Not sure why - the only difference between a $100 CPU and a $150 CPU would be the $150 one would be licensed for Microsoft. You would still be able to install a non-Windows OS on the $150 chip machine (provided it's architecture compatible). And you would still be able to buy and use the $100 chips.
And how is it any different from PowerPC being Mac-specific, or even the newer Apple x86 CPUs that are Mac specific? All of the above made by Intel, no?
Apple includes the price of their OS in the price of the hardware that it must run on (ignoring osx86 kind of stuff). The next upgrade version of MacOS is free; the ones after that cost money (as I understand it).
The hardware that Windows runs on is generic. Hence, Microsoft charges for each OS license, whether it be full retail, OEM, upgrade, volume.
How about this (for retail home consumers, not for business): Microsoft should work with CPU vendors. CPUs could be built with a Microsoft "license" built-in, and sold at some premium price. That license would allow you to install any Windows OS on the machine using that CPU, now, and forever, for free.
Said CPU-licensed versions of Windows would be available free for download, and not on retail shelves, and would be OEM-style licenses (without Microsoft support). Full and upgrade retail packages with support would still be available, at a lower price than they are now.
We know that Microsoft is already willing to work with CPU vendors (Intel, MS, and Vista "ready" hardware). We know that Microsoft is already willing to sell Vista for less than it's marketed for (Vista Upgrade install trick, still available in Vista SP1 release).
Selling the OS license with the hardware, as Apple does, would free Microsoft from having to expend so much effort in preventing piracy. People who want to take advantage of free upgrades to Windows would be willing to pay a small premium for hardware, and people who want to take advantage of Microsoft support would be willing to pay a small premium for retail packages. People who want to build x86, x64 systems without Windows would be able to buy CPUs without the Microsoft license for today's current price.
And Microsoft would chalk up a big win in the public opinion column.
I guess my subtext was that the constant citation I hear about the second being "so that we can overthrow the government in case of dire need" is a moot point, since I doubt that any sensible person would draw that line at a height which would make it anywhere near feasible for a civilian militia to stand up to the US military.
And if that argument in favor of the second amendment is a moot point, then what argument is there for it to be legal to manufacture and sell products whose purpose - by design - is to kill or injure other people (handguns)? Any other product of that kind would never pass muster in the marketplace.
Non-military citizens should be able to privately own Apache helicopters, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers and ICBMs tipped with nuclear warheads?
If not, where does the line get drawn, and who draws it? Currently, the line is drawn below the level of fully automatic small arms, and some ammunition for legal small arms.
Regardless of where the line is drawn, the only way that a civilian militia force could best the US military and stage a coup would be to convince enough of the enlisted military personnel to lay down their arms or switch sides. A purely military conflict would be a tragic joke, even if the citizens did have cruise missiles and all the rest.
But back up a second. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the second amendment designed for the states to maintain militias, in case the states deemed it necessary to change the federal government? The only corollary to a state militia that I'm aware of is the National Guard, and they've been commandeered by the federal government and sent overseas.
Community support forums for anything are worthless - Linux, Microsoft, toasters, anything. I've been searching online for solutions to problems for twelve years, and this has always been the case. When community support forums are the only hope to find a solution, it's worse.
I would love to have a desk reference, and not have to parse through forum searches that don't turn up the result I'm looking for, or are smattered with smug disregard for people who ask questions, or which are heavily laden with questioners who can barely compose a sentence.
Of course, this book should be available as a PDF for free.
Honestly. It is okay to judge people by the behaviors that they choose, which you can observe. It is okay to have opinions about other people, and decide who you want and do not want to associate with based upon what you know about them.
We will only ever have a limited set of information about any other person - even persons with whom we are very familiar and intimate with. We do not and can not know all pieces of information about a person, and so the judgments we make about anyone are by definition based in some part on speculation. Even if we did know every piece of information about a person, our judgments would be based on interpretation.
It is furthermore human nature to be more comfortable with people who seem to be most similar to us, and less comfortable with people who seem to be most different from us.
My judgment of people who choose to put faith in astrology is that they are foolish. I do not choose (if I have the choice) to be closely associated with foolish people.
This very question, "Should scientists date people who believe in astrology?" is asking the reader to make a judgment about scientists, based on a limited set of data. This, by itself, is okay, but the problem stems from the fact that the subtext of the question is that "perhaps we shouldn't be judging people on a limited set of data."
The question contradicts itself, and is therefore completely pointless and stupid. In my judgment.
Not entirely true. The moon missions had a capsule ship in orbit around the moon. The only thing the lander had to do was get back up to that capsule ship. The capsule that returned to Earth never touched the surface of the moon. I don't see a problem with having an orbiting ride home, and taking a lander down and back.
Now, a prosecuting attorney on any case - even on a case with questionable merit to begin with - can subpoena anyone they like, so long as they can demonstrate that the target of the subpoena may have discussed the issue in the case with other people who are also not related to the case in any other fashion?
I don't understand why the obviously innocent bystander's attorney has to play that weird gambit. Shouldn't the argument be that the target of the subpoena is completely unrelated to the case, and now you have to pay the costs this innocent defendant has incurred?
Well, you know, they're just trying to keep us good citizens safe from outsiders bringing terrorist acts to our nation. Our borders must be secure.
Of course, there might be one or two that slip through, or people already inside the borders who begin terrorist activities. We should probably do this same kind of thing at state borders, too.
And the big cities. I mean, New York has already been attacked. Chicago has the tallest building in the nation. And there are plenty of huge metropolitan areas that could be ripe targets. We should make sure that our big cities are safe.
Speaking of buildings, we should probably also conduct these searches whenever someone is entering a large building. That would certainly relieve the fears of the people who have to work in (or near!) high-rises every day.
But you don't have to enter a building to do something bad. Just being out on the street, you could have some kind of chemical or biological weapon, or a dirty bomb. (Remember Jose Padilla? We're lucky we caught him.) The police should be able to search public spaces, including the people in them, at their will. Really, you're in a public place, you should expect to be inspected.
Okay, we've got all that covered, but that's all defensive. If we really want to rid this world of the threat of terrorism, we need to go to the source. Let's see... terrorists are people... people need food, clothing, shelter... I've got it! Since terrorists must live somewhere, we should be able to search anywhere that people live. Don't we have the right to know for sure that our neighbors aren't planning to drive a truck full of explosives into a crowded shopping mall? (Oh, yeah, I forgot shopping malls, them too.)
That's going to take a lot of resources. A lot of people. We'd have to really get the citizenry on board here... really drive the message home that every citizen is a security officer... get people pay attention to every little detail, and report things they think might be suspicious.
Not everyone can keep that up, though. I mean, we're people! We have jobs and families! We shouldn't have to bear the burden of constant vigilance; if everyone has to give up their regular lives in order to become a police officer, the terrorists have won!
We live in an age of technology! We can develop a giant database, and fill that database with information collected by audio and video recording equipment. We can install that surveillance equipment in all those places above I've demonstrated that terrorists can be found, have them all feed into the database.
National borders, state lines, cities, public buildings, city streets, shopping malls, private homes.
In all seriousness: I would much rather live in fear of terrorism than in fear of my own government's attempts to prevent it.
BitTorrent is not an "illegal P2P download service." BitTorrent is a protocol used for sharing files of all kinds over a network in a distributed fashion.
LimeWire is not an "illegal P2P download service." LimeWire is a client that uses the Gnutella protocol, which is a protocol used for sharing all kinds of files over a network in a distributed fashion.
I'm willing to bet that these same idiots would lobby for the elimination of JPG and MPEG as a complete and permanent halt to child pornography.
Calls to change the way people earn, spend and buy flow easily from the mouths of those who are done becoming very wealthy, and those who know they have little chance of becoming very wealthy.
Those calls to change are firmly quashed by those who are not done becoming very wealthy, and those who don't know they have little chance of becoming very wealthy.
Perhaps a nice hook for Linux into some businesses (like NYSE) is the "no conflict of interest" thing. If NYSE was a big customer of a company on its market, there may be some question about propriety.
I walked through the questionnaire myself, which was followed by "install the software." No other options. Unfortunately, my computer is in no condition to run that software, else I would install it and report further.
You're right about the other part, no reference to the free software, at least not as far down the process as I got.
The automated data collection is one of two different options you can pick; the other is to be asked to fill out a survey not more often than once every two weeks. It sounds like you can pick either option.
Wrong. You have to fill out a 15 minute questionnaire up front, then download and install the software.
Or drawing "123456." Or a straight line. Or a dot.
There are people for whom any requirement to present an identifying mark is too much trouble. Hell, I've heard more than one story about executives who can't be bothered to log into their own computers, and so have their assistants do it for them.
First and foremost - if there is a small chance of catastrophic loss of vehicle, then measures should be taken to prevent that.
Better keep the thing on the ground then, because firing the gigantic controlled explosion it goes up on certainly counts as a chance of catastrophic loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure why - the only difference between a $100 CPU and a $150 CPU would be the $150 one would be licensed for Microsoft. You would still be able to install a non-Windows OS on the $150 chip machine (provided it's architecture compatible). And you would still be able to buy and use the $100 chips.
And how is it any different from PowerPC being Mac-specific, or even the newer Apple x86 CPUs that are Mac specific? All of the above made by Intel, no?
Apple includes the price of their OS in the price of the hardware that it must run on (ignoring osx86 kind of stuff). The next upgrade version of MacOS is free; the ones after that cost money (as I understand it).
The hardware that Windows runs on is generic. Hence, Microsoft charges for each OS license, whether it be full retail, OEM, upgrade, volume.
How about this (for retail home consumers, not for business): Microsoft should work with CPU vendors. CPUs could be built with a Microsoft "license" built-in, and sold at some premium price. That license would allow you to install any Windows OS on the machine using that CPU, now, and forever, for free.
Said CPU-licensed versions of Windows would be available free for download, and not on retail shelves, and would be OEM-style licenses (without Microsoft support). Full and upgrade retail packages with support would still be available, at a lower price than they are now.
We know that Microsoft is already willing to work with CPU vendors (Intel, MS, and Vista "ready" hardware). We know that Microsoft is already willing to sell Vista for less than it's marketed for (Vista Upgrade install trick, still available in Vista SP1 release).
Selling the OS license with the hardware, as Apple does, would free Microsoft from having to expend so much effort in preventing piracy. People who want to take advantage of free upgrades to Windows would be willing to pay a small premium for hardware, and people who want to take advantage of Microsoft support would be willing to pay a small premium for retail packages. People who want to build x86, x64 systems without Windows would be able to buy CPUs without the Microsoft license for today's current price.
And Microsoft would chalk up a big win in the public opinion column.
I guess my subtext was that the constant citation I hear about the second being "so that we can overthrow the government in case of dire need" is a moot point, since I doubt that any sensible person would draw that line at a height which would make it anywhere near feasible for a civilian militia to stand up to the US military.
And if that argument in favor of the second amendment is a moot point, then what argument is there for it to be legal to manufacture and sell products whose purpose - by design - is to kill or injure other people (handguns)? Any other product of that kind would never pass muster in the marketplace.
Okay, I stand corrected.
And yet, my first question stands. Where is the line where a citizenry is considered armed|disarmed, and who gets to draw it?
Non-military citizens should be able to privately own Apache helicopters, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers and ICBMs tipped with nuclear warheads?
If not, where does the line get drawn, and who draws it? Currently, the line is drawn below the level of fully automatic small arms, and some ammunition for legal small arms.
Regardless of where the line is drawn, the only way that a civilian militia force could best the US military and stage a coup would be to convince enough of the enlisted military personnel to lay down their arms or switch sides. A purely military conflict would be a tragic joke, even if the citizens did have cruise missiles and all the rest.
But back up a second. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the second amendment designed for the states to maintain militias, in case the states deemed it necessary to change the federal government? The only corollary to a state militia that I'm aware of is the National Guard, and they've been commandeered by the federal government and sent overseas.
Community support forums for anything are worthless - Linux, Microsoft, toasters, anything. I've been searching online for solutions to problems for twelve years, and this has always been the case. When community support forums are the only hope to find a solution, it's worse.
I would love to have a desk reference, and not have to parse through forum searches that don't turn up the result I'm looking for, or are smattered with smug disregard for people who ask questions, or which are heavily laden with questioners who can barely compose a sentence.
Of course, this book should be available as a PDF for free.
Honestly. It is okay to judge people by the behaviors that they choose, which you can observe. It is okay to have opinions about other people, and decide who you want and do not want to associate with based upon what you know about them.
We will only ever have a limited set of information about any other person - even persons with whom we are very familiar and intimate with. We do not and can not know all pieces of information about a person, and so the judgments we make about anyone are by definition based in some part on speculation. Even if we did know every piece of information about a person, our judgments would be based on interpretation.
It is furthermore human nature to be more comfortable with people who seem to be most similar to us, and less comfortable with people who seem to be most different from us.
My judgment of people who choose to put faith in astrology is that they are foolish. I do not choose (if I have the choice) to be closely associated with foolish people.
This very question, "Should scientists date people who believe in astrology?" is asking the reader to make a judgment about scientists, based on a limited set of data. This, by itself, is okay, but the problem stems from the fact that the subtext of the question is that "perhaps we shouldn't be judging people on a limited set of data."
The question contradicts itself, and is therefore completely pointless and stupid. In my judgment.
Why do I get the feeling that uber-smart hermits don't tend to become crack military pilots?
Not entirely true. The moon missions had a capsule ship in orbit around the moon. The only thing the lander had to do was get back up to that capsule ship. The capsule that returned to Earth never touched the surface of the moon. I don't see a problem with having an orbiting ride home, and taking a lander down and back.
Now, a prosecuting attorney on any case - even on a case with questionable merit to begin with - can subpoena anyone they like, so long as they can demonstrate that the target of the subpoena may have discussed the issue in the case with other people who are also not related to the case in any other fashion?
I don't understand why the obviously innocent bystander's attorney has to play that weird gambit. Shouldn't the argument be that the target of the subpoena is completely unrelated to the case, and now you have to pay the costs this innocent defendant has incurred?
The other four out of five recommend sugarless gum.
Analog hole.
Well, you know, they're just trying to keep us good citizens safe from outsiders bringing terrorist acts to our nation. Our borders must be secure.
... terrorists are people ... people need food, clothing, shelter ... I've got it! Since terrorists must live somewhere, we should be able to search anywhere that people live. Don't we have the right to know for sure that our neighbors aren't planning to drive a truck full of explosives into a crowded shopping mall? (Oh, yeah, I forgot shopping malls, them too.)
... really drive the message home that every citizen is a security officer ... get people pay attention to every little detail, and report things they think might be suspicious.
Of course, there might be one or two that slip through, or people already inside the borders who begin terrorist activities. We should probably do this same kind of thing at state borders, too.
And the big cities. I mean, New York has already been attacked. Chicago has the tallest building in the nation. And there are plenty of huge metropolitan areas that could be ripe targets. We should make sure that our big cities are safe.
Speaking of buildings, we should probably also conduct these searches whenever someone is entering a large building. That would certainly relieve the fears of the people who have to work in (or near!) high-rises every day.
But you don't have to enter a building to do something bad. Just being out on the street, you could have some kind of chemical or biological weapon, or a dirty bomb. (Remember Jose Padilla? We're lucky we caught him.) The police should be able to search public spaces, including the people in them, at their will. Really, you're in a public place, you should expect to be inspected.
Okay, we've got all that covered, but that's all defensive. If we really want to rid this world of the threat of terrorism, we need to go to the source. Let's see
That's going to take a lot of resources. A lot of people. We'd have to really get the citizenry on board here
Not everyone can keep that up, though. I mean, we're people! We have jobs and families! We shouldn't have to bear the burden of constant vigilance; if everyone has to give up their regular lives in order to become a police officer, the terrorists have won!
We live in an age of technology! We can develop a giant database, and fill that database with information collected by audio and video recording equipment. We can install that surveillance equipment in all those places above I've demonstrated that terrorists can be found, have them all feed into the database.
National borders, state lines, cities, public buildings, city streets, shopping malls, private homes.
In all seriousness: I would much rather live in fear of terrorism than in fear of my own government's attempts to prevent it.
Iocaine powder??! Inconceivable!!
BitTorrent is not an "illegal P2P download service." BitTorrent is a protocol used for sharing files of all kinds over a network in a distributed fashion.
LimeWire is not an "illegal P2P download service." LimeWire is a client that uses the Gnutella protocol, which is a protocol used for sharing all kinds of files over a network in a distributed fashion.
I'm willing to bet that these same idiots would lobby for the elimination of JPG and MPEG as a complete and permanent halt to child pornography.
They should equip everyone with Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses while they're at it.
What's this ... behind your ear ... ?
Oh, look! It's a Higgs boson!
Calls to change the way people earn, spend and buy flow easily from the mouths of those who are done becoming very wealthy, and those who know they have little chance of becoming very wealthy.
Those calls to change are firmly quashed by those who are not done becoming very wealthy, and those who don't know they have little chance of becoming very wealthy.
Perhaps a nice hook for Linux into some businesses (like NYSE) is the "no conflict of interest" thing. If NYSE was a big customer of a company on its market, there may be some question about propriety.
Real Genius > Austin Powers
I walked through the questionnaire myself, which was followed by "install the software." No other options. Unfortunately, my computer is in no condition to run that software, else I would install it and report further.
You're right about the other part, no reference to the free software, at least not as far down the process as I got.
Wrong. You have to fill out a 15 minute questionnaire up front, then download and install the software.
Or drawing "123456." Or a straight line. Or a dot.
There are people for whom any requirement to present an identifying mark is too much trouble. Hell, I've heard more than one story about executives who can't be bothered to log into their own computers, and so have their assistants do it for them.
Better keep the thing on the ground then, because firing the gigantic controlled explosion it goes up on certainly counts as a chance of catastrophic loss.