Even with the number one goal of a corporation to generate as much profit as possible, I still think that safety measures have to be taken. Its not just the law which requires it, its the fact that the risk of not following them could result in fines, court cases, bankruptcy, etc. Its in the companies interest to be dilligent because this guarantees forseable profit. Companies are usually not so shortsighted that they can't forsee the consequences of being irresponsable. It'll put them out of business and individuals can still be personally accountable and end up in jail.

I've just spent weeks going through health and safety courses at my company. Its probably not because the company cares much that much about people's welfare, its because they are scared of the fines and reputation which would cripple them

Following the outcome of 9/11, one conclusion is that high rise buildings, when they are compromised can cause many deaths. If people only built single story buildings then that disaster could not have happened.

If people didn't build nuclear power plants then the sort of outcomes than occur when things go wrong can also be avoided.
The point here is that no-one is opposed to high rise buildings, instead people draw on the experience and try to design high rise buildings in a way which don't collapse if damaged the way the world center was, and also try to come up with ways to prevent the buildings from being subjected to the attack they were on 9/11.

I'd love to here a good argument why the general consensus is different when it comes to nuclear power... surely rather than opposing the idea altogether we should work towards mitigating the risk when things go wrong (admitidly here we probably can't prevent earthquakes, instead we need to build more reduncancy into nuclear reactors)

I think this is one of hundreds of analogies which can be applied to many different technologies we use every day which, when something goes wrong is very dangerous, but we usually concentrate effort into making it safer (planes for example were very unsafe in their early days compared to what we have now, and their benifits are rarely called into question)

I think the main issue here is that people don't fully understand how detremental the current alternatvies (coal, gas, etc) are to human health... or how sustainable they are. People don't grasp how important the benifits of nuclear power are.

A lot of technologies have to be refined and improved.. I really think people should lobby for safer nuclear power rather than no nuclear power at all. At least until alternative safer methods are found.

Like there are alternatives to flying which are probably safer (like taking a ship) the cost outweighs the risk for most people.. I personally believe this applies to nuclear power

If your Iphone is jailbroken, you can get dospad for free. This is dosbox for the iphone/ipad

Any other articles on stuff that isn't happening?

Is linux utterly superflous and of no interest to anyone?

I thought the usual line of thinking was that monopolies were bad, so why does that not apply here? Is it because its Microsoft?

I was under the impression that if you made the source code available then those creating the distribuitions would maintain the packages

Does this not apply to viruses too?

Why do you think that people are unintelligent if they can't program?

And incidently, I think the decision makers at the banks have made some smart decisions from their perspectives haven't they? after all they are still coming away with millions.

Have you any idea what additional effort that would require? Not only do you have to dynamically load appropriate dlls if they exist, each dll will have a completely different programming interface. You have to rely on these interfaces to remain the same between versions. You probably have to find several ways to expose the objects your application exposes to the javascript engines of each of these renderes/and or find otherways to response to events triggered on the pages displayed. You also have to develop (just like web developers) a myriad of different versions of css/html with conditional comments and/or seperate versions of the files. Where time=money, then this is the way to go if you intend to make no money off your software, and you have all the time in the world to waste on it. Most people don't

That is how the free market works. If they can't be bothered to find out the advantages and disadvantages of one company's offering over another then they only have themselves to blame. The points are not difficult to understand: - You can only play the song on this one device, it won't transfer to another device - It costs more than other services They are not intelligent people if they don't realise you ought to shop around for services or products in order to get good value for money.

Other posters make very similiar points to the ones I am about to.. what crap exepectations sorry!..
I have a good knowledge of linux. I have written programs for it too. But I don't know what ssh is. I also don't know how to change the root password if i didn't know it.. but i could find out in a few seconds both of these i bet..
But why this arrogance? Well I'm 2/3rds of the way through a computer science degree and use linux for a lot of my work.. But I am not that incompetent that i've ever forgotten my root password and don't run any servers.. also I don't have any computers i could or even would ssh into my own from.
Maybe your other tests are different but the 2 examples you cited just irritated me slightly because i know that certainly changing the root password is a few seconds worth of research.. but something that people aren't going to likely be exposed to until actually in that environment..
People with experience in researching how to do things and capable of learning are more valuable than people who can repeat basic instructions... Give them a computer on the internet and seeif they can achieve these tasks in a short timeframe.. i.e. a realword scenario.. rather than check specific scenarios.. thats my opinion anyway.