This is patently false. The California state legislature voted to cap energy prices for consumers under the guise of deregulation. So you had consumers paying a fixed price for energy despite an energy shortage.
...if your walking around in a game and someone comes up behind you, it sounds like it's behind you with a decent sound card
As a point of curiousity, how do they manage to simulate sounds either being in front or behind? Is it the spatial association in your mind with the image on the screen, (i.e. knowing that it's centered between left and right, but there is nothing visible on the scren) or do they actually tonally change the sound to simulate the different tone balances depending on where the sound enters the ear (which is, I believe, how the ear determines up/down and front/back attitudes, as obviously the stereoscopic volume and sound delay effects only are helpful for determining the left/right positioning)? Soundcards today can actually do this fairly well? I would think that such tonal curves would be fairly unique to the person.
Here's the paradox of the situation -- I refuse to buy expensive headphones specifically because of this problem (and I should mention that the headphones that came with the radio actually sound tremendously good! They're earbuds so they're not like an expensive pair of Senheisser's, however I was very pleasantly surprized...until they broke). I do plan on making the plunge once again so I will pony up for some expensive Sens in all likelihood..under the hope that they make their wires a tad more robust.
I can't believe that you're not willing to concede that those who wear orange are much more likely to speed and forget to use their left blinker. The evidence and studies are so prevalent and conclusive that this debate is a non-starter -- People who wear orange need to be thrown in jail with a lifetime license ban!
Of course simply claiming that there are studies "so vast and conclusive" isn't really convincing. People who steal (especially in the context of a job, which is what we're talking about) don't steal because they're in a "poor financial situation", they steal because that is morally an open option for them. Personally, and I say this with absolute conviction, I would consider someone in a poor financial situation a great employee as they're less likely to do something that threatens their employment (i.e. they don't have as much of a "toss-away" attitude towards their job). Someone with a big nest egg and sterling credit might be more likely to consider the "what's the worst that can happen if I just expense inappropriately?" (which is stealing, btw, and it's something that the "financially healthy" people do regularly) with a weighting towards the "not much".
Even if you could show me a study that proved that those in financially poor positions were more likely to steal from their workplace (which I guarantee you you can't despite your protests that it's so obvious. For every low-paid till-skimmer I assure you you can find a highly-paid expense account padder or company office supply stealer), I would still say that it's presuming guilt which is against the foundation of our society, and it plays no part in a workplace agreement between worker and employer. Should workplaces be able to catalog the theft rate of races and ZIP codes and fire workers based on that? If you say yes to this then you've really shown your true colours.
...and break after a week because the wire was too thin
It's funny you mention that as that's one of my greatest pet peeves. I have attempted several times to listen to the radio on my commute to work (I take a train), and acquired a little radio that hangs on a strap around my neck. A week into using it the included headphones busted due to a wire break near the L connector (right at the stereo), which while it does bounce around a bit surely shouldn't put any undue stress on something designed accordingly, especially given that it's the "sports" model. OK, so I go home and rummage through a drawer to find another pair of headphones that were included with another portable device a ways back. About a week later it developed the same issue. Another pair of headphones. Another bought pair of headphones. In 2 months I had four pairs of headphones develop wire breaks near the L connector (right where it connects to the radio). I had long ago foresaken portable radios for exactly this reason: Invariably they would get the symptoms where a side would cut out or be crackly, and some wire manipulation could temporarily get it back. Just drives me absolutely insane that such a fundamental design problem is so prevalent, and while over the short term it might encourage purchases (as people replace them), over the long term it leads to lots of people just giving up on the technology: I'm not wasting another $40 buying another pair of headphones with a shitty connector.
Regarding using headphones while playing games: That works so long as 3D isn't an issue. Quake 3 offers 3 dimensional sound imaging (actually shouldn't it really be 2 dimensional, with standard stereo speakers being 1 dimensional? I digress), so a surround system lets you hear that the guy is behind you to your left, etc.
Indeed, the "watts" figure is grossly misleading and has been abused in the computer industry as it's been abused in the low end consumer and "ghetto-box" industry. The reality, on the other hand, is quite a bit different: I have a fairly hefty, respectable integrated amp (meaning it includes the preamp) that is capable of shaking the roof, and absolutely eclipses any cheesy computer speaker system when driving a pair of 3 way 4 foot tall Paradigm speakers. How many blistering watts does it boast? 40W a side. In the "real" market 100W is a tremendous amount of power. 500W+ just sounds like it's catering to the ill-informed.
The problem is these manufacturers don't report weighted figures. For all we know 35 Hz could be at -10 DeciBels, which is much lower than nominal volume.
Don't know if I really agree with this: I don't believe I've ever seen a frequency response chart on any half-decent equipment that wasn't coupled with a +/-. i.e. "39-200 +/- 3db", "20Hz-20Khz +-6db". Mind you comparing when the scaling is different is very difficult, however it does generally keep them somewhat honest.
You accumlated too much debt - you and your wife. You divorced and you had to pay it all back. Okay, well bummer....Credit ratings are in fact accurate. If you have bad credit it is because you are not creditworthy or trustworthy in financial matters.
"Too much debt" is subjective: While a couple making $160,000 per year can easily support a very large debt load, the same is not true if they both were suddenly put out of work. "They should plan for that," you say -- Grossly idealistic. If people planned for everything the whole credit industry would not exist because credit, as the foundation of its philosophy, involves the risk, and people making money gambling on that risk.
Likewise, insurance is designed to spread risk of a group of like people to reduce costs for everyone involved. Why should an exceptionally bad risk be glossed over and treated like everyone else? Why should someone with 6 speeding tickets pay the same as me? Why should someone with a recurring disease who requires daily medical care pay the same as a person who is fit, healthy, and requires no such care?
It sounds more like you disbelieve in insurance whatsoever (just as you seem to disbelieve in the credit industry, as in your imaginary world credit doesn't exist): Save yourself the money altogether and simply don't get insurance -- That should do great for a financially secure individual like yourself who is fit, healthy, and requires no such care, and is able to weather any financial storm without a missed payment, late tax payment, legal fee, or other such matter.
The chances are vastly greater that people in desperate financial situations will act desperately - including comitting criminal acts.
Care to back this up with some facts? Firstly a bad credit report often doesn't mean a "desperate financial situation", but instead indicates a historical financial situation. There is a vast chasm of difference (I would worry about an idealist, such as yourself, shitting their pants worried about missing their credit card payment and stealing company supplies to keep their sterling credit rating. That logic doesn't make sense? I can't see why it makes any less sense than your ridiculous conclusion). Criminality is equally distributed across the population: Joe Sixpack might be writing bad cheques, while John CEO is defrauding investors and evading taxes. Attempting to stereotype society reeks of elitism.
He gave a great talk, and clearly stated that the core audience of the Simpsons, the one that gets the sponsors and whatnot, is pre-teen kids
I would say that he is poorly misinformed, regardless of his association with the Simpsons. Proof? Watch an episode of the Simpsons and pay attention to the ads you see: Are they ads for toys and cheese strings? No almost universally they are ads for sports cars, underarm deoderant, etc. The trappings of an adult. Perhaps it's just here in Canada, but it is tremendously clear that advertisers seek the adult audience of the Simpsons.
No he is entirely correct: The Simpsons actually started off as a very serious almost dramatic cartoon (some of the very early ones verged on depressing. Recall the one where Homer was going to kill himself by tossing a rock off the bridge. There was a whole series of moralistic episodes like that particularly in the first year), to going quite a few years with biting satire and commentary with a plethora of "inside jokes", to now being really a low-rent in-your-face kind of cheap humor (especially sexual humor, such as Marge's breast implants, or even Apu cheating on his wife). I am not one to write something off (I feel that many of the people who do so do it because they literally want to retain it as "theirs"), however I do think that the Simpsons writing team needs an enema. We knew there was a problem when one of the writing staff actually proudly boasted that he had never watched a Simpsons episode in his life. It is that sort of self-loathing that puts the writing on the wall.
Yes, and if you roll further down in the SEC reports, you'll see that this really does translate to Windows and Office
Interesting how you make this entirely unsubstantiated claim, and then claim that everything else runs at a loss. Care to back this up? Care to point out the section of the SEC filing that supports this absurd notion? Oh, of course not. Who needs proof?
It's not really surprising that there are so many Microsoft shills posting, it takes attention away from other monkey business, like fulfilling punishment for breach of contract with Sun over Java. What is surprising is that any and all pro-Microsoft posts are getting +5 these days.
That's right we're all Microsoft shills. Indeed, about 97% of desktop users are Microsoft shills. Everyone who moderated me up is Microsoft shills. Everyone who agrees with me is a Microsoft shill. How is that tinfoil hat working out for you in your land of fantasy?
That's right: It's something you disagree with, therefore it's a troll. Regarding this speaking for "most open sourcers", there was an entire story talking about how only Windows and Office make money (it was based on a Register story). It hardly surprizes me to see that FUD repeated.
As a sidenote: While I enjoy watching the pedantry, your attempt at correcting my spelling was a bit weak--The next time you might try actually correcting with the correct spelling. You see I transposed the i and the e: naivety rather than naevity as I incorrectly typed. You, on the other hand, just simply made up a spelling. Keep trying though: One of these days you'll get the academic upper-hand.
P.S. You should have started off by accusing me of being a Microsoft droid.
All would be less profitable because they are all tightly knit together and will not work with anything else....Most other products exist just because of Windows
I disagree greatly. Indeed I would say that the opposite is true, and Windows exist and thrives because of those other products.
Personally I think there is a massive risk to the Windows desktop domination right now, but it isn't Linux: It's web terminals. While Andreeson was prophecizing it many years too early, many organizations are converting almost all of their internal data systems to web based--Web based in a manner that any competent web client can do equally. This is going to slowly lead to a revolutionary change to a classic "dumb terminal" (albeit a fully featured web client is hardly dumb, but you get the point).
Will this kill Microsoft? Absolutely not. The mistake that many antiMicrosoftarians make is presuming that everything else will change and Microsoft will remain static heading on the same course. Microsoft has shown over and over again that they don't do this, but instead can change course on a dime (unlike most large companies). Let's pretend that tomorrow 99% of the world adopted Linux -- The next week Microsoft would be the #1 software vendor on the Linux platform.
It actually correctly states that there are three profitable divisions (each division encompassing dozens of products, though obviously praying for a Slashdotting they simplify, as did prior articles like the Register, by using teminology like "It's Windows centered unit", and "which includes the Office suite of programs"...):
"Microsoft said it posted operating income of $1.97bn in the December- ended quarter in its Windows-centred business unit"..."Microsoft's Information Worker segment, which includes the Office suite of programs, posted operating income of $1.88bn on revenue of $2.41bn"..."The only other profitable division in the quarter was Server Platforms, which had operating income of $498m on revenue of $1.67bn.".
Microsoft has only two profitable products (Office and Windows) that strongly depend on each other.
I adore how cute it is when some FUD is propagated on Slashdot, and soon you can hear it being repeated verbatim as stone-cold facts time after time by Slashbots. Microsoft has three profitable divisions: Client, Server Platform, and Information Worker. I'm hardly surprized that some dullards interpreted that as "Office and Windowz!", yet in reality those three divisions account for the overwhelming majority of products with the Microsoft name on it. SQL Server? Yup. Visual Studio? Yup. Visio? Yup. SNA Server? Yup. Indeed, if you looked within even the unprofitable divisions you would find a bevy of highly profitable items: The Home and Entertainment Divison encapsulates Microsoft hardware, such as mice and keyboards, which themselves are highly lauded and tremendously profitable, however their profitability is being masked by the xbox.
This is all so laughable anyways, and indicates the core naevity of most open sourcers. Egads Microsoft mentioned open source! The reality, of course, is that such filings must include forward looking risks of any sort, including potential lawsuits, and envisioned risks by the pundit community. The fact that open source is mentioned in there is a given. To make this even more hilarious, though, the prior quarterly report included the same risk statement, while the quarterly report before that included the statement "the availability of competitive products or services such as the Linux operating system at prices below Microsoft's prices or for no charge" as a risk factor. Looking at the annual report from 3 years ago yields the statement "With an increased attention toward open-source software, the Linux operating system has gained increasing acceptance. Several computer manufacturers preinstall Linux on PC Servers and many leading software developers have written applications that run on Linux. Microsoft Windows operating systems are also threatened by alternative platforms such as those based on Internet browsing software and Java technology promoted by AOL and Sun Microsystems. " and " The Company continues to face movements from PC-based applications to server-based applications or Web-based application hosting services, from proprietary software to open source software, and from PCs to Internet-based devices.". I'm sure I could go back two more years and find similar forward looking risk statements.
I suspect that someone read an SEC filing for the first time in their life and thought they found a real revelation (as did the Slashdot editors when they posted this), when it's the same thing that has appeared in their filings for years now.
The same could be said about countless extremely talented artists out there. The claim that "all new music sucks!", as several in this discussion have claimed, is tremendously weak, and depends upon one presuming that "all music"=="What you hear on the local top 40 station". Hilariously this is the same crowd that constantly crows about how they use P2P because they won't buy a whole CD for "one hit" with "a bunch of filler" (for the slow, the "hit" songs are often the weakest of the songs, but their catchiness makes them good for a general audience. For people who give the whole album a chance there is often some tremendous stuff).
The $20-to-$30/month for a dialup subscription can feed a family for a few more days when things get tight.
Wouldn't this sort of thought process justify an increase in subscribers flocking to AOL/MSN to take advantage of the low cost, downgrading from broadband? Millions of people now have broadband at $40 or more per month, and following your hypothetical penny pinching scenario it would seem appropriate that they would downgrade to the $9.95 or less light usage plans most of these services offer. Claiming that someone entirely cuts themselves off seems extremist as the net represents one of the primary communications mediums today: How does one find and then communicate with prospective jobs without an internet connection?
I counter your claims and would say that the rocketing adoption of broadband does as well: Everyone is getting broadband, and dial-up providers are going the way of Slashdot's editorial skills.
Why retro? Because their own, mass marketed, youth culture sucks ass.
I'd wager that a much greater impetus is the desire the insecure get to differentiate themselves from their peers, and a false sense of musical superiority is often a primary way. I say this from a first-hand perspective: I grew up listening to "alternative" music such as Depeche Mode, Skinny Puppy, Ministry, etc, in a small group where we assauged each others misgivings by assuring each other that what we were listening is of such superiority to all those brainless mobs. Then I grew up. First I saw a friend actually cease listening to a band because they became popular: This struck me as the greatest hippocracy of many counter-culture movements-They are just as driven by popularity, only in an inverse fashion (i.e. my like= -(popularity)). There is nothing redeemable in that, and it makes one just as much of a sheep as anyone else. How about all of the "goths" who "act different" by acting exactly like every other goth. It's a false sense of individuality while completely following the leader.
As per music nowadays, there are a tremendous number of extremely talented groups...groups being produced and distributed by the evil big industry. Sarah McLachlan, Tori Amos, Our Lady Peace, Matchbox 20, etc. All are tremendous musical talents in a sea of talent. Britney Spears does not represent the status quo of musical talent, just as Elvis didn't back in teh 50s.
As I've often said before, plenty of people think that radio and music in general truly suck in these days and times (how many people do you know that haven't bought a "new artist" cd in the last five years, perferring to spend $11.98 on "Skynard's Greatest Hits" or what ever?)
You do, of course, realize that this is pure, unadulterated nonsense, don't you? Throughout the history of time people have frozen their tastes at a certain period of time, and from thenceforth assured anyone and everyone that music had gone to hell in a handbasket. This sort of personal time lock gets justified by claims that everything just isn't as good as it used to be. If you don't think it's happened for decades, if not centuries, then you are deluding himself. When Beethoven first started his piano concertos the elites assured themselves that this newfangled contraption was but a lowly passing fancy...it just didn't measure up to the harpsichord. Rinse, repeat.
My presumption is that they were running ATM VPN traffic over standard IP connections (basically like running an ADSL line to the site). This would affect anyone who is running a system critical service over the shared internet.
Having said that, if they were affected then it demonstrates really poor planning: Any critical service should have QoS guarantees by their provider (which should have peer QoS guarantees, and so on), so if the ATM requires a minimum of x bandwidth, then the provider will guarantee that all other traffic will be throttled to accommodate it, building more bandwidth (fibre, etc) if they cannot accommodate all of their QoS guarantees at once. It most certainly seems ridiculous to even ponder things like 911 going down because of something like this.
Let me put it another way: Many telcos share the same data lines for both voice traffic (long distance calls, etc), and Internet IP traffic: Internet traffic cannot take up so much bandwidth that it impedes the voice data, as the telco will always throttle it accordingly to ensure that voice always gets through with 100% throughput. These same sorts of guarantees hold true (or should hold true) for all other system critical type services, and it is brutal irresponsibility to do anything else. When some kid with a ping program can take down your system then it points out a pretty big flaw.
Of course, why the cockpit doesn't have teh ability to eject from the shuttle is a good question.
Given that the shuttle is just basically gliding back to Earth, that seems like making something simple complex: Desiging not only all of the complexities for a detachable nose (which would most likely fail, causing a catastrophe), but for the nose to survive re-entry by itself, seems like it would yield a dangerously complex design.
Indeed in many cases like this the foundation of the problem comes out to be complexity: The simpler a system is, the less likely it is to hide defects. Unfortunately we in the West have a habit of making horrendously complex systems to facilitate any unlikely scenario, and the net result is something that is much more dangerous.
I'm curious about his technique and where the big holdup is. This page emulated an Atari 130XE, a very similar beast to the C64, and in their admittingly simplistic benchmark achieved 4x the speed running the emulator on a 486/66 (9x the speed on a Pentium 90). Put in the numerous architectural enhancement in today's processors, and I find it hard to believe that an 800Mhz processor cannot emulate a C64 at a 1:1 speed.
I will tell you why I own some older arcade classic coin-ops. Mame is great and all, but when you have an original you have and original. Something that has more to it than just the gaming value.
I can see the merit in this for nostalgic purposes, and indeed I have browsed the auctions for a big stand up arcade. I guess my question should have been something more like "Why would someone buy hardware to emulate the original games when they can do virtual emulation?". In this case there isn't even the nostalgic factor as the thing is a oddball plug-in card rather than a real C64.
Just as I wouldn't go out and buy a classic arcade console, but rather would run MAME, why would someone want this when the 6502 can be completely emulated very well? Emulation isn't an option when extreme performance is required, but I'd wager that a modern Ghz+ would emulate a 6502 and subsystems at a speed greatly outpacing a actual 20Mhz 6502.
Well currently CNN's position could be explained by the fact that they're owned by AOL, a decidedly anti-Microsoft organization. However CNN's incredible anti-Microsoft bias existed long before the AOL/TW merger: Repeatedly news that other outlets gave a fair treatment of, CNN would interview and broadcast the words of any anti-Microsoft fanatic, without any sort of counter argument. Ironically MSNBC is a far less biased news outlet than CNN is.
Slashdot Mirror
This is patently false. The California state legislature voted to cap energy prices for consumers under the guise of deregulation. So you had consumers paying a fixed price for energy despite an energy shortage.
h p
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/22/news-rappleye.p
...if your walking around in a game and someone comes up behind you, it sounds like it's behind you with a decent sound card
As a point of curiousity, how do they manage to simulate sounds either being in front or behind? Is it the spatial association in your mind with the image on the screen, (i.e. knowing that it's centered between left and right, but there is nothing visible on the scren) or do they actually tonally change the sound to simulate the different tone balances depending on where the sound enters the ear (which is, I believe, how the ear determines up/down and front/back attitudes, as obviously the stereoscopic volume and sound delay effects only are helpful for determining the left/right positioning)? Soundcards today can actually do this fairly well? I would think that such tonal curves would be fairly unique to the person.
Here's the paradox of the situation -- I refuse to buy expensive headphones specifically because of this problem (and I should mention that the headphones that came with the radio actually sound tremendously good! They're earbuds so they're not like an expensive pair of Senheisser's, however I was very pleasantly surprized...until they broke). I do plan on making the plunge once again so I will pony up for some expensive Sens in all likelihood..under the hope that they make their wires a tad more robust.
I can't believe that you're not willing to concede that those who wear orange are much more likely to speed and forget to use their left blinker. The evidence and studies are so prevalent and conclusive that this debate is a non-starter -- People who wear orange need to be thrown in jail with a lifetime license ban!
Of course simply claiming that there are studies "so vast and conclusive" isn't really convincing. People who steal (especially in the context of a job, which is what we're talking about) don't steal because they're in a "poor financial situation", they steal because that is morally an open option for them. Personally, and I say this with absolute conviction, I would consider someone in a poor financial situation a great employee as they're less likely to do something that threatens their employment (i.e. they don't have as much of a "toss-away" attitude towards their job). Someone with a big nest egg and sterling credit might be more likely to consider the "what's the worst that can happen if I just expense inappropriately?" (which is stealing, btw, and it's something that the "financially healthy" people do regularly) with a weighting towards the "not much".
Even if you could show me a study that proved that those in financially poor positions were more likely to steal from their workplace (which I guarantee you you can't despite your protests that it's so obvious. For every low-paid till-skimmer I assure you you can find a highly-paid expense account padder or company office supply stealer), I would still say that it's presuming guilt which is against the foundation of our society, and it plays no part in a workplace agreement between worker and employer. Should workplaces be able to catalog the theft rate of races and ZIP codes and fire workers based on that? If you say yes to this then you've really shown your true colours.
...and break after a week because the wire was too thin
It's funny you mention that as that's one of my greatest pet peeves. I have attempted several times to listen to the radio on my commute to work (I take a train), and acquired a little radio that hangs on a strap around my neck. A week into using it the included headphones busted due to a wire break near the L connector (right at the stereo), which while it does bounce around a bit surely shouldn't put any undue stress on something designed accordingly, especially given that it's the "sports" model. OK, so I go home and rummage through a drawer to find another pair of headphones that were included with another portable device a ways back. About a week later it developed the same issue. Another pair of headphones. Another bought pair of headphones. In 2 months I had four pairs of headphones develop wire breaks near the L connector (right where it connects to the radio). I had long ago foresaken portable radios for exactly this reason: Invariably they would get the symptoms where a side would cut out or be crackly, and some wire manipulation could temporarily get it back. Just drives me absolutely insane that such a fundamental design problem is so prevalent, and while over the short term it might encourage purchases (as people replace them), over the long term it leads to lots of people just giving up on the technology: I'm not wasting another $40 buying another pair of headphones with a shitty connector.
Regarding using headphones while playing games: That works so long as 3D isn't an issue. Quake 3 offers 3 dimensional sound imaging (actually shouldn't it really be 2 dimensional, with standard stereo speakers being 1 dimensional? I digress), so a surround system lets you hear that the guy is behind you to your left, etc.
Fact is these figures aren't really true.
Indeed, the "watts" figure is grossly misleading and has been abused in the computer industry as it's been abused in the low end consumer and "ghetto-box" industry. The reality, on the other hand, is quite a bit different: I have a fairly hefty, respectable integrated amp (meaning it includes the preamp) that is capable of shaking the roof, and absolutely eclipses any cheesy computer speaker system when driving a pair of 3 way 4 foot tall Paradigm speakers. How many blistering watts does it boast? 40W a side. In the "real" market 100W is a tremendous amount of power. 500W+ just sounds like it's catering to the ill-informed.
The problem is these manufacturers don't report weighted figures. For all we know 35 Hz could be at -10 DeciBels, which is much lower than nominal volume.
Don't know if I really agree with this: I don't believe I've ever seen a frequency response chart on any half-decent equipment that wasn't coupled with a +/-. i.e. "39-200 +/- 3db", "20Hz-20Khz +-6db". Mind you comparing when the scaling is different is very difficult, however it does generally keep them somewhat honest.
You accumlated too much debt - you and your wife. You divorced and you had to pay it all back. Okay, well bummer....Credit ratings are in fact accurate. If you have bad credit it is because you are not creditworthy or trustworthy in financial matters.
"Too much debt" is subjective: While a couple making $160,000 per year can easily support a very large debt load, the same is not true if they both were suddenly put out of work. "They should plan for that," you say -- Grossly idealistic. If people planned for everything the whole credit industry would not exist because credit, as the foundation of its philosophy, involves the risk, and people making money gambling on that risk.
Likewise, insurance is designed to spread risk of a group of like people to reduce costs for everyone involved. Why should an exceptionally bad risk be glossed over and treated like everyone else? Why should someone with 6 speeding tickets pay the same as me? Why should someone with a recurring disease who requires daily medical care pay the same as a person who is fit, healthy, and requires no such care?
It sounds more like you disbelieve in insurance whatsoever (just as you seem to disbelieve in the credit industry, as in your imaginary world credit doesn't exist): Save yourself the money altogether and simply don't get insurance -- That should do great for a financially secure individual like yourself who is fit, healthy, and requires no such care, and is able to weather any financial storm without a missed payment, late tax payment, legal fee, or other such matter.
The chances are vastly greater that people in desperate financial situations will act desperately - including comitting criminal acts.
Care to back this up with some facts? Firstly a bad credit report often doesn't mean a "desperate financial situation", but instead indicates a historical financial situation. There is a vast chasm of difference (I would worry about an idealist, such as yourself, shitting their pants worried about missing their credit card payment and stealing company supplies to keep their sterling credit rating. That logic doesn't make sense? I can't see why it makes any less sense than your ridiculous conclusion). Criminality is equally distributed across the population: Joe Sixpack might be writing bad cheques, while John CEO is defrauding investors and evading taxes. Attempting to stereotype society reeks of elitism.
He gave a great talk, and clearly stated that the core audience of the Simpsons, the one that gets the sponsors and whatnot, is pre-teen kids
I would say that he is poorly misinformed, regardless of his association with the Simpsons. Proof? Watch an episode of the Simpsons and pay attention to the ads you see: Are they ads for toys and cheese strings? No almost universally they are ads for sports cars, underarm deoderant, etc. The trappings of an adult. Perhaps it's just here in Canada, but it is tremendously clear that advertisers seek the adult audience of the Simpsons.
No he is entirely correct: The Simpsons actually started off as a very serious almost dramatic cartoon (some of the very early ones verged on depressing. Recall the one where Homer was going to kill himself by tossing a rock off the bridge. There was a whole series of moralistic episodes like that particularly in the first year), to going quite a few years with biting satire and commentary with a plethora of "inside jokes", to now being really a low-rent in-your-face kind of cheap humor (especially sexual humor, such as Marge's breast implants, or even Apu cheating on his wife). I am not one to write something off (I feel that many of the people who do so do it because they literally want to retain it as "theirs"), however I do think that the Simpsons writing team needs an enema. We knew there was a problem when one of the writing staff actually proudly boasted that he had never watched a Simpsons episode in his life. It is that sort of self-loathing that puts the writing on the wall.
Yes, and if you roll further down in the SEC reports, you'll see that this really does translate to Windows and Office
Interesting how you make this entirely unsubstantiated claim, and then claim that everything else runs at a loss. Care to back this up? Care to point out the section of the SEC filing that supports this absurd notion? Oh, of course not. Who needs proof?
It's not really surprising that there are so many Microsoft shills posting, it takes attention away from other monkey business, like fulfilling punishment for breach of contract with Sun over Java. What is surprising is that any and all pro-Microsoft posts are getting +5 these days.
That's right we're all Microsoft shills. Indeed, about 97% of desktop users are Microsoft shills. Everyone who moderated me up is Microsoft shills. Everyone who agrees with me is a Microsoft shill. How is that tinfoil hat working out for you in your land of fantasy?
That's right: It's something you disagree with, therefore it's a troll. Regarding this speaking for "most open sourcers", there was an entire story talking about how only Windows and Office make money (it was based on a Register story). It hardly surprizes me to see that FUD repeated.
As a sidenote: While I enjoy watching the pedantry, your attempt at correcting my spelling was a bit weak--The next time you might try actually correcting with the correct spelling. You see I transposed the i and the e: naivety rather than naevity as I incorrectly typed. You, on the other hand, just simply made up a spelling. Keep trying though: One of these days you'll get the academic upper-hand.
P.S. You should have started off by accusing me of being a Microsoft droid.
All would be less profitable because they are all tightly knit together and will not work with anything else....Most other products exist just because of Windows
I disagree greatly. Indeed I would say that the opposite is true, and Windows exist and thrives because of those other products.
Personally I think there is a massive risk to the Windows desktop domination right now, but it isn't Linux: It's web terminals. While Andreeson was prophecizing it many years too early, many organizations are converting almost all of their internal data systems to web based--Web based in a manner that any competent web client can do equally. This is going to slowly lead to a revolutionary change to a classic "dumb terminal" (albeit a fully featured web client is hardly dumb, but you get the point).
Will this kill Microsoft? Absolutely not. The mistake that many antiMicrosoftarians make is presuming that everything else will change and Microsoft will remain static heading on the same course. Microsoft has shown over and over again that they don't do this, but instead can change course on a dime (unlike most large companies). Let's pretend that tomorrow 99% of the world adopted Linux -- The next week Microsoft would be the #1 software vendor on the Linux platform.
It actually correctly states that there are three profitable divisions (each division encompassing dozens of products, though obviously praying for a Slashdotting they simplify, as did prior articles like the Register, by using teminology like "It's Windows centered unit", and "which includes the Office suite of programs"...):
"Microsoft said it posted operating income of $1.97bn in the December- ended quarter in its Windows-centred business unit"..."Microsoft's Information Worker segment, which includes the Office suite of programs, posted operating income of $1.88bn on revenue of $2.41bn"..."The only other profitable division in the quarter was Server Platforms, which had operating income of $498m on revenue of $1.67bn.".
Microsoft has only two profitable products (Office and Windows) that strongly depend on each other.
I adore how cute it is when some FUD is propagated on Slashdot, and soon you can hear it being repeated verbatim as stone-cold facts time after time by Slashbots. Microsoft has three profitable divisions: Client, Server Platform, and Information Worker. I'm hardly surprized that some dullards interpreted that as "Office and Windowz!", yet in reality those three divisions account for the overwhelming majority of products with the Microsoft name on it. SQL Server? Yup. Visual Studio? Yup. Visio? Yup. SNA Server? Yup. Indeed, if you looked within even the unprofitable divisions you would find a bevy of highly profitable items: The Home and Entertainment Divison encapsulates Microsoft hardware, such as mice and keyboards, which themselves are highly lauded and tremendously profitable, however their profitability is being masked by the xbox.
This is all so laughable anyways, and indicates the core naevity of most open sourcers. Egads Microsoft mentioned open source! The reality, of course, is that such filings must include forward looking risks of any sort, including potential lawsuits, and envisioned risks by the pundit community. The fact that open source is mentioned in there is a given. To make this even more hilarious, though, the prior quarterly report included the same risk statement, while the quarterly report before that included the statement "the availability of competitive products or services such as the Linux operating system at prices below Microsoft's prices or for no charge" as a risk factor. Looking at the annual report from 3 years ago yields the statement "With an increased attention toward open-source software, the Linux operating system has gained increasing acceptance. Several computer manufacturers preinstall Linux on PC Servers and many leading software developers have written applications that run on Linux. Microsoft Windows operating systems are also threatened by alternative platforms such as those based on Internet browsing software and Java technology promoted by AOL and Sun Microsystems. " and " The Company continues to face movements from PC-based applications to server-based applications or Web-based application hosting services, from proprietary software to open source software, and from PCs to Internet-based devices.". I'm sure I could go back two more years and find similar forward looking risk statements.
I suspect that someone read an SEC filing for the first time in their life and thought they found a real revelation (as did the Slashdot editors when they posted this), when it's the same thing that has appeared in their filings for years now.
The same could be said about countless extremely talented artists out there. The claim that "all new music sucks!", as several in this discussion have claimed, is tremendously weak, and depends upon one presuming that "all music"=="What you hear on the local top 40 station". Hilariously this is the same crowd that constantly crows about how they use P2P because they won't buy a whole CD for "one hit" with "a bunch of filler" (for the slow, the "hit" songs are often the weakest of the songs, but their catchiness makes them good for a general audience. For people who give the whole album a chance there is often some tremendous stuff).
The $20-to-$30/month for a dialup subscription can feed a family for a few more days when things get tight.
Wouldn't this sort of thought process justify an increase in subscribers flocking to AOL/MSN to take advantage of the low cost, downgrading from broadband? Millions of people now have broadband at $40 or more per month, and following your hypothetical penny pinching scenario it would seem appropriate that they would downgrade to the $9.95 or less light usage plans most of these services offer. Claiming that someone entirely cuts themselves off seems extremist as the net represents one of the primary communications mediums today: How does one find and then communicate with prospective jobs without an internet connection?
I counter your claims and would say that the rocketing adoption of broadband does as well: Everyone is getting broadband, and dial-up providers are going the way of Slashdot's editorial skills.
Why retro? Because their own, mass marketed, youth culture sucks ass.
I'd wager that a much greater impetus is the desire the insecure get to differentiate themselves from their peers, and a false sense of musical superiority is often a primary way. I say this from a first-hand perspective: I grew up listening to "alternative" music such as Depeche Mode, Skinny Puppy, Ministry, etc, in a small group where we assauged each others misgivings by assuring each other that what we were listening is of such superiority to all those brainless mobs. Then I grew up. First I saw a friend actually cease listening to a band because they became popular: This struck me as the greatest hippocracy of many counter-culture movements-They are just as driven by popularity, only in an inverse fashion (i.e. my like= -(popularity)). There is nothing redeemable in that, and it makes one just as much of a sheep as anyone else. How about all of the "goths" who "act different" by acting exactly like every other goth. It's a false sense of individuality while completely following the leader.
As per music nowadays, there are a tremendous number of extremely talented groups...groups being produced and distributed by the evil big industry. Sarah McLachlan, Tori Amos, Our Lady Peace, Matchbox 20, etc. All are tremendous musical talents in a sea of talent. Britney Spears does not represent the status quo of musical talent, just as Elvis didn't back in teh 50s.
As I've often said before, plenty of people think that radio and music in general truly suck in these days and times (how many people do you know that haven't bought a "new artist" cd in the last five years, perferring to spend $11.98 on "Skynard's Greatest Hits" or what ever?)
You do, of course, realize that this is pure, unadulterated nonsense, don't you? Throughout the history of time people have frozen their tastes at a certain period of time, and from thenceforth assured anyone and everyone that music had gone to hell in a handbasket. This sort of personal time lock gets justified by claims that everything just isn't as good as it used to be. If you don't think it's happened for decades, if not centuries, then you are deluding himself. When Beethoven first started his piano concertos the elites assured themselves that this newfangled contraption was but a lowly passing fancy...it just didn't measure up to the harpsichord. Rinse, repeat.
My presumption is that they were running ATM VPN traffic over standard IP connections (basically like running an ADSL line to the site). This would affect anyone who is running a system critical service over the shared internet.
Having said that, if they were affected then it demonstrates really poor planning: Any critical service should have QoS guarantees by their provider (which should have peer QoS guarantees, and so on), so if the ATM requires a minimum of x bandwidth, then the provider will guarantee that all other traffic will be throttled to accommodate it, building more bandwidth (fibre, etc) if they cannot accommodate all of their QoS guarantees at once. It most certainly seems ridiculous to even ponder things like 911 going down because of something like this.
Let me put it another way: Many telcos share the same data lines for both voice traffic (long distance calls, etc), and Internet IP traffic: Internet traffic cannot take up so much bandwidth that it impedes the voice data, as the telco will always throttle it accordingly to ensure that voice always gets through with 100% throughput. These same sorts of guarantees hold true (or should hold true) for all other system critical type services, and it is brutal irresponsibility to do anything else. When some kid with a ping program can take down your system then it points out a pretty big flaw.
Of course, why the cockpit doesn't have teh ability to eject from the shuttle is a good question.
Given that the shuttle is just basically gliding back to Earth, that seems like making something simple complex: Desiging not only all of the complexities for a detachable nose (which would most likely fail, causing a catastrophe), but for the nose to survive re-entry by itself, seems like it would yield a dangerously complex design.
Indeed in many cases like this the foundation of the problem comes out to be complexity: The simpler a system is, the less likely it is to hide defects. Unfortunately we in the West have a habit of making horrendously complex systems to facilitate any unlikely scenario, and the net result is something that is much more dangerous.
I'm curious about his technique and where the big holdup is. This page emulated an Atari 130XE, a very similar beast to the C64, and in their admittingly simplistic benchmark achieved 4x the speed running the emulator on a 486/66 (9x the speed on a Pentium 90). Put in the numerous architectural enhancement in today's processors, and I find it hard to believe that an 800Mhz processor cannot emulate a C64 at a 1:1 speed.
I will tell you why I own some older arcade classic coin-ops. Mame is great and all, but when you have an original you have and original. Something that has more to it than just the gaming value.
I can see the merit in this for nostalgic purposes, and indeed I have browsed the auctions for a big stand up arcade. I guess my question should have been something more like "Why would someone buy hardware to emulate the original games when they can do virtual emulation?". In this case there isn't even the nostalgic factor as the thing is a oddball plug-in card rather than a real C64.
Just as I wouldn't go out and buy a classic arcade console, but rather would run MAME, why would someone want this when the 6502 can be completely emulated very well? Emulation isn't an option when extreme performance is required, but I'd wager that a modern Ghz+ would emulate a 6502 and subsystems at a speed greatly outpacing a actual 20Mhz 6502.
Well currently CNN's position could be explained by the fact that they're owned by AOL, a decidedly anti-Microsoft organization. However CNN's incredible anti-Microsoft bias existed long before the AOL/TW merger: Repeatedly news that other outlets gave a fair treatment of, CNN would interview and broadcast the words of any anti-Microsoft fanatic, without any sort of counter argument. Ironically MSNBC is a far less biased news outlet than CNN is.
Ray Charles IS God...the God of funk.