if it does much more, I would recommend ASP over IIS either. It isn't really meant for stuff like that. You should put anything complex in either an ISAPI module (not recommended) or COM object.
Hollywood (the studios) don't produce content, they control it. A few "content people" like to think they're on top but people like Spielberg are small time next to the likes of Eisner and Valenti.
dude, that's sweet. I was going to get one of these or these but you changed my mind.
If you look at the article immediately after this
on
Black Is The New Beige
·
· Score: 2
on the front page, you'll get a little insight into why boxes have remained beige for so long, and that a modest, nondescript color (black) is its most popular successor.
Most people don't intend to derive satisfaction from the case that holds their computer hardware. They would rather *do* something with their computer. A relatively basic familiarity with computers tends to associate computing with the output of the computer, and users will tend to look at the picture in the box on top of or beside or away from the computer case. (Maybe combining the monitor with the case is a symptom of an inferiority complex -- if you don't want to look at the case, maybe integrate the case with the screen so it looks like you're looking at it) -- within the UI itself, most people aren't too concerned about how the UI makes them feel inside, they are more interested in what it lets them do.
The problem is that your statement becomes "If it isn't profitable to the dominant market players, WHY DO IT?" CLECs could have competed. In fact, were doing very well providing service cheaper to markets that the ILECs could not profitably have supported. But, they found out that the CLECs could also provide cheaper and better service in the larger, more profitable markets. And as the CLECs took risks and developed smaller markets, the value increased to the point where the ILECs wanted that too.
So, congress steps in, some judges cover their eyes, and even some legal (but maybe unfair or un ethical) practices help to destroy the competition.
Bill Gates pays income tax on something like $325,000 a year, and probably has enough deductions to whittle it down to about $1.50. Now, when he cashes in stock he gets hit with capital gains, and when he buys stuff he gets a sales tax and maybe a luxury tax, but he (and those like him in the top percentages) pay very little taxes. And Microsoft pays nothing.
In the case of insurance, it's that the rich man is more likely to collect from them, not necessarily more likely to get in an accident. They're not insuring cars or people, they're insuring their investments.
and less necessary. Hardware alone can't solve the problem. That's why Microsoft is pushing hard for 64 bit home CPUs -- the entire computer industry is one of planned obsolescence -- and its falling behind if you can still use a computer from 10 years ago. Bill Gates was saying how within a couple years everyone will need 64 bit CPUs. And then he said in 10 years that won't be enough. I guess he doesn't understand exponents.
how does light (photons) propogate? Not at the speed of light. Infinite speed apparently. Light waves/particles are only a convenient (and inaccurate) model. If one needs a model for gravity, why not waves? The physical analogy (magnetism) we use to compare it with is measured in a field (of which light is a part)
The point should be made that there never was a "scientific" reason to send people into space, except to physically test the "theory" of gravity from orbit. By the time a "scientist" actually got to go in a spaceship, there was plenty of empirical testing (like hitting golf balls on the moon) -- not that it was needed.
There are lots of other reasons to go into space that NASA doesn't want any part of. One is entertainment, another is natural resources, another is exploration. Possible others include waste disposal, colonization, and Vogon poetry. The only real reason to go to space that the government supports is television.
Americans are still foolish enough to open their mouths, compared to a country like, say France. The French don't know any more physics, math, or history than the Americans, but they don't answer polls or voice their opinions.
Let me know when taxes are actually cut. Every year they talk about it but never do it. That $300 refund last year *maybe* put you on a level with what you were paying in taxes the year before. Your sales tax, property tax, income tax, and a bunch of other petty fees all increased at the same time.
it anyone ever had anything close to a perpetual motion machine it would be praised, funded, and well-researched. However, no-one ever has, and yet a good many crackpot ideas with nothing more than words have been (praised/funded/researched) -- I think science has been *way* on the side of erring with caution. No genuinely relavant idea has been successfully supressed in "Western" science since Copernicus.
My point is that in some cases, you need to approach new claims and existing physics models with near-equal skepticism. <p> How is that? Something that has been tested continuously for hundreds of years and is readily and consistently observable by every person non-subjectively deserves (near) equal weight as every crackpot claim that is unverifiable and contradictory? <p> Granted, some "modern" scientific models are just as crackpot, but you can't condemn the whole history of science because of a few recent science fiction fans and tax wasters.
The point is that a basic understanding of "known" physics easily refutes most such "Alternative", "Eastern", "New Age", "Bullshit", or "Whatever You Want To Call It" medicine. We do know a few things about how cells and atoms and molecules and atoms react, and it is very easy to debunk things like "magnets diminish back pain" or "smoking pot cures cancer"
The most important thing to do is to click "I accept" or "next" or "continue" or "install" or whatever the button says without reading some legaleze bs. It isn't a contract and it isn't binding. Click-through and shrink wrap licenses aren't real and the fact that 99% of people ignore them should be enough case to invalidate them in court.
Before you start worrying about "GPL" violations, remember that the GPL is protected by copyright law. The GPL protects redistribution. Anyone can download a GPL program for free and do whatever they want to it. They just can't redistribute it without agreeing to the GPL. Kazaa or anyone else can enforce the same rules.
Slashdot Mirror
if it does much more, I would recommend ASP over IIS either. It isn't really meant for stuff like that. You should put anything complex in either an ISAPI module (not recommended) or COM object.
Hollywood (the studios) don't produce content, they control it. A few "content people" like to think they're on top but people like Spielberg are small time next to the likes of Eisner and Valenti.
we need to get back to fake woodgrain. Like on Ataris
and the break key was red
dude, that's sweet. I was going to get one of these or these but you changed my mind.
on the front page, you'll get a little insight into why boxes have remained beige for so long, and that a modest, nondescript color (black) is its most popular successor.
Most people don't intend to derive satisfaction from the case that holds their computer hardware. They would rather *do* something with their computer. A relatively basic familiarity with computers tends to associate computing with the output of the computer, and users will tend to look at the picture in the box on top of or beside or away from the computer case. (Maybe combining the monitor with the case is a symptom of an inferiority complex -- if you don't want to look at the case, maybe integrate the case with the screen so it looks like you're looking at it) -- within the UI itself, most people aren't too concerned about how the UI makes them feel inside, they are more interested in what it lets them do.
The problem is that your statement becomes "If it isn't profitable to the dominant market players, WHY DO IT?" CLECs could have competed. In fact, were doing very well providing service cheaper to markets that the ILECs could not profitably have supported. But, they found out that the CLECs could also provide cheaper and better service in the larger, more profitable markets. And as the CLECs took risks and developed smaller markets, the value increased to the point where the ILECs wanted that too.
So, congress steps in, some judges cover their eyes, and even some legal (but maybe unfair or un ethical) practices help to destroy the competition.
performance will be up to par, Real Soon Now (TM).
Bill Gates pays income tax on something like $325,000 a year, and probably has enough deductions to whittle it down to about $1.50. Now, when he cashes in stock he gets hit with capital gains, and when he buys stuff he gets a sales tax and maybe a luxury tax, but he (and those like him in the top percentages) pay very little taxes. And Microsoft pays nothing.
(or something like that)
In the case of insurance, it's that the rich man is more likely to collect from them, not necessarily more likely to get in an accident. They're not insuring cars or people, they're insuring their investments.
and less necessary. Hardware alone can't solve the problem. That's why Microsoft is pushing hard for 64 bit home CPUs -- the entire computer industry is one of planned obsolescence -- and its falling behind if you can still use a computer from 10 years ago. Bill Gates was saying how within a couple years everyone will need 64 bit CPUs. And then he said in 10 years that won't be enough. I guess he doesn't understand exponents.
how does light (photons) propogate? Not at the speed of light. Infinite speed apparently. Light waves/particles are only a convenient (and inaccurate) model. If one needs a model for gravity, why not waves? The physical analogy (magnetism) we use to compare it with is measured in a field (of which light is a part)
The Oprah Book Club doth not a scientific treatise make
every plant that has been found to have any medicinal value *has* been patented.
why not?
You'd be happy to see a nuclear war, but what about when Jesus comes...then you'd want to be somewhere else I bet.
The point should be made that there never was a "scientific" reason to send people into space, except to physically test the "theory" of gravity from orbit. By the time a "scientist" actually got to go in a spaceship, there was plenty of empirical testing (like hitting golf balls on the moon) -- not that it was needed.
There are lots of other reasons to go into space that NASA doesn't want any part of. One is entertainment, another is natural resources, another is exploration. Possible others include waste disposal, colonization, and Vogon poetry. The only real reason to go to space that the government supports is television.
Americans are still foolish enough to open their mouths, compared to a country like, say France. The French don't know any more physics, math, or history than the Americans, but they don't answer polls or voice their opinions.
Let me know when taxes are actually cut. Every year they talk about it but never do it. That $300 refund last year *maybe* put you on a level with what you were paying in taxes the year before. Your sales tax, property tax, income tax, and a bunch of other petty fees all increased at the same time.
it anyone ever had anything close to a perpetual motion machine it would be praised, funded, and well-researched. However, no-one ever has, and yet a good many crackpot ideas with nothing more than words have been (praised/funded/researched) -- I think science has been *way* on the side of erring with caution. No genuinely relavant idea has been successfully supressed in "Western" science since Copernicus.
Can you think of one?
truism are most often used to hide the truth. Its much easier to explain history with slogans too, but that's called propaganda.
My point is that in some cases, you need to approach new claims and existing physics models with near-equal skepticism.
<p>
How is that? Something that has been tested continuously for hundreds of years and is readily and consistently observable by every person non-subjectively deserves (near) equal weight as every crackpot claim that is unverifiable and contradictory?
<p>
Granted, some "modern" scientific models are just as crackpot, but you can't condemn the whole history of science because of a few recent science fiction fans and tax wasters.
The point is that a basic understanding of "known" physics easily refutes most such "Alternative", "Eastern", "New Age", "Bullshit", or "Whatever You Want To Call It" medicine. We do know a few things about how cells and atoms and molecules and atoms react, and it is very easy to debunk things like "magnets diminish back pain" or "smoking pot cures cancer"
can you name one (that works)?
The most important thing to do is to click "I accept" or "next" or "continue" or "install" or whatever the button says without reading some legaleze bs. It isn't a contract and it isn't binding. Click-through and shrink wrap licenses aren't real and the fact that 99% of people ignore them should be enough case to invalidate them in court.
Before you start worrying about "GPL" violations, remember that the GPL is protected by copyright law. The GPL protects redistribution. Anyone can download a GPL program for free and do whatever they want to it. They just can't redistribute it without agreeing to the GPL. Kazaa or anyone else can enforce the same rules.