I am convinced of the "need". I was convinced in 1998 when I ran an ISP and had to process a huge database. Stick with me for a minute please. When I first started processing the database, it took a few minutes, as time went on, and our business grew it took increasing amount of time, and eventually I was unable to process the database to summarize the data in a timely manner. I upgraded the computer and the data processing went from over 1 hour to three minutes.

That is when I realized that speed doesn't equate to how fast things get done, but rather whether or not you actually can do something. This is key, because if you cannot do something because the computer cannot do it or at least cannot do it in a reasonable amount of time, you end up not doing something, so that something doesn't get done. It is a loss of productivity.

Computers, above all else, don't offer us Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Databases, Presentations or whatever. They offer productivity increases that are almost invisible to casual observers. Pulling data from a database, inserting it dynamically into a Presentation Slide is productive. Giving that presentation using Live data is amazing. In 2000, that was nearly impossible to pull off with Office 2000.

And now, instead of having to prove the data in a static presentation, all you have to do is approve the source, and let the data present itself, dynamically.

Do most people, not use this capability? Probably. Does it mean that the powerful hardware doing multiple things (Presentation, Processing live data simultaneously) isn't necessary, hardly. Do not limit me by what "most people" do or need. I am not "most people" and in fact, "most people" aren't like "most people" in some form or another.

Talk about moving goal posts. I'm nuts because I point out facts that you can't seem to grasp because you're hung up on the nuances of written communication styles and equating them to being legalese. You're the kind of guy who says Clinton was correct when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", because he didn't put his dick in her pussy, but rather put his dick in her mouth, when everyone else knows he was lying his ass off. He and Monica had sex, oral sex, and if that isn't "sexual relations" in the legal sense that may be accurate, but this was not a legal proceeding, it was common speech, and has more variation and isn't as nuanced. He lied.

So, while you may be "technically right" in the sense that I said "clubs and bats" and that isn't perfectly accurate in the legal sense, I wasn't talking to a judge, court or jury. I was talking in a more generalized form and that should have been clear from the context. But since it wasn't, I clarified what was meant for you specifically using the actual statistics of "blunt objects" for reference. That is hardly "moving the goal posts".

And you're right, I am nuts. I keep responding to insanity with logic, as if the insane person might actually get clued.

FTFY - ewwww

I carry a more powerful computer in my pocket.

And you're wrong about the computer needs of today's office workers. Most people don't spend all day in Office 2000. The multitasking needs are much greater than a PIII provides. Not to mention the need for multicore processors doing multiple simultaneous tasks. I currently run about two or three dozen different programs all at the same time. I realize that I am an exception and a geek, but I know people who don't know anything who try to do even more. Office, Accounting, Database, Web, Presentation, Desktop Publishing, Email, Skype ....

I remember trying to run Visio on at Win 2k with a gig of ram on PIII, all I can say "underpowered"

And as usual, you miss the point being a dickhead moron.

Blunt Instruments as represented by "clubs and bats". Clear enough you moron?

Now you're being a dickhead. Do you do that with every "statistic" or just ones you don't agree with. I gave the CLEAR example of the source, and my "quote" was meant to be illustrative of the point than actual "citation". But since you can't figure out obviousness of what I meant from the context of the actual citation, it is clear you lack higher level thought and understanding.

Here's one, WHY do liberals support banning "assault rifles*", when they account for so few homicides (subset of 323) ? Same reason they poke fun at Dipshit conservatives that use 9/11 to go after "terrorists" in their "war on terrorism". It has NOTHING to do with actual facts or likelihood of something "bad**" happening.

*Completely Arbitrary distinction based upon "scary looking, scary named" guns?
** You are more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist act or gun violence combined. (Google the statistics yourself)

citation given

original citation

Snopes says "Firearms", I said "Rifles". This is an example of not paying attention to the actual claim.

From the FBI's own statistics ... 323 (Rifles) vs 496 (Blunt Objects) (clubs / hammers).

You do know that SNOPES is not quoting the actual argument correctly now. Perhaps in the future you'll actually refer to what is claimed (rifles) and what SNOPES claims is claimed (all guns).

So, basically you patch production machines without testing. Gotcha.

Hell, I don't even do this(patch w/o testing) with Ubuntu OR Windows systems. Patching breaks things. Eventually.

What? You data isn't backed up ... three times?

And you patched a production server, without testing?

You're screwed because you didn't do your job. For the crap that happens with RedHat, if you're paying for that support, pointing fingers at RedHat for their part of the blunder is why you pay for that service. Everything else, is your problem.

If you did that while working for me, I'd fire you. Quit trying to impart your mom and pop Linux views on Enterprise environments.

I am a Libertarian, so guess where I stand on the whole NSA thing. And to go further, they put Boston and surrounds under martial law, for one guy, who was caught by a guy violating martial law and noticed something out of sorts in his backyard. Most of the military police were not even looking in the right place. If he hadn't been shot, they would likely never caught him.

I get the point. I agree that we tend to freak out about loud noises (guns) and horrific acts (9/11, Boston) and over state their over all significance. More people are killed by clubs and bats than rifles, yet we are more scared of rifles, because they are "scary, loud", and not because people die. If people were concerned with people dying, we'd ban "assault bats".

But saying "only 4 people died" minimizes the tragedy. It flat out ignores the impact on other people, as if they don't matter at all. And equating the impact of terrorism with kids and guns, without considering all the people affected is ignoring facts to suit an agenda. AND that is just sick.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/ss-130415-boston-bombing-tease.photoblog600.jpg

Yeah, that guy didn't die, because people saved his life (and many others) it wasn't because of lack of trying by the terrorists.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/specials/boston_marathon_bombing_victim_list/

There is nothing like trying to minimalize tragedy to make a political point. You make me sick.

" I am anti-capitalist because I am against people owning property far beyond what they can use"

According to whom? Who Decides how much one person can use? A committee?

No thank you.

You end up with people like Al Gore with his HUGE mansion lecturing me on how green I am. People flying around in private jets telling me not to drive my car because it gets less than a certain mileage.

No thank you.

And be careful, the very thing you are advocating will have you lose everything you have, because I can assure you, the committee from some third world country will tell you, you have too much stuff, and don't need it all.

No Thank you.

Well, it makes about as much sense as the Liberal "Bush's War for Oil". just sayin