Besides, I'm flattered that you're concerned with my contentment and well-being.
"Maybe I don't see the point you're trying to make"
Hey, you being obtuse isn't my problem. There's even a damn smiley face to clue you in.
But no matter what, insults are meaningless when you're hiding as an AC, so I hope your little troll attempt made you feel good good about yourself.
Plus, with the proclivity of Greeks to be naked, you could end up with:
Greeks gifting bears bearing Greeks being bare bearing gifts.
My head hurts now. But "What if we build a large wooden badger..." will be stuck in my mind all day, at least that's a plus.
I think those kind of videos are a little harder to find on Youtube, have you heard of Pornotube? Dunno if it's recovered from its slashdotting yesterday.
You forgot soul.
Oh wait, I forgot that people who use text messaging as a primary means of communication don't have souls. My bad.
Well, you can't fool all the people all the time...
But this is a winner-take-all elective system with inequitable vote weight (thanks, Electoral College!) so you need only to fool less than half the people who vote once every four years.
Total shipments are not important -- there will be a lot of extra inventory at year-end. I'd rather see sales projections. These numbers also fail to include non-physical distribtuin (eg, downloading) which will continue to account for an increasing proportion of sales.
Also, as mentioned in TFS, this is largely due to the release of two new consoles prior to year-end. I don't know how to normalize for that, but it means that these figures cannot be used to analyze trends.
I haven't done the math behind it, but for each major body in the solar system, you've a vector proportional to the size of the body and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, whose angle is determined by the relative location of the body. Since both the distance and the relative location are wave functions based on the orbit of the body, it's possible to describe a complex wave function to determine the position of the systemic center of mass of the system.
Where I (mentally) get stuck is the vectors are themselves dependent on the location of the center of mass, so you end up with a recursive function that's beyond my meager (and rusty) math skills.
Never mind, of course, the near infinite small particles whose mass, when taken together, is significant.
At any rate, to get back to your post -- the truth is, that at any given moment, the forces acting on the Earth (or any other celestial body) that cause orbit are comprised primarily of the gravitational pulls of all the objects in the system. This is also true for any group of bodies in the system. What it all comes down to is where you decide to draw the lines, and those lines are arbitrary, and, I suspect, meaningless to serious theoretical astronomical mathematicians.
Ooops. GP was right, Bush did at least get the first part right, with only a little stumble.
It's not about potential for abuse. It's about ease of development (though of course, potential for abuse must always be considered).