Slashdot Mirror

1,166
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_i_0?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3A%22don't+want+you+to+know%22&keywords=%22don't+want+you+to+know%22&ie=UTF8&qid=1251753910

Great source you linked to, very thorough in it's data. It's layout and readability leave much to be desired, however.

Unfortunately, despite that, you're still wrong. It *is* remotely true, though not for the reasons stated. The data you linked to even correlates with what I'm about to explain.

Air-to-air rules of engagement during the Gulf War required two separate means of identifying an aircraft as hostile. These means could be different IFF systems, visual, or anything. so long as they were separate.

Now the ROE didn't require visual contact per se, as has been stated. However if you go over that list, you will note that all BVR kills, except for one BVR kill by an F-16 on 17 January 1993 (two years after the end of the Gulf War) were by F-15s.

The F-15 was the only fighter in the coalition forces at the time of the war that was equipped with two separate electronic means of identifying an enemy aircraft.

So in effect, the ROE for everything else was "double check visually". F-15s had a secondary system they could use. The U.S. Navy was not happy about this, and complained loudly at the time that it was why the Air Force racked up the lion's share of the kills.

I don't have them with me to check now, but I'm 99% sure that these ROE are explained in one of two excellent books regarding the Gulf War either Every Man A Tiger by Tom Clancy and General Chuck Horner, (Schwarzkopf's deputy who commanded the Gulf Air War), or Prodigal Soldiers by James Kitfield.

Both are good reads regardless of where the info is from. Particularly Every Man A Tiger as it's much more air component and Gulf War-centric. Kitfield's book kind of examines how we went from Vietnam to the Persian Gulf, and how much impact Vietnam had on how we fought the Gulf War. I believe it goes fairly deep into ROE, but it's been years since I've read it.

I just did some Googling, and found some confirmation here as well. Scroll down to, or ctrl+f for "Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Rules of Engagement (ROE)". It's explained there.

I'm getting besides the point though. The AC's point may be technically wrong, but in practice, it's nearly true. We've only been in *one* modern air war since 1980. The Gulf War. And during that war, all but one aircraft were required to visually ID an enemy aircraft before firing. So he or she is correct with one big exception.

Great source you linked to, very thorough in it's data. It's layout and readability leave much to be desired, however.

Unfortunately, despite that, you're still wrong. It *is* remotely true, though not for the reasons stated. The data you linked to even correlates with what I'm about to explain.

Air-to-air rules of engagement during the Gulf War required two separate means of identifying an aircraft as hostile. These means could be different IFF systems, visual, or anything. so long as they were separate.

Now the ROE didn't require visual contact per se, as has been stated. However if you go over that list, you will note that all BVR kills, except for one BVR kill by an F-16 on 17 January 1993 (two years after the end of the Gulf War) were by F-15s.

The F-15 was the only fighter in the coalition forces at the time of the war that was equipped with two separate electronic means of identifying an enemy aircraft.

So in effect, the ROE for everything else was "double check visually". F-15s had a secondary system they could use. The U.S. Navy was not happy about this, and complained loudly at the time that it was why the Air Force racked up the lion's share of the kills.

I don't have them with me to check now, but I'm 99% sure that these ROE are explained in one of two excellent books regarding the Gulf War either Every Man A Tiger by Tom Clancy and General Chuck Horner, (Schwarzkopf's deputy who commanded the Gulf Air War), or Prodigal Soldiers by James Kitfield.

Both are good reads regardless of where the info is from. Particularly Every Man A Tiger as it's much more air component and Gulf War-centric. Kitfield's book kind of examines how we went from Vietnam to the Persian Gulf, and how much impact Vietnam had on how we fought the Gulf War. I believe it goes fairly deep into ROE, but it's been years since I've read it.

I just did some Googling, and found some confirmation here as well. Scroll down to, or ctrl+f for "Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Rules of Engagement (ROE)". It's explained there.

I'm getting besides the point though. The AC's point may be technically wrong, but in practice, it's nearly true. We've only been in *one* modern air war since 1980. The Gulf War. And during that war, all but one aircraft were required to visually ID an enemy aircraft before firing. So he or she is correct with one big exception.

This article reminds me of one of my all-time favorite books, Catapult: Harry and I Build a Siege Weapon, by Jim Paul. The author chronicles how he built a working catapult, getting a National Endowment for the Arts grant to fund it. It sure makes my job look boring!

And a tank costs a lot more than a pickup truck. So what? If the F-22 can maintain, say, a 20:1 kill ratio against other aircraft, then the 5:1 cost disparity is more than justified.

That extraordinary ratio is from USAF-directed simulations, under their rules of engagement, not real world combat. And we know they'd never exaggerate the F-22's effectiveness, now would they?

The Raptor, while impressive on paper is indeed a lemon, especially with it's software problems. No fighter, no matter how potent, is any good to you when it averages a 50% uptime, and costs so much that you can't afford it in sufficient quantities. Reliability and quantity count in warfare, bigtime. Ask the Germans about this. Their Tiger Tank was a wonder on paper. Too bad it was broken down all the time, and too bad that it was so expensive the Germans could only build a few of them. Meanwhile, the Russians and Americans churned out cheap and reliable tanks by the thousands, and ate the Germans alive. Read a book called Arms of Destruction, a book that ranks the best land weapons of WWII. The lessons are applicable to all types of weaponry. The author makes a point that seems to elude the Department of Defense these days; that capabilities of a weapon mean nothing if that weapon isn't sufficiently available in wartime. It's kind of hard to fulfill that need if you can't buy enough of them, and the ones you do have keep breaking down. And that's the F-22 in a nutshell.

And you might also think differently about the Hare Krishnas if you read Monkey on a Stick - although it seems perhaps a more peaceful sect now than during the frenetic 60's.

... in low level system programming, I recommend reading a good book, like this, and not spending any more time reading this.

Seriously.

However, I also believe that we can strike a balance between responsible stewardship, individual liberty, and capitalist enterprise.

I just read Beyond Developmentality, a fascinating book on this subject. Quoting from the blurb:

In both capitalist and socialist nations, industrial growth has destroyed the natural world, intensified social inequalities, and abrogated intergenerational equity. The greatest obstacle on the path to sustainability is the hegemony of developmentality, which equates affluence with happiness, measures development in terms of GNP growth, and accepts development to be the destiny of civilization.
 

To arrest further destruction of the natural world and build a sustainable society, the economy must terminate growth. State economic institutions must eventually introduce, and be accustomed to, zero rates of interest and profit.
 

This revolutionary proposition seems absurd to the layperson, policy-makers and the traditional Left alike. Public acceptance of a new economic order -- where money cannot buy any resource that could yield rent in perpetuity, where internalization of environmental costs would nullify profit, and where savings in banks would yield no interest -- would seem extremely difficult at the outset. But from an ecological economic perspective, zero-growth economy is our only option if we really want to save our common future.

The author, Dr.Debal Deb, is a renowned ecologist and environmental biologist with several publications in the field.
 

Full disclosure: I personally know Dr.Deb, but this post is not a shameless plug to boost sales. I truly believe that what the book recommends is mankind's only real hope. See
 

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Developmentality-Constructing-Inclusive-Sustainability/dp/1844077128
Or

look it up on google

When I started programming computers in the 1970's there were fad books then too, which all the managers where reading. The idea of getting more code out of the cheapest people has always been the goal.
Managers! I suggest this one: Manual of Computer Programming for Astrologers

You don't get it, do you? You're supposed to buy the book, or since it's hard to predict whether you'd choose the right one, the books. Better yet, order copies for each developer and members of the project team, too!

I know we're not supposed to mention Scientology, but this whole Agile/XP/Scrum thing reminds me a lot of that, including the insistence on keeping records on "defects found" which conveniently can be used to justify the whole thing to management. Even if many of the "defects" turn out to be things like "the copyright notice needs to be updated to include 2009" and "the expression 'if (fooType == eBar)', should be written 'if (eBar == fooType)' because our coding standard says to put literals on the left side of an equality comparison".

My boss, one of the best developers on my team, now has about 1/4 to 1/8 of the time he used to have to write code. I've found that I've had to step it up and take charge of a lot more work (which has been a great growing experience for me) since he's going to meetings every 30 min. to an hour.

All I can say is that some people seriously need to read The Mythical Man Month.

On a somewhat of a side note, I think too many institutions (college or trade) simply don't effectively teach (or don't teach at all) industry best practices such as:
    -source control - every project you do in school should have to use source control
    -build scripts - rather than turning in a binary, graders should checkout your code from your source control and be able to build and/or run it in one step
    -bug fixing - project deadlines should be in phases where you are given a certain number of times you can have your program reviewed by others (TA's or other students) and bugs submitted against your, or your team's, bug database
    -team work - once you get past the weeder courses a lot more work should be team work. If you are having your students use source control and a bug database, the graders and professor can easily see who did what and what the dynamics of the team were (if any). I'd say you could even go further (if it logistically made sense) and tell students to use an email system for the class for communication with their team about the project. Then these emails could be part of the grade since they are being graded on teamwork. Plus, having teams would mean projects could be bigger and more rewarding (ie: fulfilling to see run)
    -documentation - for team projects, provide a wiki for each team to document what they are doing and communicate

Universities or trade schools are doing their graduates a disservice by sending them into the real worlds without experience in these areas.

A problem is defined by the difference between the way things are and they way you want them to be. You have not adequately defined the problem, or problems, here. This seems to be common among "Agile development" aficionados, and particularly in the case of SCRUM (which accepts as a given that the requirements are not complete before starting on the project).

The two things that usually help straighten out this type of mess: First, a business-case justification for the project. This means that if the project is not useful it isn't implemented. Need to learn how to make a good business case for a project and/or a solution? A good place to start is the book, "businessThink" by Marcum, Smith and Khalsa http://www.amazon.com/businessThink-Rules-Getting-Right%C2%96Now-Matter/dp/0471219932 .

The second is as complete a list of FUNCTIONAL requirements as possible. And remember, each functional requirement is subject to the same case analysis as the whole project. (Re-read "businessThink".)

I get a sense from your post that you are not in a position to initiate any action, and your role is to criticize and whine. Don't. If you can adequately describe the difference between the way things are and the way they ought to be, then someone with authority will listen to you.

Good luck.

If Oracle does not want Sun hardware, what Sun software does Oracle want?

My theory about why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant. The excellent 2008 book Planet Google describes Google's experiences on page 54: "For about $278,000 in 2003, [Google] could assemble a rack with 176 microprocessors, 176 gigabytes of memory, and 7 terabytes of disk space. This compared favorably to a $758,000 server sold by the manufacturer of a well-known brand, which had only eight multiprocessors, one-third the memory, and about the same amount of disk space."

It's true that Sun hardware is more reliable than consumer-grade hardware. However, neither are completely reliable. Both require fault-tolerant software. Also, consumer-grade hardware has become very reliable.

Yes, and I have to wonder if that sort of self-cancelation could be built into a cellular autonoma model. That would be interesting.

I recently read Alastair Reynolds House of Suns, and this deals with causality violations, by name. I don't think his solution would work as physics, but it's not impossible, and I thought it was very cool that he recognized and described the issue.

It's tragic. South America was always such a peaceful place before those damned video games came in!

Yeah, that surely was before USA got his nose into Latin America. Read it, it is quite insightful. Oh! but it is in Spanish :(

Vernor Vinge's book Rainbows End is probably the best description of a world with ubiquitous AR. It's also a great story.

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #8 in MP3 Songs (See Bestsellers in MP3 Songs)
Popular in these categories: (What's this?)
#1 in MP3 Songs > Dance & DJ
#5 in MP3 Songs > Pop

Oh shi-

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002JEEJ2A?tag=you09f-20

The book Shadow Syndromes is what you're looking for.

I used to assume that the left-wing dictators pretended to be left-wing merely as a tool of control, allowing them to be as selfish as they wanted, filling the Swiss bank account while pretending to have the people's interests at heart.

But having read a rather long (and definitely unsympathetic) biography of Stalin, I'm no longer so sure. I think many of them really believe in what they are doing, and are genuinely convinced that it is for the best.

For example, in the early years of WW2, Hitler broke his non-aggression pact and invaded Russia. Initially, this invasion was going very well for the Germans, and Stalin became convinced that the war was lost. He went to his dacha outside the city, and for a few days, none of his henchmen dared to give any orders because they couldn't run them past the big man. Eventually, the henchmen decided to go to Stalin's house.

"There, sitting nervously in an armchair, was a 'thinner... haggard... gloomy' Stalin. When he saw the seven or so Politburo members entering, Stalin 'turned to stone'... he looked at them searchingly and asked: 'Why've you come?'

"Stalin 'looked alert, somewhat strange', recalled Mikoyan, 'and his question was no less strange. Actually he should have summoned us himself. I had no doubt: he decided we had arrived to arrest him.'...

"'We're asking you to come back to work...'

"'Yes but think about it,' answered Stalin. 'Can I live up to the people's hopes any more? Can I lead the country to final victory? There may be more deserving candidates.'"

I think this moment of vulnerability, in front of the men who could destroy him and had reason to do so, gives a lot of insight into the mind of Stalin. History remembers a monster, and of course this is correct, but nevertheless he was a rational man who believed he was doing the right thing for the USSR. When things went badly, he felt guilty for failing the people. He almost destroyed himself because of it.

Is this the action of a selfish man, considering only himself? I think not. Stalin's actions are entirely explained by the Marxist religion. In his mind, he did act for the people. He did help them! He freed them from the capitalists, the bourgeois and the imperialists. The mass executions, the war and the starvation were all necessary to achieve that end. Stalin was exactly what he claimed to be: a truly left-wing dictator.

I hope one day people will realize that most executives (in publicly-traded companies) DON'T have the companies', the investors' or the employees' interests at heart. Most of these executives gained their position due to crafty manipulation and NOT by actually, really improving a product or product line, increasing profitability or market share. But they were and will be always great at presenting their (short or very short term) results in the best light possible, and excellent at knowing and manipulating the right people.

This breed of executives will outsource to poor countries (thus providing a short-term, fleeting increase in margins), lower salaries and/or fire employees at home (thus providing a short-term, fleeting increase in margins) and eliminate R&D and products/services (thus providing a short-term, fleeting increase in margins) - which will look good for a short while. Long enough to get a new promotion or a job at another company, after cashing in.

Please do yourself a favor and have a glance at this book.

Please clean your links. That way we'd know you're not some lowly affiliate spammer.

If you regard language features as âjustâ(TM) syntactic sugar, why arenâ(TM)t you programming in raw machine code?

If-then-else, do-while, for, etc. are syntactic sugar. They can all be rewritten fairly cleanly with gotos. See http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Programming-Style-Brian-Kernighan/dp/0070342075

The issue has always been unstructured use of goto. The difference is that with a formal control structure you have strict rules as to when there is a goto (as to the else clause). With a goto you have to read a bit harder to see what is happening because it's usage is not guaranteed to be structured.

They called it Structured Programming for a reason, but it's still syntactic sugar.

My downloads from iTunes and Amazon are almost exclusively free music.

Not to mention the "obvious exception" of free music available from a variety of sources under Creative Commons licenses. (Hint: If there are obvious exceptions, it's probably not appropriate to use the word "all.")

Sounds a bit like parts of the plot of Primer (probably the best film about time-travel there is).

I still remain skeptical.

How many times have scientists changed their opinion on eggs?
Butter?
Beer?
(checks google) holy crap, now there's articles saying salt isn't as bad as previously indicated.

Of course, it doesn't matter really, I've already died during the "Great Mad-Cow Apocalypse" predicted in "Deadly Feasts"

Anyone want to explain why I should believe someone who would say such a thing? If that isn't the AGW argument, perhaps someone can explain what part is inconsistent with the AGW argument.

May I suggest you read up on "confidence intervals?"

And now the government and politicians wants to grab the helm of this out of control religion (after all it does require a degree of faith) and start telling people what they can and can't do "because of global warming" while they (the politicians) make millions of dollars by robbing us blind. This whole thing stinks!

You live in a strange world conspiracies and secret societies don't you? You also must not live in a working democracy, but rather some sub-Saharan African kleptocracy, because the money raised by the government through taxes and fines are not distributed to the personal accounts of government officials, as you apparently believe. In a democracy, "government" is what we call it, when we, the population, decided to do something together.

And if that really is the AGW argument, why on earth would anyone, without some ulterior motive, believe such a thing.

You could read "How to Think Like a Scientist: Answering Questions by the Scientific Method
by Stephen P. Kramer," "A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method by Stephen S. Carey," or An Introduction To Logic And Scientific Method by Morris F. Cohen."
You can find these, and many more books about science, at your local library!

Anyone want to explain why I should believe someone who would say such a thing? If that isn't the AGW argument, perhaps someone can explain what part is inconsistent with the AGW argument.

May I suggest you read up on "confidence intervals?"

And now the government and politicians wants to grab the helm of this out of control religion (after all it does require a degree of faith) and start telling people what they can and can't do "because of global warming" while they (the politicians) make millions of dollars by robbing us blind. This whole thing stinks!

You live in a strange world conspiracies and secret societies don't you? You also must not live in a working democracy, but rather some sub-Saharan African kleptocracy, because the money raised by the government through taxes and fines are not distributed to the personal accounts of government officials, as you apparently believe. In a democracy, "government" is what we call it, when we, the population, decided to do something together.

And if that really is the AGW argument, why on earth would anyone, without some ulterior motive, believe such a thing.

You could read "How to Think Like a Scientist: Answering Questions by the Scientific Method
by Stephen P. Kramer," "A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method by Stephen S. Carey," or An Introduction To Logic And Scientific Method by Morris F. Cohen."
You can find these, and many more books about science, at your local library!

Anyone want to explain why I should believe someone who would say such a thing? If that isn't the AGW argument, perhaps someone can explain what part is inconsistent with the AGW argument.

May I suggest you read up on "confidence intervals?"

And now the government and politicians wants to grab the helm of this out of control religion (after all it does require a degree of faith) and start telling people what they can and can't do "because of global warming" while they (the politicians) make millions of dollars by robbing us blind. This whole thing stinks!

You live in a strange world conspiracies and secret societies don't you? You also must not live in a working democracy, but rather some sub-Saharan African kleptocracy, because the money raised by the government through taxes and fines are not distributed to the personal accounts of government officials, as you apparently believe. In a democracy, "government" is what we call it, when we, the population, decided to do something together.

And if that really is the AGW argument, why on earth would anyone, without some ulterior motive, believe such a thing.

You could read "How to Think Like a Scientist: Answering Questions by the Scientific Method
by Stephen P. Kramer," "A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method by Stephen S. Carey," or An Introduction To Logic And Scientific Method by Morris F. Cohen."
You can find these, and many more books about science, at your local library!

poetry aside, there's no doubt the climate is changing. It has changed where I live and apparently in a lot of other places too.

The disagreement is not whether the climate is changing. The disagreement is how much, how fast, and whether it is human-caused.

On the things that ARE human-caused (pollution of rivers/lakes/etc, erosion due to poor farming techniques) we should definitely be working to fix it. On the things that are natural (and Earth's temperature has more to do with irregularities in Earth's orbit and with the cycle of Solar activity than so-called "manmade greenhouse gases"), we can do little.

Yes, in centuries past, there were cold times. The 14-1500s were, according to what little records and the (incomplete) evidence we can gather, colder than we experience today as an average. At the same time, there are periods that were warmer. There is also the problem of having reliable measurements at all (we're talking about maybe 30 years of true recording with properly calibrated instruments, and "measured change" that falls off of most of the measurements if you pay attention to the known accuracy of the instruments and pay attention to your Significant Digits). And then there's the problem of paying attention to what you are measuring rather than cherry-picking your data for your expected result - for instance, if you compare this summer historically to the "average" of the past 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, etc... you will see the "answer" of "hotter" or "colder" fluctuate up and down based on the new data. It gets even worse when you do like the shysters do and compare to an unseasonably cold "reference year" rather than doing a proper analysis of what long-term data we do have.

The "climate change" crazies have one thing in common: they all know how to lie with statistics. My clearest evidence against them is the fact that their "argument" relies more on the star/celebrity power of their spokespeople than on actual scientific evidence, just like the anti-vaccination crowd.

Why should I do the googling for you you lazy cnut?

I wouldn't call Knuth lazy even if the 4th volume of his Art of Computer Programming is a bit late. While you wait for it, the 3rd edition of Introduction to Algorithms is available on Amazon. Please be patient!

Of course, if the people at Reverb had an ounce of sense, they'd template their reviews to be similar to the ones for the three wolf moon t-shirt on amazon.com

I agree about the burning shows to disc thing. I used to have a Humax that did this, but unfortunately it won't accept a cablecard or record HD content (making it useless for anything besides basic analog cable).

As for adding on more hard drive space, most DVR's (even cable company ones) will let you add external storage now. I have a Scientific Atlanta DVR (from the cable company) that I use with a Western Digital DVR expander drive (basically just an external eSATA drive). Plugs right into the back of the DVR and works great.

I have no good working solution for compensating today's working artists. A lot of people are thinking about that, and some people are actually testing solutions to the problem. I will agree that the three weird kids in the basement down the street deserve something for their work, and bit-torrents don't give them a damned thing.

On the other hand - $22.50 ??? For what? Good group, good music, and well worth listening to - but it should be in the public domain by now.

As for the big-time commercial pirates - keelhaul them. I have no sympathy for the parasites. Do as you will with them. Copyright law, in it's original form, was aimed at people like that. P2P, on the other hand, profits no one. The "distibution" is incidental to downloading, and people are being raped in court over that obscure technicality. Torrenting has nothing in common with commercial piracy of content.

DVD with the data in video format and one of those cheap portable players......we will still have wall plugs, right? I've got some DVDs purchased over 10 years ago that still seem new (well, the media -- some of the movies are dated looking). Not that hard to imagine that they'll hold up for at least 10 more. By including the player, you don't have to worry about the format becoming obsolete.

http://www.amazon.com/Coby-TFDVD7008-7-Inch-Portable-Player/dp/B001PRKKB6/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1251204715&sr=8-3

I cannot divulge what precisely it means, but I have in my possession a conversation from long ago that sounds as if it bodes ill for this "ALICE powder":

ANNIE. Sure, it's not good for you that you should be goin' out on this night, Miss Alice.

MATILDA. Do you feel worse, Alice?

ALICE. No better. If I go out I shall suffer terribly.

MATILDA. Here. Take one of these powders. (gives ALICE powder )

ALICE. I'll take it as soon as I go to my room. Thank you, Auntie. You won't mind if I don't go with you, will you?

MATILDA. Mrs. Terret will be disappointed, it's all I can say. But if you will suffer, of course it's best you remain here. Annie will look after you.
      (to ANNIE) Mr. Harold will remain at home to watch the house, Annie. I wish you to watch Mr. Harold.

ANNIE. Yes, Miss Deering.

MATILDA. If you smell cigarette smoke, investigate at once. That's all, Annie.

"there would be a lot of outrage to see extraterrestrials being treated this way."

Because there's a lot of outrage about how *humans* are treated who live in those actual slums... oh wait, not so much. We've tolerated exactly this kind of misery for decades now. And no, it's not just apartheid which does it: our glorious revolutionary capitalist financial and economic system dumps people into this pit.

It is interesting though to look at how two of the hottest movies this season have been fantasies set in slums. District 9 and Slumdog Millionaire. Maybe global consciousness is starting to wake up?

Disclaimer: my brother lives and works in Brazilian favelas so I've seen some of this first-hand.

You may be interested in Jon Entine's Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It.

Let's see your math on that. The average Windows update costs what? $150-250? OSX is $130 2x-3x as often?

Yes, let's.

Purchasing every version of OS X at full retail, from 10.0 to 10.6, costs $674. Purchasing every version of Windows costs at least $450, and that assumes buying the Home version, either OEM or upgrade not retail. Buying retail, or buying Home Premium or Professional, you exceed the total cost of every Windows upgrade. If you purchase Ultimate retail (which is what you get with OS X), you exceed $1,000!

And *that's* using your misrepresentation of what I said. I said that OS X is cheaper than Windows. OS X is $129 full retail. Even Windows Home Basic costs more than that. You have to go all the way down to Windows Home Basic OEM before the price drops below the price of OS X.

Why would you be buying the non-upgrade version of Windows in the first place? If you buy a computer in the store, it's certainly going to come with Windows on it. If you build your own computer, you should be buying the System Builders (AKA OEM) version of Windows, as that's the intended market for it.

The upgrade price for Windows 7 Home Premium actually is cheaper than OSX, as it's only $119.99.

The ONLY difference between buying a full retail copy versus an upgrade copy is that the upgrade copy invalidates your old key.

"Purchasing every version of OS X at full retail, from 10.0 to 10.6" is also a strawman, as 10.0 and 10.6 won't run on the same computer: 10.0-10.3 are Power PC only. 10.6 is Intel only.

The real complaint is that they discountinue supporting their system too quickly. The issue is once apple releases a new version support for the old one drops off VERY quickly. Lots of new Software won't run on the older version because many apple dev's (including Apple - e.g. ilife, itunes...) only support the latest release. And patches for previous version stop coming out much faster.

Apple released a security update for Tiger as recently as this month.

Windows Live Movie Maker doesn't run on XP. DirectX 10 isn't supported on XP. This is just the previous version of Windows. If you're going to complain that Apple drops support for some programs and technologies from the prior version, you've got to fault MS for the same.

Yup, and it's going to burn Microsoft. Very few development studios are building DirectX 10 (or 11)-only products because of this.

Everyone else continues making software that will run on Windows XP.

Some collected thoughts on building meaning and happiness in life.

People are like trees that need roots to keep from falling over in the storms of life. Those roots come from all sorts of relationships to people, places, ideas, causes, experiences, and so on. When we lose a root (a relationship), sometimes we can grow another. People with shallow roots are more likely to fall over from a storm of life -- but some storms are worse than others, and sometimes trees fall over for no obvious reason.

The book "Descartes' Error" is about how emotions underlie all "logical" thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error

Happiness (and meaning) in life comes from various directions:
* sensuality
* helping others
* a sense of "Flow" in what we do, even if it is "hard fun"
* human relationships, including parenting
* humor
* creating things we love, and maybe even destroying things we hate (a tricky thing)
* preserving a pattern important to us
* probably many others?
The first three are from this guy's book "Aging Well":
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Eman_Vaillant

But watch out for progressive desensitization and "The Pleasure Trap":
    http://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Trap-Mastering-Undermines-Happiness/dp/1570671508

Addictive-looking behavior otherwise often has more to do with the environment than the person:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_park

How we look at time has a lot to do with happiness, too:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_prescribes_a_healthy_take_on_time.html

It is often better to build on strengths than try to eliminate weaknesses:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_psychology

Alfie Kohn has a lot to say about eliminating competition and grading from our lives:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfie_Kohn

Good sleep, pleasurable exercise, a relationship to nature, education-on-demand instead of education-just-in-case, and eating right help a lot:
    http://www.mayoclinic.org/feature-articles/levine-office-of-future.html
    http://www.chrismercogliano.com/childhood.htm
    http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt
    http://www.honestfoodguide.org/

Solar panels and a basic income are ways forward towards a happier global society:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

"Data Mining and Business Intelligence doesn't need huge powerhouses
anymore."

My theory about why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the
last few years is that the highly reliable hardware Sun
Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use
consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant. The excellent
2008 book Planet Google describes Google's experiences on page 54:
"For about $278,000 in 2003, [Google] could assemble a rack with 176
microprocessors, 176 gigabytes of memory, and 7 terabytes of disk space. This
compared favorably to a $758,000 server sold by the manufacturer of a
well-known brand, which had only eight multiprocessors, one-third the memory,
and about the same amount of disk space."

But why would Oracle buy Sun? Possibly because there are difficulties in making
Oracle database products work with the new consumer-grade hardware with fault-tolerant technology.

Ever try to develop fault-tolerant software? Think millions of dollars just to begin.

That solution works for Google because they can scale that expensive software over a whole bunch of servers. If you're only running a small number of servers - and "small" in this context is probably anything less than at least a thousand or so servers, maybe more - it's cheaper to throw high-quality hardware at any reliability/uptime problem.

"Data Mining and Business Intelligence doesn't need huge powerhouses anymore."

My theory about why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant. The excellent 2008 book Planet Google describes Google's experiences on page 54: "For about $278,000 in 2003, [Google] could assemble a rack with 176 microprocessors, 176 gigabytes of memory, and 7 terabytes of disk space. This compared favorably to a $758,000 server sold by the manufacturer of a well-known brand, which had only eight multiprocessors, one-third the memory, and about the same amount of disk space."

But why would Oracle buy Sun? Possibly because there are difficulties in making Oracle database products work with the new consumer-grade hardware with fault-tolerant technology.

Yes, decriminalizing heroin is a good idea. Before it became a prohibited substance it was cheaply available in your neighborhood drug store. Addicts didn't have to resort to criminal activity to get their fix.

Opium was linked to criminal behavior long before it was banned. In order to buy opium from your neighbourhood drug store, you had to have money. But addicts were too out of it to maintain a steady job, so they needed to acquire cash to get their fix through other means. Never read Thomas de Quincey's Confessions of an English Opium Eater ? It's a fairly good portrayal of the early 19th century underworld that had grown up around the stuff.

You can read all about the work leading up to this device, why it works, amazing stories of recovery from brain injury, and other cool stuff in a book called The Brain That Changes Itself.

This is one of the best books I've ever read.

Just sayin'.

You had me up until you started blaming everybody for being fat as if it were a simple matter of low willpower, and up until you claimed the gun death disparity was due to "better gun control". Unless, of course, you're talking about peoples' ability to refrain from killing each other. Canadians clearly win in that category, hands-down.

I'm really not in the mood to debate all the individual points, but I'd highly recommend The End of Overeating for a good start. I don't recommend it as a book for treating overeating, but I like the way he laid out why people overeat, and what the food industry does to encourage it. You're a smart guy, I know you know it's simpler than a simple matter of such a large portion of the population deciding they want to gorge themselves.

The worst thing we can do, in my opinion, is to demonize smokers and the obese. We need to bring them back into the circle, be supportive, and try to get them to change their ways. Not through direct government actions that will make them defensive, but as friends, family members, neighbors, and loved ones trying to help them. If we just continue to make them feel bad, they're going to continue to retreat and continue their downward spiral.

Trust me, people already know it's not socially acceptable to be fat.

Additionally, as is already well documented, sin taxes aren't enough to discourage people from overeating and they'll be just another tax that disproportionately affects poor people, exacerbating the situation we already have.

First off I wouldn't give the Onion too much credit for "foretelling the blade count war", because, every teenager and pre-teen has been making 22 blade razor jokes probably since they first made twin blade razors. It's not a big deal

Hell, Saturday Night Live beat the Onion to the punch by more than a decade with their mockumercial for the Platinum Mach 14.

Paying extra for a razor may seem like a waste to some, but after twenty or thirty years of shaving with crappy razors, those few extra bucks are money well spent. A good razor is worth it, and honestly, I could see a good mouse being worth it too.

More blades doesn't define a good razor -- it merely helps mask the fact that they're using the cheapest blades and design they can get away with. If you want a good shave (I have a shaved head, and used to go through a pack of Fusion blades per week), you really can't beat a good non-disposable razor. Merkur DE razor at Amazon, $40. Seems pricey, but bear with me. One hundred double-edged blades at Amazon, $20. You read that right. 20 cents per blade (I can do my entire head using two blades -- they're double-sided, after all). Let me repeat that -- twenty cents per double-sided blade. Last but not least, of course, the shave soap at Amazon, $1.25 per bar. I've been on my current bar of soap for about three months now. Compare this to the $3-$4 it costs for "shave gel" (which is essentially just liquid soap with thickeners and perfumes added) that lasts a couple of weeks. These three components make up the best damn shave I've ever had. Costs a little more up front, but it will (a) pay for itself in just a couple of months; and (b) give you a better shave (albeit a bit slower) than anything Gillette has ever approached. I used to love my Fusion, but the $3-to-$5-per-blade racket is ridiculous.

First off I wouldn't give the Onion too much credit for "foretelling the blade count war", because, every teenager and pre-teen has been making 22 blade razor jokes probably since they first made twin blade razors. It's not a big deal

Hell, Saturday Night Live beat the Onion to the punch by more than a decade with their mockumercial for the Platinum Mach 14.

Paying extra for a razor may seem like a waste to some, but after twenty or thirty years of shaving with crappy razors, those few extra bucks are money well spent. A good razor is worth it, and honestly, I could see a good mouse being worth it too.

More blades doesn't define a good razor -- it merely helps mask the fact that they're using the cheapest blades and design they can get away with. If you want a good shave (I have a shaved head, and used to go through a pack of Fusion blades per week), you really can't beat a good non-disposable razor. Merkur DE razor at Amazon, $40. Seems pricey, but bear with me. One hundred double-edged blades at Amazon, $20. You read that right. 20 cents per blade (I can do my entire head using two blades -- they're double-sided, after all). Let me repeat that -- twenty cents per double-sided blade. Last but not least, of course, the shave soap at Amazon, $1.25 per bar. I've been on my current bar of soap for about three months now. Compare this to the $3-$4 it costs for "shave gel" (which is essentially just liquid soap with thickeners and perfumes added) that lasts a couple of weeks. These three components make up the best damn shave I've ever had. Costs a little more up front, but it will (a) pay for itself in just a couple of months; and (b) give you a better shave (albeit a bit slower) than anything Gillette has ever approached. I used to love my Fusion, but the $3-to-$5-per-blade racket is ridiculous.

First off I wouldn't give the Onion too much credit for "foretelling the blade count war", because, every teenager and pre-teen has been making 22 blade razor jokes probably since they first made twin blade razors. It's not a big deal

Hell, Saturday Night Live beat the Onion to the punch by more than a decade with their mockumercial for the Platinum Mach 14.

Paying extra for a razor may seem like a waste to some, but after twenty or thirty years of shaving with crappy razors, those few extra bucks are money well spent. A good razor is worth it, and honestly, I could see a good mouse being worth it too.

More blades doesn't define a good razor -- it merely helps mask the fact that they're using the cheapest blades and design they can get away with. If you want a good shave (I have a shaved head, and used to go through a pack of Fusion blades per week), you really can't beat a good non-disposable razor. Merkur DE razor at Amazon, $40. Seems pricey, but bear with me. One hundred double-edged blades at Amazon, $20. You read that right. 20 cents per blade (I can do my entire head using two blades -- they're double-sided, after all). Let me repeat that -- twenty cents per double-sided blade. Last but not least, of course, the shave soap at Amazon, $1.25 per bar. I've been on my current bar of soap for about three months now. Compare this to the $3-$4 it costs for "shave gel" (which is essentially just liquid soap with thickeners and perfumes added) that lasts a couple of weeks. These three components make up the best damn shave I've ever had. Costs a little more up front, but it will (a) pay for itself in just a couple of months; and (b) give you a better shave (albeit a bit slower) than anything Gillette has ever approached. I used to love my Fusion, but the $3-to-$5-per-blade racket is ridiculous.

The truth is, nowadays more than ever, getting a top management position is due to effectively manipulating other people - and who is more effective at manipulating than corporate psychopaths, especially in the chaotic world of publicly traded corporations?

This is why

1) executives rarely care for the long-term viability of the company they lead, opting instead for a short-term uptick where they can cash in and then leave.
2) these people can always find another executive position, once they leave their previous company, regardless of how dire the state they caused their company to get into - they can manipulate people so well that they will find an accepting armchair immediately.
3) BODs are filled with people who just move from company to company, from one executive position to the other.
4) golf is so damn important for them - that's where they network and prepare their parachutes.

I strongly recommend you read this book. It's an eye-opener.

Great book on this very subject, very insightful. Don't let the title dissuade you, it is actually chock full of empirical data and good lessons in anatomy and the psyche.
A General Theory Of Love