One problem, the next generation of sparc, VIIIfx, is designed by Fujitsu who might have totally non-Oracle goals in mind.

Now if you mean Niagra-3, haven't heard any recent news from Oracle about that.

I never said "school" was fun; I said "learning" was fun.

The discussion is specifically about doing well - and presumably learning - in school.

You have to change the schools until learning is fun.

Not only does this not make a difference, it's also something very few can afford.

Paying kids to read will not do anything in the long run other than make kids who won't move unless someone pays them.

Kids, like everyone else, do things that interest them without getting paid. If you want them to do something they don't want to - such as learn multiple tables - you use stick or carrot, reward - payment - or threat of punishment, as motivator. Payment usually works better.

So yes, paying kids to read is just fine. I liked to read, but there's plenty of people who liked to learn soccer or social skills instead. They are going to find reading boring, so either accept that they won't, or provide external motivation.

I want employees who are creative, who have incentive, and initiative.

I guess you'd better reward these traits then.

I don't want to have to pay them over and above for every little thing.

You don't want to pay them for doing those things, and they don't want to do those things, but they need money and you need someone to do them so you pay them and they do them. What, exactly speaking, do you want; that these people do things for your benefit without you having to return the favour?

Did you seriously mean your post to come accross as "I want people to work for me without getting paid, and indoctrinated for that end from early childhood"?

(And, yes, I've heard this already. "I want to get a bonus because I didn't take any sick days this year.")

Well, I'm sure he's learned his lesson about it being foolish to put in more effort than the minimum, since there's no reward for that.

No, there are plenty of posts of ODF 1.1 on it's way through the OASIS standards body, not the ISO standards body.

Perhaps you'd like to keep the goalposts in place.

I occasionally put websites together for small businesses and it seems increasingly hard to get these kinds of websites known. Google seems to be more and more indexing websites with lots of content and now with speedier response which will completely slant their rankings towards large companies with huge resources.

For example, I did a website for a lady that sells garden and landscaping lighting local to where I am from. Her business focus is not one that needs a large web page, she just wants her catalog to display basically but she does want people to find her with Google. I've done all the things like making sure the title is accurate and headers are relevant, etc. However, it seems to me that much of it is futile. Unless she is the type of business that focuses on inviting people to add content to her site (in other words an internet/web business) the sad truth is that she will basically get ignored by Google.

(cranky old man mode)

I been using my computer to view porn since the days of 4000 colors. That's all I want. I don't need those other ____ty features mucking it up. As long as my browser can resolve GIFs, JPGs, and videos that's all's I want.

(pounds sign into lawn that reads, "Get off.")

I always personally solve this sort of game by working my way towards all four corners, then spreading out. Seems to work 99% of the time, and I maybe look two moves ahead, if that. It'd be even easier to make a solver that did that, though it'd be even less optimal than the way you did it.

Neat theory.

Has nothing to do with the argument he made of course, anymore than my snarkily calling you "Bill" in my reply -

There are practices that every company is allowed to do normally to crush competition, buying out rivals, trying to lockout competitors, that are not allowed once they are actually in a position that sheer market volume in fact allows their success at doing so to be a foregone conclusion. The 800 pound gorilla is in fact *not* allowed to sit wherever he wants.

None of these practices are what Google is being accused of here. No attempt to lock out other competitors, no accusation of buying up rivals. They are being explicitly accused of . . . having better results.

Well, yeah. They got into this game with an advanced algorithm when everyone else was crap, were allowed to consolidate their hold on the market for ages with no real competition, and are benefiting thereby - unless someone else gets into the game with something snazzier that overcomes that lead, the bottom drops out of the search/advertising market, or the CEO's are caught in a sex scandal involving lower primates *and* Google simultaneously suppresses that info from their search results, they're going to hold that position.

That's not a valid monopoly complaint. *Other* than skewing search results deliberately (And, I sincerely hope, destroying their cred thereby), they're actually not well positioned to abuse monopoly power. They can't really prevent someone else from competing in the market. They can't really 'lock you in' to Google - heck, I'm more locked into *Gmail* than I am Google itself, and even that doesn't force me to use Google.

To that extent, as much power as they have (And I find it imposing myself), their market position is intrinsically weaker than Microsoft - they don't own the platform itself, I can leave anytime I want.

Having the advantage of being the biggest is not actually a legal problem. Using that advantage to, say, destroy java and netscape actually is.

Pug

Organizations are always claiming 1) copyright on stuff they don't have the copyright to and 2) rights that copyright law does not actually accord them. Like the NFL example given above - "pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the permission of the NFL are prohibited." Copyright does not give them the right to prohibit descriptions or accounts of the copyrighted broadcast, so that copyright notice should be illegal and they should be substantially fined for it. CDs would commonly prohibit lending on the copyright notice, which is also not permitted. There are many other examples.

As seems will be the case with the Tennenbaum vs RIAA case, these companies will probably be able to argue that the amounts are unreasonable and unconstitutional, so although these values seem ridiculous and inflated there are some nets in place to manage the claim amounts. And although this may require large legal fees, the companies that are shipping millions or billions of a product should be large enough to absorb this, or have legal teams on hand already.

Well know liar? He's a professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Queensland. And if you had watched more than 30 seconds of the first part of his lecture, and also the rest of the parts, you would see that the temperatures and warming rates of our time are statistically insignificant. In fact from the look of things, we are heading into another mini ice age.

Again, you failed to address the fact that he has a history of lies, and merely parroted the same old right-wing anti-science lies. We are not heading into a mini ice age.

There has been no statistical warming for the past decade.

What do you base that claim on?

Why do you think those emails caused such a stink?

Because of creationist-like quote-mining and misrepresentation of the contents.

They admitted it themselves.

They did no such thing.

Even climategate's Phil Jones conceded in a recent interview with the BBC that there had been no statistical warming recently which belies their own models.

Oh dear. You are quoting the misinformation from the Daily Fail, aren't you? You are evidently extremely ignorant of even basic science. The "statistical significance" comment takes more than half a brain to understand, and you evidently don't have that. Educate yourself instead of showing off your amazing ignorance and dishonesty.

Not some random female, but a greenpeace activist was who he was talking to.

Again, this is completely irrelevant. What some random activist things is not even remotely relevant to what the actual scientists are saying.

In it, he queries her motives and how she investigated the science. And we learn that she never actually did, but instead took unquestionably the propaganda pumped out by greenpeace as truth. This is the problem with most of the alarmists; it's no longer a scientific debate, but a matter of faith as is the case in religion. An utterly abhorrent stance in my opinion, and not one that should be taken when making decisions that could bankrupt our country.

The hypocrisy here is quite amazing. Monckton is a dishonest and disgusting liar who himself will only parrot right-wing lies. He hasn't a scientific bone in his body. Never mind the fact that the video is completely irrelevant to the scientific facts. It's just more hand-waving to get people to ignore the science.

It's patently obvious you have made up your mind regardless of the actual science, as demonstrated by repeated links to pro-AGW sites. If you have any real unmarred data sets (not hockey stick graphs constructed with manipulated data sets) which prove your position, then I would be more than happy to evaluate them.

You wouldn't know unmarred data if it punched you in the face. The way you are linking to videos of the retarded moron Monckton process that you are nothing but a denialist.

Please point out any half-truths I may have used. Is it a half truth that in the historical temperature record, CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around? That's a fact. Another fact; The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been ten times what it is today, yet all life did not cease to exist. Quite the opposite in fact, life thrived.

Indeed. The Gish Gallop. Typical brainwashed denialist drone. Here are the actual facts that refute your dishonest talking points:

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming

Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

One more fact; even if what you say is true, and the whole world went back to the stone age for 60 years, it would only reduce the temperature by one degree.

This is not a fact. This is a claim.

Are you willing to give up your pc, tv, phone, social life, education, existence?

Busted. You just admitted that you are opposed to scientific facts because they contradict your ideology. LOL.

PS. PS. Also, you left out Samsung bada OS. Yes, it's unreleased as of yet - but launching in two months, and with the stated goal of shipping on "significant portion" of Samsung mobile phones; I guess they want to ship it on everything except from the most basic devices.

It will be big (I suspect quite quickly second only to Symbian) for one simple reason: Samsung is second only to Nokia in marketshare, and significantly ahead of the rest.

The joke's on you though. Sometime before the end of his second term, there's going to be a huge fluff and it's going to come out that he was, in fact, a foreigner all this time. But we're going to have to make a retroactive amendment or everything he'll have signed by then will be nullified, causing huge economic distress as it unwinds more rapidly than a normal repeal.

Assuming he does get a second term. If he doesn't get a second term, then he'll have been an american this whole time and there's no issue.

If you're looking for lcd test images, http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ is probably better. It's got a whole bunch of images dedicated to various monitor problems, along with explanations.

Had a ride in a Bell Jet Ranger last summer. It had a Garmin GPS stuck on top of the rest of the built in avionics, on the dash so to speak. It was an aviation rated version though... but apparently still a lot cheaper than trying to buy an official upgrade.

Are you sure you don't mean "Björk Björk Björk"?