MS branded Linux?
Come on, Xandros is mainly Debian with the serial numbers filed off; if that's what a Microsoft branded Linux will be like then I welcome it!
251 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Apr 2007
"...contact their IBM representative to discuss how these assets and services could be leveraged.”
That always sounds to me like something to do with a server, a lever, and an office rooftop...
Ah well, OS/2 is burdened with too many patents and proprietary code owned by other companies for it to ever become open source (at least before, say, the 22nd century). Too bad, it was pretty good at the time.
You only get pictures of pock-marked balls of rock in the media because pictures is about the only thing Joe Public understands about space science! Most of the really interesting stuff is incomprehensible to non-scientists. But oh no, there can't possibly be more to space exploration than taking a few pictures of old rocks, you know, that's so like, archeology and stuff innit, which you no doubt think is just as pointless?
Poor, blind fool.
I completely agree. I live in Belgium and state TV here is a pale shadow of the BBC and in fact they generally look up to it with muted awe (and occasionally buy its programmes, which instantly become the best they have to offer). The drek generally shown here is so bad I gave up on TV completely 15 years ago and haven't looked back since. Commercial TV is much, MUCH worse.
The local equivalent of the TV licence was abolished some time ago and programming quality has declined sharply. The state broadcaster doesn't actually advertise, they have "sponsored programming" instead. Otherwise, they ape the lowest-common-denominator shite shown on the commerical channels, all of which try to outdo each other in strident inanity. Dutch TV is the same. The rest of the Continent is just as bad. It'll be interesting to watch and see what happens to the BBC's quality if/when the TV licence is scrapped, I really have no idea what would happen. But I won't have the blighted idiot box in my house as long as I live here, it's a complete waste of time and money.
The sad reality is, the Beeb really is the best of the lot!
None of this excuses pervy £10K-a-day team building courses, mind you.
I've never had to replace a CFL yet and I've had them for over 10 years. My oldest bulb has lost maybe 20% of its brightness and takes about 20 seconds to "warm up", but of course it's an early model (and as it's just a bedside lamp it matters little). As others have mentioned the latest generation of CFL bulbs light up nearly instantaneously and there are even dimmer-capable bulbs now (the last big hurdle for universal acceptance, IMHO). Regular bulbs cost 5 times more power to run, fail every couple of years, and so while CFLs are more expensive to make (both money- and resource-wise), CFLs are still more economical in the long run.
If heating from incandescent bulbs is a significant factor in the heating of your house, maybe you should install some insulation. (Electrical heating is stupendously inefficient in any case, replacing the lost heat with e.g. gas-fired heating is *always* more efficient.)
The only complaints I have of them is that they're too large to fit in some lamps, and that the dimmer-capable ones are stil rather expensive.
Frankly I don't know where all these political arguments come from, I could not possibly care less about the politics, I care about my electricity bill! Anyone who doesn't see the simple fact that a 12W bulb which lasts 10 years is better than an equally bright 60W bulb which lasts 3 should take a close look at why this is, your own political prejudices perhaps?
Spotlight-format CFLs would be nice, though.
That's not the Government model, that's the standard corporate model as well, IME. On my first job I did such a good job at saving IT costs I was "rewarded" with MS Exchange rather than something decent for our new mail server just to get the budget spent. That's a mistake I'll not repeat in a hurry. I've seen the same cretinous behaviour in many places since.
Nowadays I have my own company, and if we ever by accident hire a beancounter like that I will quitely take him round the back and execute him myself. Few things can push my angry buttons quite like this.
There is a rather fundamental difference between a) tiny variations between human populations like the colour of their skin or the ability to produce a certain enzyme and b) something as complex as the evolution of intelligence. It's not impossible - maybe in a million years such differences may become significant, if there is sufficient and constant selective pressure (unlikely in the absense of deliberate selective breeding), but H. Sapiens is a young species. I'm sure the difference between the average intelligence of a random group of white Europeans and that of a random group of black Africans is not larger than the statistical error. IQ tests are notoriously bogus anyway, so how do they test for this? It hasn't been done, and Watson was merely idly speculating (a scientific way to describe "talking out of his arse"). He was probably being naive rather than intentionally racist, though.
Maybe someone should whisper into the RIAA's ear that all IP communications are inherently P2P, maybe then when they try to have the whole internet taken down they'll get shot down like they so richly deserve.
That said, Usenet.com are idiots for having advertised the way they did, it was a incredible faux-pas which deserves to be punished.
Agreed, Luna is not all that useful at the moment. The most expensive part of any space fight is the first 100km or so: up to low Earth orbit. Having something up there that you can use as a staging point for interplanetary craft/fuel dump/industrial presence would be immensely useful. However, ISS is just a research station. It's the Space Shuttle programme all over again, really: over budget, over time, designed by committee, redesigned a few times halfway through, not properly thought out, not as useful as we thought after all.
Which is a pity.
Towing an asteroid or two to L5 to develop some serious space-based industry, now that would be worthwhile.
My XT built in 1987 has a 20 MB hard drive, which was considered pretty good at the time, as there were still plenty of PCs with no hard drive at all. To the average user, gigabytes were theoretical quantities, much like petabytes today.
"Never heard of a virus that lives in the master boot record" indeed. N00b.
700 extra Mhz (an increase of 28% over the 2.5Ghz chip) translates into only 4% extra performance. That's not so great no matter which sector it is.
In any case, my next CPU will be chosen on the basis of energy consumption / performance, not raw benchmarks. Electricity is expensive enough as it is.
The "if more people used Linux/Unix there would be more exploits for it" argument is bogus. It's a variant of the "security through obscurity" argument, and is possibly a result of a too narrow-sighted view of IT as a whole.
The vast majority of Internet servers run Unix, yet Windows boxes remain the softest targets. Not because Unix machines can't be cracked (historically, most famous cracks were against Unix, which used to be perceived as having weak security compared to the competition!) or aren't attractive targets - in fact, cracked Unix hosts are highly prized among black hats because one can do more with them than with the average Windows PC.
The fact that vast hordes of Windows desktops can be trivially taken over by random script kiddies has litle to do with their market dominance, and the fact that this is harder to do with the various *nix flavours has little to do with their lack of presense in the desktop field.
When you're a corporate IT department. Fixing a terminal server is rather less work (and much less frustrating) than fixing a maze of 300 Windows PCs, all different. Software breaks several orders of magnitude more often than thin client hardware does, anyway.
For home users, less so. Still, I'd consider one if they were cheaper and not locked into an expensive proprietary back-end technology. (But I'm a geek, so my house has IT infrastructure.)
It matters not a whit why Apple charges twice for the same song, only that they do. I'm astonished that so many people find it necessary to conjure up excuses for a corporation's behaviour.
Then again there are plenty of jurisdictions where, if it looks like a sale, walks like a sale and quacks like a sale, it's a sale and not "licencing" - so Apple can't actually enforce this very often.
I live on the Continent and was educated in metric, but I also learned the various Imperial and derivative measurements in order to understand people in the UK and USA (who grok even less metric than the British). It's not rocket science people, get over it. Time is not metric either and nobody complains about that, do they!
The problem is that iPlayer requires Windows and Internet Explorer. Let me repeat that. *Internet Explorer*. The very same security nightmare everyone knowledgeable has been warning everyone off, and a primary infection vector for all kinds of nastiness. At the very least this sends mixed signals, at the worst this makes the BBC look like idiots when the first exploit targets iPlayer and then takes ages to fix.
I wouldn't install Windows "Fisher Price" XP way back when and I certainly won't install Vista now. My desktop runs Win2K. I might install XP when games no longer support 2K (which will be a while yet, I think). I dread the day an employer forces me to use Vista; *that* day will surely come even though I'm a Unix admin by trade...
Indeed, if you boot a Solaris install disk in single-user mode it'll also give you root access without a password. In fact this is the official way to recover lost root passwords. Likewise, Linux too can be booted with a kernel parameter that gives you a root shell with no password required. You don't even need a CD on many boxes, I don't recall anyone making a big fuss over that.
Besides, if an attacker has physical access to the machine, all bets are off anyway. That's not really Microsoft's fault.
Shame on you for falling for this one, John.