Well, yes, they *can* give them away in Japan. The problem is that giving them away is the only way to reduce inventory.
The iPhone only seems to be a hit here in the US. Everywhere else it has been a middling failure. Sure, the first rush to get the phones gave the impression of huge demand, but after the fanboys got their satisfaction, the numbers went right back down.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple gave up on the iPhone in the next couple years and instead focused on producing a better iPod touch.
First Amendment prevents the abridging of the freedom of the Press.
It doesn't say anything about promoting it.
If the general welfare is to be promoted, then it is actually incumbent upon the government to not only not tax the Press, but to actively solicit and pay them to disseminate accurate and useful information.
They are gradually getting games accustomed to strange errors through the steady introduction of problems. As time goes on, these errors will become so prevalent that they become invisible to the average player.
As unlikely as it seems, this is actually Microsoft's strategy to decrease their own support costs. By reducing the helpdesk manual size to "have you checked that your cables are plugged in correctly?" and "Have you tried rebooting the machine?", they are also reducing the amount of time each support call requires. Reduced call times means fewer support technicians which means more money remains in Microsoft's pockets.
It's sad that they always think of the bottom line rather than their customers.
Face it, the real reason that Windows 7 is leaner than Vista is that Vista was a market flop because it tried to do all sorts of things that Windows users were simply not ready for.
There is nothing seriously wrong with Vista, and Windows 7 is mostly an optimized version 2 of Vista. So it's no surprise that with the codebase stabilized in Vista SP1 that Windows 7 will be able to build successfully upon that.
First, I intended no insult to you. Simply, I was pointing out that what may be difficult for you may have been easy for someone else. The suitability of a person to a particular field will form that person's impression of their field of study. If you think your degree is valuable because it was hard to get, does that mean that someone who received the same degree with much less effort should value it less because of the reduced effort?
Which then goes to the first point. If a degree's value is intrinsically tied to the difficulty of getting it, then isn't it directly tied to the recipient's impression of its difficulty? That isn't a good measure, by any measure.
A person who finds the Sloan MBA program natural and intuitive may find themselves struggling with the MBA program at Harvard or Wharton. Even within the same field, there are significant differences between programs. But does this mean that one program is inherently better than another? If you think that personal difficulty is the deciding factor, then the person who chooses the program that he is least suited for will always claim his degree is more valuable than another. But that doesn't make any sense in any objective way.
As for your comments regarding the Creationism program, it reeks of the close-mindedness that I mentioned in my original post. Without having so much as glanced at the program, you dismiss it out of hand. Your preconceived notions of the topic have already closed you off to the possibility of valuable knowledge arising from the study of it. Whether or not there is merit in the "theory", it's study can only illuminate the problems in the field, and the field either changes to incorporate the results of study or it retreats further into its dogma. Either result is preferable to the type of self-imposed blindness on both sides of the aisle.
Are those servers are somehow hidden? If it has an IP address, it can be tracked down.
Assuming that it would need to interact with those servers at some time in the future, those addresses would need to be known somehow beforehand (even if it was simply a lookup to a table which contained the actual server IP addresss). So what's to stop investigators from finding the people behind this?
If you know when the code is going to start running, why don't you know what it will do after that? It's not like programs (and that's all a virus/worm is) are written in special, unreadable code. It's all machine language.
If you want to play with their code and platform, you need to follow their rules or not play at all.
Just as you can't close your code if it incorporates GPL code, Blizzard doesn't want you charging people for your add-ons if you code for their platform.
It's not a valid hypothesis because it can't be invalidated. You can't prove Creation to be untrue because it doesn't actually postulate anything in and of itself that can be proved true or untrue.
So the best you can do (and what I would expect the degree requirements to include) is to postulate a hypothesis which could be proved within the Creationist framework.
On the other hand, as a multi-disciplinary field, Creationist studies could include comparative research into various Creation myths to find commonality. Such commonality could then be used to expand research into archeology, geology, and anthropology. Discommonality could be used in much the same way.
The field as represented in the media is dead except to the hard core believers. These people may be numerous, but the people who are actually involved in the "study" of Creationist Science have already tossed out young-earthism and repudiated the Sunday School beliefs of the masses (see how answersingenesis has changed over the past 10 years). It was the need to justify their beliefs that brought these researchers around to a better theory of "Creation", and I can't see how shining more light on the field will do anything but make their theory bend more to the facts.
So a space station, a space shuttle, and time walk into a bar. The bartender asks what they want.
The space station says, "I'd like the chance to help build a space telescope. Since I'm already up here, I think I could be of help."
The space shuttle quickly responded, "Well, I think I could help you. Since I fly up to visit you every now and then, I could definitely haul up the necessary parts for you."
The bartender leaned over to time and asked him his opinion.
Time said, "Jesus Christ these guys are dorks. Got anything to take me back a few years before I met these geeks?"
The idea that one can't study or learn anything from the study of Creationism is just as closed minded and retrogressive as the area of study itself. There are Masters-level degrees awarded for all sorts of fields that most of us would dismiss as poppycock. Religion, Divinity, even Media Studies have advanced degree programs for students interested in the topics.
By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?
There are many Deists in the scientific community. Why wouldn't the theory of a Divine Clockmaker be a reasonable field of study?
It's really a shame that the U.S. government can't just annex DC and treat it as a federal protectorate. Treating it like a real city with a whole set of councilmen and a mayor just gives the mentally defective permanent residents of the city too much power to vote in corrupt government officials to rule over them.
There are also ISO standards governing weights and measures. Surely you'd want to choose standards that are open so that in the future if we discover that mass or distance is time-dependent we can change the definitions and standards as necessary.
We don't want to be locked into what some group decided the way things should be. Openness in standards is a mandatory requirement, because standards should be malleable.
None of that is important. Any modern x86 CPU is going to have enough performance for anything you want to do. You'd get more benefit shaving a baby's ass than squeezing the cost/performance ratio on these chips these days. Better to throw more money at a separate server if you really need more power than trying to boost the speed of any single computer.
Really, the thing that will make the biggest difference is the OS, but if you're running any modern OS you're already wasting most of those CPU cycles on platform overhead.
As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square. Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx, TubGirl and other shock sites?
Slashdot Mirror
Is the Wall Street Journal authoritative enough?
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122143317323034023-lMyQjAxMDI4MjExNTQxMzUzWj.html
Apple products "just work".
It isn't their fault that the MOs use different bands. Apple can't be held at fault for not supporting multiple bands.
Well, yes, they *can* give them away in Japan. The problem is that giving them away is the only way to reduce inventory.
The iPhone only seems to be a hit here in the US. Everywhere else it has been a middling failure. Sure, the first rush to get the phones gave the impression of huge demand, but after the fanboys got their satisfaction, the numbers went right back down.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple gave up on the iPhone in the next couple years and instead focused on producing a better iPod touch.
First Amendment prevents the abridging of the freedom of the Press.
It doesn't say anything about promoting it.
If the general welfare is to be promoted, then it is actually incumbent upon the government to not only not tax the Press, but to actively solicit and pay them to disseminate accurate and useful information.
Go ahead. Mod me down with impunity. You just wait, idiot moderator. You just wait.
The only alternative is to buy licenses for the software.
Clearly there is another alternative...
Everyone is doing it. What are you afraid of?
Don't be a baby! Go on, do it!
The most bombastic speaker who appeals to the most retards wins.
I don't want to say anything about our current President, but...
They are gradually getting games accustomed to strange errors through the steady introduction of problems. As time goes on, these errors will become so prevalent that they become invisible to the average player.
As unlikely as it seems, this is actually Microsoft's strategy to decrease their own support costs. By reducing the helpdesk manual size to "have you checked that your cables are plugged in correctly?" and "Have you tried rebooting the machine?", they are also reducing the amount of time each support call requires. Reduced call times means fewer support technicians which means more money remains in Microsoft's pockets.
It's sad that they always think of the bottom line rather than their customers.
I ran into this same situation and found the best cost/performance setup was a Beowulf cluster of netbooks.
You get the cumulative power of those Atom processors and have a huge memory pool to run the VMs within.
Face it, the real reason that Windows 7 is leaner than Vista is that Vista was a market flop because it tried to do all sorts of things that Windows users were simply not ready for.
There is nothing seriously wrong with Vista, and Windows 7 is mostly an optimized version 2 of Vista. So it's no surprise that with the codebase stabilized in Vista SP1 that Windows 7 will be able to build successfully upon that.
I think you are missing the point here.
First, I intended no insult to you. Simply, I was pointing out that what may be difficult for you may have been easy for someone else. The suitability of a person to a particular field will form that person's impression of their field of study. If you think your degree is valuable because it was hard to get, does that mean that someone who received the same degree with much less effort should value it less because of the reduced effort?
Which then goes to the first point. If a degree's value is intrinsically tied to the difficulty of getting it, then isn't it directly tied to the recipient's impression of its difficulty? That isn't a good measure, by any measure.
A person who finds the Sloan MBA program natural and intuitive may find themselves struggling with the MBA program at Harvard or Wharton. Even within the same field, there are significant differences between programs. But does this mean that one program is inherently better than another? If you think that personal difficulty is the deciding factor, then the person who chooses the program that he is least suited for will always claim his degree is more valuable than another. But that doesn't make any sense in any objective way.
As for your comments regarding the Creationism program, it reeks of the close-mindedness that I mentioned in my original post. Without having so much as glanced at the program, you dismiss it out of hand. Your preconceived notions of the topic have already closed you off to the possibility of valuable knowledge arising from the study of it. Whether or not there is merit in the "theory", it's study can only illuminate the problems in the field, and the field either changes to incorporate the results of study or it retreats further into its dogma. Either result is preferable to the type of self-imposed blindness on both sides of the aisle.
Are those servers are somehow hidden? If it has an IP address, it can be tracked down.
Assuming that it would need to interact with those servers at some time in the future, those addresses would need to be known somehow beforehand (even if it was simply a lookup to a table which contained the actual server IP addresss). So what's to stop investigators from finding the people behind this?
If you know when the code is going to start running, why don't you know what it will do after that? It's not like programs (and that's all a virus/worm is) are written in special, unreadable code. It's all machine language.
What is the big mystery?
And you can develop your add-on for WoW and not follow Blizzard's rules as long as you never distribute it.
Your pedantry doesn't really prove anything, though.
If you want to play with their code and platform, you need to follow their rules or not play at all.
Just as you can't close your code if it incorporates GPL code, Blizzard doesn't want you charging people for your add-ons if you code for their platform.
It's not a valid hypothesis because it can't be invalidated. You can't prove Creation to be untrue because it doesn't actually postulate anything in and of itself that can be proved true or untrue.
So the best you can do (and what I would expect the degree requirements to include) is to postulate a hypothesis which could be proved within the Creationist framework.
On the other hand, as a multi-disciplinary field, Creationist studies could include comparative research into various Creation myths to find commonality. Such commonality could then be used to expand research into archeology, geology, and anthropology. Discommonality could be used in much the same way.
The field as represented in the media is dead except to the hard core believers. These people may be numerous, but the people who are actually involved in the "study" of Creationist Science have already tossed out young-earthism and repudiated the Sunday School beliefs of the masses (see how answersingenesis has changed over the past 10 years). It was the need to justify their beliefs that brought these researchers around to a better theory of "Creation", and I can't see how shining more light on the field will do anything but make their theory bend more to the facts.
So a space station, a space shuttle, and time walk into a bar. The bartender asks what they want.
The space station says, "I'd like the chance to help build a space telescope. Since I'm already up here, I think I could be of help."
The space shuttle quickly responded, "Well, I think I could help you. Since I fly up to visit you every now and then, I could definitely haul up the necessary parts for you."
The bartender leaned over to time and asked him his opinion.
Time said, "Jesus Christ these guys are dorks. Got anything to take me back a few years before I met these geeks?"
The bartender poured him a bourbon.
Is difficulty the ultimate metric for advanced degrees?
Maybe you worked hard because you aren't particularly suited to the field you studied?
How do you know that a degree in Creationism isn't as difficult as your field of study?
The idea that one can't study or learn anything from the study of Creationism is just as closed minded and retrogressive as the area of study itself. There are Masters-level degrees awarded for all sorts of fields that most of us would dismiss as poppycock. Religion, Divinity, even Media Studies have advanced degree programs for students interested in the topics.
By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?
There are many Deists in the scientific community. Why wouldn't the theory of a Divine Clockmaker be a reasonable field of study?
It's really a shame that the U.S. government can't just annex DC and treat it as a federal protectorate. Treating it like a real city with a whole set of councilmen and a mayor just gives the mentally defective permanent residents of the city too much power to vote in corrupt government officials to rule over them.
There are also ISO standards governing weights and measures. Surely you'd want to choose standards that are open so that in the future if we discover that mass or distance is time-dependent we can change the definitions and standards as necessary.
We don't want to be locked into what some group decided the way things should be. Openness in standards is a mandatory requirement, because standards should be malleable.
What's the impact of this? If this is such big news, perhaps you could spell that out in the summary.
None of that is important. Any modern x86 CPU is going to have enough performance for anything you want to do. You'd get more benefit shaving a baby's ass than squeezing the cost/performance ratio on these chips these days. Better to throw more money at a separate server if you really need more power than trying to boost the speed of any single computer.
Really, the thing that will make the biggest difference is the OS, but if you're running any modern OS you're already wasting most of those CPU cycles on platform overhead.
As much as I'm all for freedom of speech, sometimes I think people take it a little too far by bringing such graphic images into the public square. Anti-abortionist protestors will frequently hold up graphic (bordering on pornographic) posters showing aborted fetii. This is done in full view of children.
I think the internet should be free, but seriously, how much worse off would we be if we didn't have Goatse.cx, TubGirl and other shock sites?