Umm, last I checked every American citizen that legally has a job in the U.S. already has a "federalized ID card". It's called your Social Security Card. Also, if you travel outside the U.S. at all you have *two* federalized IDs in the Social Security Card and your passport (which has RFID).
Now, someone please explain to me why this ID would be any more of a big deal. I'm at a loss here. I read the draft spec. There's nothing in there that I can see that isn't already being done at a state level with personal information. They are just going to make it a national database.
Holy crap! That's the longest reaching example of legal reciprocity I have *EVER* seen. They talk about living in a police state, but a police planet is a bit much!
Bottom line, Apple doesn't need a beleaguered chip making company. AMD is going to have to tough this out. Why? Intel won't be allowed to buy them, the FTC wouldn't allow it. IBM could probably buy them as they already share tech and fab facilities, but IBM is in a financial crunch right now and I honestly don't think they're that interested based on their processor roadmaps I've seen.
Who knows, maybe I'll be surprised. But, I don't see Apple stepping in that financial bear trap. There is too high a probability for a win-lose (AMD wins Apple loses) or lose-lose (AMD loses and Apple loses) situation. I think the previous two switches in processor architectures (Motorola 680x0 to PPC and PPC to Intel) clearly show that Apple really doesn't care what's under the hood so much as long as it works and they can get sufficient quantities of product. I don't see Apple pulling an SGI. When SGI bought MIPS it looked like a good idea at the time. Well, that purchase along with some other really stupid business decisions really hurt SGI. Apple's got too many smart business people in their now to do something like that with AMD.
This device is probably going to fail. Not because it was a bad idea, it's certainly not, but because of the incredible liability surrounding individuals ripping audio and video content and the lack of (or miniscule amount of) 720p HD quality content to purchase and download it's going to fall flat on its face! People who buy HD video products don't want to see files encoded at 320 by whatever pixels with kilobit per second data rates played back on their 720p, 1080i or 1080p display devices. It's going to amplify any artifacts (hence the blurring effect described that is used in the codec to scale the image that large). It's just going to be awful. I've seen DVDs ripped to H.264 with 400x288 resolution at 1 megabit per second that were decent looking on 720p displays, but barely over the quality that a good VHS copy would look like new on a four head 600 line VHS deck.
Blu-ray, which Apple should have put in a machine by now, but must be waiting for the price to drop one more time, is GORGEOUS in 1080p! Of course, 25GB of space gives you lots of room to work with. iTunes stuff is what? couple hundred megabytes per feature length film? GAAAAA!
To add to your comment, because you are jumping towers so quickly (if you were even at an altitude where you could connect to one at all; cell towers have at most a 2km to 5km range folks, do the math) you would bring entire cell networks down as they tried to keep up with your (and everyone else on the plane's) signal traveling in excess of 300MPH. The whole "interfere with the airplane instruments" thing is bunk. The only thing critical that a cell phone *might* interfere with is the ILS system on approach, and that would only be a problem in bad weather. Altitude, location, etc. are all GPS-based today. Aircraft communications are in frequency bands well out of reach of the common GSM or TDMA cell phones, and all the remaining instruments and controls are mechanical or hardened, redundant fly-by-wire systems that are shielded. So, the real reasons you can't use your cell phone on an airplane? 1. You can't get a signal that high up in the air (30,000+ feet) from a cell tower, and 2. if you could get a signal you are traveling too fast for the system to keep up with you and will be bringing down cell towers and networks as you went jet-setting across the sky while not ever being able to make a call stay connected for more than a few seconds.
This is totally a crack at having politics dictate over science. This is utterly insane for a bunch of effing morons that want to over-rule a scientific reclassification. Sorry folks, doesn't work that way. People that *know* a whole lot more than you about the subject have spoken. There is still debate going on within the scientific community, and that's fine. Again, people that *know* a whole lot about the subject are trying to make the decision. This is not a process that needs input from the ignorant (of the subject) populous. Get over it and let the smart people decide what to call Pluto!!!! This would set a very, VERY, *VERY* bad precedent if allowed to become.
Ummm, Windows CE (Mobile; whatever it's called today) is closed and it seems to be doing just fine in the marketplace. As a matter of fact, PalmOS (which is dying) and Windows Mobile are *BOTH* closed and have the greatest smartphone marketshare. The open vs. closed thing doesn't work here. People just want their phone/PDA to work. Apple makes products that just work. IMNSHO, this device will do far better than some are saying. Also remember that we have seen a sneak peek and not the final product. There are many details still up in the air about the device.
How can some one (or some organization) that has a vested *monetary* interest in the outcome of such a decision possibly be trusted to act in the best interest of the public?
Answer: It cannot!
This is utterly ridiculous and I can only hope that Canadian citizens protest this move and protect their rights to net neutrality.
Unbelievable! If this passes I'm scratching Canada off my list of places to go after I pay my debt off and leave the country.
I'm about to become part of the management team of a biotech startup. I will report to the Chief Technology Officer (CTO as CIO was co-opted by the Chief Investment Officer in some circles) as the VP of Engineering. Now, my soon-to-be-boss isn't CEO for one simple reason. He doesn't want the job! CEOs are for the most part engaged in business development activities from morning until night seven days a week. Their job for the most part is to represent the company to investors, high-powered clients, and to other companies' CEOs. Beyond that role, they are the top of the literal management pyramid and are supposed to provide strategic direction and vision for the corporation while (in the case of public companies) reporting activities to the company's Board of Directors and share holders.
Granted, work is a relative term. If you've ever worked as a representative of your organization at a major tradeshow in a booth for several hours a day you know that glad handing and interacting with potential investors and clients is very physically and mentally demanding. Now think of doing that 8 - 16 hours a day, every day and that covers a lot of what it's like to be a CEO. Add to that the fact that you have somebody constantly hustling you from one place to another to meet countless people and then have to remember them all, what they said, and where they work, etc. and you've got one hell of a demanding position in a company. Some CEOs are better at their jobs than others. Some are more hands on than others. Some are *COMPLETE* morons! But, their job is *NOT* easy to be successful at.
People might be willing to buy the stock of a company because it's profitable, not caring why it's profitable.
Are you kidding me!?!?! That's almost a *textbook* example of why what the Gates Foundation is doing wrong. It's investing without any moral grounds. The Gates Foundation is *supposed* to be a philanthropic (definition: seeking to promote the welfare of others, esp. by donating money to good causes; generous and benevolent) organization addressing the ills of modern society. Their investment strategy and attitude behind it is COMPLETELY counter to the very mission of philanthropy! At best what they are doing is creating/perpetuating one evil while back handedly curing another. It's not only socially irresponsible it's completely egregious behavior. What their investment manager is saying is that it's ok to kill everyone on the planet by investing in environmentally and socially irresponsible companies as long as we shore up the population with bare minimum human needs, i.e., housing, clean water, medicine, etc. through transparent attempts to make themselves look good.
That has always been the belief -- "if I invest in a responsible company, this will increase the demand for products from responsible companies, and I'll make money". While I applaud it as a noble sentiment (and one I generally try to endorse), it might be a bit naive to think that most people are motivated by ethical corporate behaviour.
We're not talking about an individual with $100,000 investing for his retirement here. You are trying to poke holes in an argument with the wrong frame of reference. We're talking about an investment house (Gates Foundation) with BILLIONS of dollars at its finger tips to invest. When you throw that kind of money around you damn well better believe it will shift the market away from socially, environmentally, and morally deficient public corporations. This isn't some day trader with a credit card. This is a seriously large investment powerhouse with supposed good intentions programs to fund with its ROI that is essentially doing absolutely nothing good. Why? Because the money they are giving to these unethical and irresponsible corporations is a lot bigger than the piddly returns (at best 30% annually) they are using to fund the good things the foundation is supposed to be doing. WAKE UP!
People might not just be passively/blindly investing in such companies. They may be doing it because of solid financials -- Acme Cocaine has had 25% revenue growth for each of the last 20 years, they have no liabilities, and huge cash reserves. Sometimes, it's a savvy investor who is deciding to buy such things.
As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there are classes of investments called "Sin Funds" -- you pick companies which make money off people's vices, and make more in the long run than ethical funds have achieved yet. A lot of people are perfectly willing to say "damn the misanthropy, give me some cash!!", so they couldn't care less about the fallout of it.
Cheers
Cheers?!?! Choke on it! You have voiced a platform of blind greed and I hope that you and your progeny suffer for it because I'm sure the rest of the world will if people keep thinking the way you have described. Thank goodness there are real people actually trying to do good in this world. I don't believe for a second that the Gates Foundation is at all sincere about doing any real good. They seem to be perpetuating everything that's absolutely wrong not only with the way people invest, but how they view the world.
BTW, I don't give a flying flip if you mod this down. This guy I replied to is not the least bit insightful. He's about as myopic and self centered as they come...wait, topped maybe by the Gates Foundation. FUCK them too!
Even if a small population of Apple's share holders and devout fanpersons bought one, they would easily sell 1 million of the things in the first two years. That might not corner the market, but it's sure gonna put a dent in it; more so than the ROKR ever did! Of course, these are all prognostications and only time will tell. I'm just glad my stock keeps going up!
Didn't they determine that the universe was 15 billion years old (there abouts) because they observed light from stars 15 billion light years away? That's what I remember from intro to astronomy anyway. Plus, look at this http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/ 2007/01/image/a/format/web_print doesn't that say 6.5 billion years ago, as in the light observed has traveled 6.5 billion light years? So what's the big deal about one billion? I don't get it. Oh wait, he was standing on the planet Earth when he saw them...ok, big whoop.
If you and I formed a partnership and were working on a screenplay for a film and signed an NDA that stated we were not legally allowed to discuss the contents of said screenplay with anyone but each other, and one of us did talk about it in violation of the NDA a suit could be brought to court for violating the NDA. BUT, we would both still retain the copyright to the material in the screenplay should anything ever come of it, unless the court action resulted in a transfer of copyright due to the outcomes of the case, i.e., I sued you for violation of NDA and demanded that you release all claims to the copyrighted material to date.
Now, copyrights can be contested if prior art existed before you released your work and made your claim to copyright on it. That's something else; maybe plagiarism in the case of the screenplay. NDAs are also not restrictions on free speech as they are not restricting original oration or free thinking, they are designed to protect the work of multiple parties prior to public release; especially in the case of "trade secrets". If you alone, without the help of others, or without the blanket protections and resources (material, financial and human assets) a company can provide, were to develop a piece of intellectual property then you are free to do with it anything that you want. That's called sole invention. If any other party is involved in the development of an invention (especially one that may generate revenue), and that party is either a person, organization, corporation or institution then an NDA is a good way to protect the rights of ownership and competitive advantage in a free market economy. If you've ever had a confidence betrayed in your life then you know what it feels like (to a degree) when a NDA is violated. What the NDA does is give you legal recourse to sue the ever loving s**t out of the party that was in violation, instead of just going home and crying and then dealing with the fallout from the betrayed trust.
Vista will make billions for Microsoft - driven by the warm embrace of those who hated the MacOS X interface when Microsoft didn't sell it; I don't know a single soul that wants to give Vista a "warm embrace." Don't figure that will change any time soon.
Itanium will continue on life support while Compaq, operating as HP, negotiates a way out with Intel; This isn't much of a stretch for a neophite IT person to prognosticate. I'll go a step further and say that Intel will kill Itanium, or announce its EOL date in 2007.
By the end of the year, the super computer listings will be entirely dominated by products built using IBM's cell processor -and the business applications performance benchmarks will be equally dominated by Sun's second generation CMT/SMP technologies. Again, the first part of this, that the TOP500 List will be dominated by IBM Cell designs, is certainly not a stretch for anyone watching the list over the past two years to say. But, that dominance may be short lived, lasting no more than a decade. The Sun claim here is not only a stretch, it's a pipe dream! Sun has lost so much IT cred that they are going to find it difficult to achieve what Mr. Murphy claims. Good luck! You're gonna need it!
By the end of the year the OpenSolaris community will be widely recognised as larger and more active than the Linux community -and every competing OS developer community except Microsoft's will have copied the key ideas including its organisational structure, the core provisions in the community development license, and Solaris specific technologies including ZFS and Dtrace. Ok, that one made stuff fly out my nose I laughed so hard. Please stop Mr. Murphy, I need to breathe.
How is a Live CD going to help the OP? He wants a distro he can install and use as a primary or secondary OS. He doesn't want to waste time trying out sixty bazillion (yeah, that's a lot!) distros on Live CDs. He wants an easy to use distro that does what he wants for the sector of work he will be engaged in. The bottom line is, any of the currently available, stable distros from Debian, Mandriva, Red Hat, Suse, Ubuntu, etc. will work fine for his needs. There are no specific distros for science or research to my knowledge. If someone knows of one and can refute it, I'll be certainly happy to retract my assertion. There are two distros that are used more commonly in the science and HPC sector and they are Suse and Red Hat (Fedora). You will find a lot of science apps that are precompiled and tuned for those distros.
As a secondary concern the OP may want to evaluate the dual-boot v. virtualization options. Having used a dual-boot AND a virtualization solution in a daily work environment I can say that dual-boot is a pain in the ass! If you are inclined to PC gaming, it is a good option, but if your primary goal is to get work done on the machine it's a hideous productivity and data management nightmare and virtualization is a much better option. There are performance and device issues that may crop up in virtualization, but most VMs are peppy enough on today's hardware to overcome the performance hits. Yes, RAM is also an issue with VMs, but if you're going to be doing science and research on the machine you should already know you want a large RAM footprint to get work done.
Let me add to your post and say that not only are you dealing with completely different kernels, you are also dealing with completely different OS level libraries and APIs. Having direct knowledge of Linux to Mac OS X software porting I can say that some applications can be compiled and run (with modest or considerable tweaks to 'make' files), some take weeks if not months to port, and some don't port at all due to their heavy reliance on Linux only libraries and APIs. Oh, and then there's the driver level support for things like network interfaces and the like. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! in most ways.
FTFA:
DURABOOK Rugged Standard
All DURABOOK systems pass US Military and European Committee rugged feature standards to ensure its durable qualification. These standard test measurements include:
DROP TEST - MIL STD 810F, Method 516.4, Procedure IV, 26 drops of 36 inches (29 inches for all 15" DURABOOK systems) onto plywood over concrete with unit off and display closed. Now, this is something that the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Military will not tolerate. The Durabook is *claimed* to meet MilSpec and I am curious to know how many of these things they duped the military into buying. I'll be very surprised if they don't get shut down for this. It's fraud, plain and simple, and although comical results were gotten at, the company has got some serious explaining to do! I have seen and played with MilSpec laptops and, frankly, I wasn't surprised by the test results when I saw the design. I was surprised that they claimed MilSpec. MilSpec portable computers look like the old Dolch boxes that I don't think they make any more. Kind of like an old Osbourne system with a modern set of guts, but ammo box (or better) quality metal all around. I dropped that thing off a loading dock straight onto concrete (by accident, really) and it did dent on the corner, but everything worked peachy!
So, if I see a person on the street and this person asks me where Jane Smith is and kills her after I point her out, I'm guilty of murder? That doesn't make any sense. Maybe I need to read the article again, because the idea I got was that this guy posted a list of links to mp3s that were ripped from copyrighted material and is now being charged with violating copyright. Makes no sense. He may be guilty of conspiracy to violate copyright, but I'm not sure that makes any sense either!
Actually, don't rule out "something completely different" from Intel now that Apple is a partner. Intel has been trying for more than a decade to break out of the boring beige box business that Microsoft drug them into. Sure, it's been VERY profitable up to this point, but there's a curve in the road and something must be done. I strongly believe that Intel and Apple will come up with a hardware solution that will clearly differentiate the Mac from other Intel-based products. Don't know when this might happen, but I'm buying more stock in both companies ASAP. Don't get me wrong, IBM's Power and Cell architecture are going to take some quantum leaps in the next 18 months too. The next two to five years may be very interesting for the computing world.
Ok, I think some of the feedback is valid for Mac OS X coming out of these discussions, and Apple really *is* receptive to it. It might take a good number of people to bring up an issue over an extended period of time, but they do listen and will act.
The bottom line is, a lot of these issues with the UI are subjective and preferencial. It's really like comparing one religion to another because of the psychology and dogma that is picked up living with one UI or another. Sure, there are some identifiable and quantifiable *bad* things that exist in any GUI OS, but to say one is "better" than another is a bit silly when it all boils down to personal preference; just like religion.
Find an OS and a GUI that you like and allows you to be productive. Give useful feedback to the appropriate development group for the UI. Really, I'm platform agnostic. I'll use anything and can admin just about any current OS. For me, it's all about the tools not the garage their in. Sure I have a preference, but I don't drink the Kool-Aid.
I'm with you in calling shenanigans on the content and source of that article. Plus, wasn't this little tidbit of information missed altogether by the authors of the article? And, there's a post below this saying "clean, potable water" being in short supply globally. Well, yeah, duh, but you don't need clean, potable water to produce hydrogen. You need clean, potable water to drink. I can suck up some water out of a puddle on the street and make hydrogen through electrolosis. Actually helps if the water is ionized, and any impurities will be left behind.
I really believe that a viable organic method for producing sufficient "industrial" quantities of hydrogen is achievable in my life time.
You know, back when he was first running for President--with his candor, his willingness to take on members of his own party, his "straight talk express" relationship with the public and the press--I had a lot of repsect for this guy. I was a Democrat and even *I* would have voted for him if he had won the primary.
But in the years since, he has squandered it all. He has sucked up to the very President who had slurred him viciously here in South Carolina. He has cow-towed to the religious right. He has supported a war that he knew damn well was a bad move, for his own political ends. And, most telling of all, he caved-in on the one issue that I would have NEVER thought that he (of all people) would have caved on--torture of detainees.
So this move doesn't really surpsise me. He has become a political whore, nothing more. He's not even worthy of spitting on anymore, much less voting for.
He's number one, a politician, and number two, a *REPUBLICAN*! What did you expect? The party system we have in the U.S. needs to go. It is warping American democracy and making it nothing more than a corrupt, two family constitutional monarchy where one family or the other controls things and they're always fighting! It's a disgrace to our Constitution and all the generations of Americans that came before us.
And this is for the post above yours that said that Republicans make good on their promises to their "base". Huh?!?! Since when? Only if their "base" is big business and the rich, because their totally fucking the rest of us sideways with a chainsaw.
Oh, and I'm probably on a "watch list" now for posting this.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, last I checked every American citizen that legally has a job in the U.S. already has a "federalized ID card". It's called your Social Security Card. Also, if you travel outside the U.S. at all you have *two* federalized IDs in the Social Security Card and your passport (which has RFID).
Now, someone please explain to me why this ID would be any more of a big deal. I'm at a loss here. I read the draft spec. There's nothing in there that I can see that isn't already being done at a state level with personal information. They are just going to make it a national database.
Holy crap! That's the longest reaching example of legal reciprocity I have *EVER* seen. They talk about living in a police state, but a police planet is a bit much!
Bottom line, Apple doesn't need a beleaguered chip making company. AMD is going to have to tough this out. Why? Intel won't be allowed to buy them, the FTC wouldn't allow it. IBM could probably buy them as they already share tech and fab facilities, but IBM is in a financial crunch right now and I honestly don't think they're that interested based on their processor roadmaps I've seen.
Who knows, maybe I'll be surprised. But, I don't see Apple stepping in that financial bear trap. There is too high a probability for a win-lose (AMD wins Apple loses) or lose-lose (AMD loses and Apple loses) situation. I think the previous two switches in processor architectures (Motorola 680x0 to PPC and PPC to Intel) clearly show that Apple really doesn't care what's under the hood so much as long as it works and they can get sufficient quantities of product. I don't see Apple pulling an SGI. When SGI bought MIPS it looked like a good idea at the time. Well, that purchase along with some other really stupid business decisions really hurt SGI. Apple's got too many smart business people in their now to do something like that with AMD.
At least the hobbyist has good taste in beer! Mmmmmmm Peeber!
This device is probably going to fail. Not because it was a bad idea, it's certainly not, but because of the incredible liability surrounding individuals ripping audio and video content and the lack of (or miniscule amount of) 720p HD quality content to purchase and download it's going to fall flat on its face! People who buy HD video products don't want to see files encoded at 320 by whatever pixels with kilobit per second data rates played back on their 720p, 1080i or 1080p display devices. It's going to amplify any artifacts (hence the blurring effect described that is used in the codec to scale the image that large). It's just going to be awful. I've seen DVDs ripped to H.264 with 400x288 resolution at 1 megabit per second that were decent looking on 720p displays, but barely over the quality that a good VHS copy would look like new on a four head 600 line VHS deck.
Blu-ray, which Apple should have put in a machine by now, but must be waiting for the price to drop one more time, is GORGEOUS in 1080p! Of course, 25GB of space gives you lots of room to work with. iTunes stuff is what? couple hundred megabytes per feature length film? GAAAAA!
To add to your comment, because you are jumping towers so quickly (if you were even at an altitude where you could connect to one at all; cell towers have at most a 2km to 5km range folks, do the math) you would bring entire cell networks down as they tried to keep up with your (and everyone else on the plane's) signal traveling in excess of 300MPH. The whole "interfere with the airplane instruments" thing is bunk. The only thing critical that a cell phone *might* interfere with is the ILS system on approach, and that would only be a problem in bad weather. Altitude, location, etc. are all GPS-based today. Aircraft communications are in frequency bands well out of reach of the common GSM or TDMA cell phones, and all the remaining instruments and controls are mechanical or hardened, redundant fly-by-wire systems that are shielded. So, the real reasons you can't use your cell phone on an airplane? 1. You can't get a signal that high up in the air (30,000+ feet) from a cell tower, and 2. if you could get a signal you are traveling too fast for the system to keep up with you and will be bringing down cell towers and networks as you went jet-setting across the sky while not ever being able to make a call stay connected for more than a few seconds.
This is totally a crack at having politics dictate over science. This is utterly insane for a bunch of effing morons that want to over-rule a scientific reclassification. Sorry folks, doesn't work that way. People that *know* a whole lot more than you about the subject have spoken. There is still debate going on within the scientific community, and that's fine. Again, people that *know* a whole lot about the subject are trying to make the decision. This is not a process that needs input from the ignorant (of the subject) populous. Get over it and let the smart people decide what to call Pluto!!!! This would set a very, VERY, *VERY* bad precedent if allowed to become.
Ummm, Windows CE (Mobile; whatever it's called today) is closed and it seems to be doing just fine in the marketplace. As a matter of fact, PalmOS (which is dying) and Windows Mobile are *BOTH* closed and have the greatest smartphone marketshare. The open vs. closed thing doesn't work here. People just want their phone/PDA to work. Apple makes products that just work. IMNSHO, this device will do far better than some are saying. Also remember that we have seen a sneak peek and not the final product. There are many details still up in the air about the device.
How can some one (or some organization) that has a vested *monetary* interest in the outcome of such a decision possibly be trusted to act in the best interest of the public?
Answer: It cannot!
This is utterly ridiculous and I can only hope that Canadian citizens protest this move and protect their rights to net neutrality.
Unbelievable! If this passes I'm scratching Canada off my list of places to go after I pay my debt off and leave the country.
I'm about to become part of the management team of a biotech startup. I will report to the Chief Technology Officer (CTO as CIO was co-opted by the Chief Investment Officer in some circles) as the VP of Engineering. Now, my soon-to-be-boss isn't CEO for one simple reason. He doesn't want the job! CEOs are for the most part engaged in business development activities from morning until night seven days a week. Their job for the most part is to represent the company to investors, high-powered clients, and to other companies' CEOs. Beyond that role, they are the top of the literal management pyramid and are supposed to provide strategic direction and vision for the corporation while (in the case of public companies) reporting activities to the company's Board of Directors and share holders.
Granted, work is a relative term. If you've ever worked as a representative of your organization at a major tradeshow in a booth for several hours a day you know that glad handing and interacting with potential investors and clients is very physically and mentally demanding. Now think of doing that 8 - 16 hours a day, every day and that covers a lot of what it's like to be a CEO. Add to that the fact that you have somebody constantly hustling you from one place to another to meet countless people and then have to remember them all, what they said, and where they work, etc. and you've got one hell of a demanding position in a company. Some CEOs are better at their jobs than others. Some are more hands on than others. Some are *COMPLETE* morons! But, their job is *NOT* easy to be successful at.
Are you kidding me!?!?! That's almost a *textbook* example of why what the Gates Foundation is doing wrong. It's investing without any moral grounds. The Gates Foundation is *supposed* to be a philanthropic (definition: seeking to promote the welfare of others, esp. by donating money to good causes; generous and benevolent) organization addressing the ills of modern society. Their investment strategy and attitude behind it is COMPLETELY counter to the very mission of philanthropy! At best what they are doing is creating/perpetuating one evil while back handedly curing another. It's not only socially irresponsible it's completely egregious behavior. What their investment manager is saying is that it's ok to kill everyone on the planet by investing in environmentally and socially irresponsible companies as long as we shore up the population with bare minimum human needs, i.e., housing, clean water, medicine, etc. through transparent attempts to make themselves look good.
That has always been the belief -- "if I invest in a responsible company, this will increase the demand for products from responsible companies, and I'll make money". While I applaud it as a noble sentiment (and one I generally try to endorse), it might be a bit naive to think that most people are motivated by ethical corporate behaviour.We're not talking about an individual with $100,000 investing for his retirement here. You are trying to poke holes in an argument with the wrong frame of reference. We're talking about an investment house (Gates Foundation) with BILLIONS of dollars at its finger tips to invest. When you throw that kind of money around you damn well better believe it will shift the market away from socially, environmentally, and morally deficient public corporations. This isn't some day trader with a credit card. This is a seriously large investment powerhouse with supposed good intentions programs to fund with its ROI that is essentially doing absolutely nothing good. Why? Because the money they are giving to these unethical and irresponsible corporations is a lot bigger than the piddly returns (at best 30% annually) they are using to fund the good things the foundation is supposed to be doing. WAKE UP!
People might not just be passively/blindly investing in such companies. They may be doing it because of solid financials -- Acme Cocaine has had 25% revenue growth for each of the last 20 years, they have no liabilities, and huge cash reserves. Sometimes, it's a savvy investor who is deciding to buy such things. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there are classes of investments called "Sin Funds" -- you pick companies which make money off people's vices, and make more in the long run than ethical funds have achieved yet. A lot of people are perfectly willing to say "damn the misanthropy, give me some cash!!", so they couldn't care less about the fallout of it. CheersCheers?!?! Choke on it! You have voiced a platform of blind greed and I hope that you and your progeny suffer for it because I'm sure the rest of the world will if people keep thinking the way you have described. Thank goodness there are real people actually trying to do good in this world. I don't believe for a second that the Gates Foundation is at all sincere about doing any real good. They seem to be perpetuating everything that's absolutely wrong not only with the way people invest, but how they view the world.
BTW, I don't give a flying flip if you mod this down. This guy I replied to is not the least bit insightful. He's about as myopic and self centered as they come...wait, topped maybe by the Gates Foundation. FUCK them too!Thanks for the clarifications! [golf claps] :-)
Even if a small population of Apple's share holders and devout fanpersons bought one, they would easily sell 1 million of the things in the first two years. That might not corner the market, but it's sure gonna put a dent in it; more so than the ROKR ever did! Of course, these are all prognostications and only time will tell. I'm just glad my stock keeps going up!
Didn't they determine that the universe was 15 billion years old (there abouts) because they observed light from stars 15 billion light years away? That's what I remember from intro to astronomy anyway. Plus, look at this http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/ 2007/01/image/a/format/web_print doesn't that say 6.5 billion years ago, as in the light observed has traveled 6.5 billion light years? So what's the big deal about one billion? I don't get it. Oh wait, he was standing on the planet Earth when he saw them...ok, big whoop.
Where's the NYCountryLawyer when you need him! Well, until he can chime on on this comment I'm gonna have to disagree with you CRC. NDAs are contracts not copyrights. COMPLETELY different animals. Copyrights protect creative works once they are released into the public, where non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) protect information or creative works before they are completed. Copyrights are granted without the need for legal agreement of separate parties, i.e., I can put a circle-C (©) on a piece of original work and it is protected by law from that point forward. An NDA is a legal agreement between two or more parties that any work being done, or information being exchanged, between those parties remains exclusive to those designated persons, organizations or institutions, and has to be signed by a member of each.
Here's an example:
If you and I formed a partnership and were working on a screenplay for a film and signed an NDA that stated we were not legally allowed to discuss the contents of said screenplay with anyone but each other, and one of us did talk about it in violation of the NDA a suit could be brought to court for violating the NDA. BUT, we would both still retain the copyright to the material in the screenplay should anything ever come of it, unless the court action resulted in a transfer of copyright due to the outcomes of the case, i.e., I sued you for violation of NDA and demanded that you release all claims to the copyrighted material to date.
Now, copyrights can be contested if prior art existed before you released your work and made your claim to copyright on it. That's something else; maybe plagiarism in the case of the screenplay. NDAs are also not restrictions on free speech as they are not restricting original oration or free thinking, they are designed to protect the work of multiple parties prior to public release; especially in the case of "trade secrets". If you alone, without the help of others, or without the blanket protections and resources (material, financial and human assets) a company can provide, were to develop a piece of intellectual property then you are free to do with it anything that you want. That's called sole invention. If any other party is involved in the development of an invention (especially one that may generate revenue), and that party is either a person, organization, corporation or institution then an NDA is a good way to protect the rights of ownership and competitive advantage in a free market economy. If you've ever had a confidence betrayed in your life then you know what it feels like (to a degree) when a NDA is violated. What the NDA does is give you legal recourse to sue the ever loving s**t out of the party that was in violation, instead of just going home and crying and then dealing with the fallout from the betrayed trust.
How is a Live CD going to help the OP? He wants a distro he can install and use as a primary or secondary OS. He doesn't want to waste time trying out sixty bazillion (yeah, that's a lot!) distros on Live CDs. He wants an easy to use distro that does what he wants for the sector of work he will be engaged in. The bottom line is, any of the currently available, stable distros from Debian, Mandriva, Red Hat, Suse, Ubuntu, etc. will work fine for his needs. There are no specific distros for science or research to my knowledge. If someone knows of one and can refute it, I'll be certainly happy to retract my assertion. There are two distros that are used more commonly in the science and HPC sector and they are Suse and Red Hat (Fedora). You will find a lot of science apps that are precompiled and tuned for those distros.
As a secondary concern the OP may want to evaluate the dual-boot v. virtualization options. Having used a dual-boot AND a virtualization solution in a daily work environment I can say that dual-boot is a pain in the ass! If you are inclined to PC gaming, it is a good option, but if your primary goal is to get work done on the machine it's a hideous productivity and data management nightmare and virtualization is a much better option. There are performance and device issues that may crop up in virtualization, but most VMs are peppy enough on today's hardware to overcome the performance hits. Yes, RAM is also an issue with VMs, but if you're going to be doing science and research on the machine you should already know you want a large RAM footprint to get work done.
Let me add to your post and say that not only are you dealing with completely different kernels, you are also dealing with completely different OS level libraries and APIs. Having direct knowledge of Linux to Mac OS X software porting I can say that some applications can be compiled and run (with modest or considerable tweaks to 'make' files), some take weeks if not months to port, and some don't port at all due to their heavy reliance on Linux only libraries and APIs. Oh, and then there's the driver level support for things like network interfaces and the like. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! in most ways.
So, if I see a person on the street and this person asks me where Jane Smith is and kills her after I point her out, I'm guilty of murder? That doesn't make any sense. Maybe I need to read the article again, because the idea I got was that this guy posted a list of links to mp3s that were ripped from copyrighted material and is now being charged with violating copyright. Makes no sense. He may be guilty of conspiracy to violate copyright, but I'm not sure that makes any sense either!
COCKSUCKER!
Actually, don't rule out "something completely different" from Intel now that Apple is a partner. Intel has been trying for more than a decade to break out of the boring beige box business that Microsoft drug them into. Sure, it's been VERY profitable up to this point, but there's a curve in the road and something must be done. I strongly believe that Intel and Apple will come up with a hardware solution that will clearly differentiate the Mac from other Intel-based products. Don't know when this might happen, but I'm buying more stock in both companies ASAP. Don't get me wrong, IBM's Power and Cell architecture are going to take some quantum leaps in the next 18 months too. The next two to five years may be very interesting for the computing world.
Ok, I think some of the feedback is valid for Mac OS X coming out of these discussions, and Apple really *is* receptive to it. It might take a good number of people to bring up an issue over an extended period of time, but they do listen and will act.
The bottom line is, a lot of these issues with the UI are subjective and preferencial. It's really like comparing one religion to another because of the psychology and dogma that is picked up living with one UI or another. Sure, there are some identifiable and quantifiable *bad* things that exist in any GUI OS, but to say one is "better" than another is a bit silly when it all boils down to personal preference; just like religion.
Find an OS and a GUI that you like and allows you to be productive. Give useful feedback to the appropriate development group for the UI. Really, I'm platform agnostic. I'll use anything and can admin just about any current OS. For me, it's all about the tools not the garage their in. Sure I have a preference, but I don't drink the Kool-Aid.
I'm with you in calling shenanigans on the content and source of that article. Plus, wasn't this little tidbit of information missed altogether by the authors of the article? And, there's a post below this saying "clean, potable water" being in short supply globally. Well, yeah, duh, but you don't need clean, potable water to produce hydrogen. You need clean, potable water to drink. I can suck up some water out of a puddle on the street and make hydrogen through electrolosis. Actually helps if the water is ionized, and any impurities will be left behind.
I really believe that a viable organic method for producing sufficient "industrial" quantities of hydrogen is achievable in my life time.He's number one, a politician, and number two, a *REPUBLICAN*! What did you expect? The party system we have in the U.S. needs to go. It is warping American democracy and making it nothing more than a corrupt, two family constitutional monarchy where one family or the other controls things and they're always fighting! It's a disgrace to our Constitution and all the generations of Americans that came before us.
And this is for the post above yours that said that Republicans make good on their promises to their "base". Huh?!?! Since when? Only if their "base" is big business and the rich, because their totally fucking the rest of us sideways with a chainsaw.
Oh, and I'm probably on a "watch list" now for posting this.