Will someone with a better understanding of genetics please explain how a genetic test is even possible?
My understanding is that identical twins -- arising from the same zygote -- are genetically identical. Not just "pretty much identical" as the article states.
What possible "genetic test" is being proposed that could differentiate between the brothers? Is the town being scammed?
I am not really an expert in the field, but I have heard of a field called epigenetics. According to epigenetics, our environment has an impact on how our genes are expressed. Furthermore, epigenetic adaptations can be passed on to children and even grand-children. This field blurs the line between "nature" and "nurture", allowing our actions to impact the epigenetics of our grandchildren or even great grandchildren.
I am not sure if there is yet an epigenetic test to reliably differentiate between identical twins, but I suspect it would be possible.
I was a Windows user who switched to a Mac. Recently I switched from Mac to Linux, and I am not looking back. As for office software, Libre-office does what I need. Microsoft will not get any of my money again.
I'm typing this from a recently purchased System76 Gazelle laptop, and the experience has been good so far. I am coming from running a Macbook Pro, which I had for several years. The mac was a nice machine, but have been getting creeped out by Apple's apparent slow drift towards the "post pc world". My iPad feels like a jail (perhaps more a luxury jail, but a jail nontheless) since I can only run what Apple allows, and I don't think I should have to jailbreak my own computer to gain proper control over it. Microsoft is far far worse, and I will never again buy an MS product. Their recent moves, specifically requiring UEFI secure boot on all computers sold with Windows 8, and requiring that it be turned on on all tablets with Windows sounds to me like a deliberate attempt to reduce my ability to choose computers and to run the operating system of my choice. If a computer maker needs to write their own implementation of UEFI, then they must test it with the OS that they will be running. If they don't test it adequately for Linux, then we will end up with situations like the recent Linux installations bricking Samsung laptops. It seems likely that computer makers won't adequately test their UEFI systems for minority operating systems. This therefore will reduce the inventory of laptops that will run Linux..Microsoft's recent investment in Dell seems likely aimed to prevent Dell from selling tablet computers that can run Linux. Dell already sells Linux computers, and they seem to be a good candidate to make a non-android Linux tablet.
My choice to run a Linux laptop is partly political and partly a decision that I believe is in my own personal interest. I miss some things about my mac. The touchpad on my Macbook Pro was outstanding, and I really miss the way the Preview software on OSX deals with pdf files, specifically making a box selection on an existing pdf file and creating a new vector-based pdf from the boxed selection. I am not even sure this is possible on Linux, and it is at least difficult to do in Windows (perhaps using Illustrator?). However I have found I can do almost all the things I need to do in Linux, even if sometimes I have to search. The processor is an i7 so it is very fast. There is no real lag apparent in desktop graphics, even Unity. Overall I am happy I made the choice to move to Linux, and I hope more people will follow me.
With Windows XP, not having access to the internet might be the most secure option. The only way I usually run XP is on a virtual machine with the networking turned off, so Windows doesn't even know the internet exists (just like early Windows 95).
For a combat pilot, combat tactics and avionics training are just as important as actual aircraft handling, and those things can be taught in the simulator pretty well.
Yeah, but you can't simulate a 6 g turn, nor can you simulate a pilot coming "out of the sun".
I think the real problem with missile defense is that the enemy could split the missile into numerous parts, only a few of which would contain actual nuclear warheads. I think this would be a viable strategy as decoys are likely to be far less expensive than nuclear bombs. Thus, in order to preserve existing nuclear warheads, the enemy could flood the sky with relatively cheap decoys, overwelming the defense network.
The article is FUD. The implicit message is that because it is asserted that we will not meet all our energy needs using renewable energy, we should not even try to explore renewable energy. Clearly we are already satisfying some of our energy needs using renewable energy. The issue is not whether we can supply all of our energy needs, but merely that we can satisfy more of our energy needs using renewable energy. Given the fact that the last time I flew over the Nevada desert I didn't see any solar panels, I think it is self-evident that America can satisfy more of its energy needs using solar energy.
UEFI (and Secure Boot) are nothing but specifications. Blaming the specification (or even odder, it's author) for someone's failure in implementing the spec is ridiculous. To you blame Tim Berners-Lee every time a web server gets hacked?
I blame Microsoft because they are using their dominant market position to ensure that the majority of computers sold will not easily run Linux by ensuring that all Windows 8 computers are sold with UEFI Secure Boot. The standard that they are pushing is inherently hostile to minority operating systems. TFA makes it clear to me that computer makers will actually have to do work to make sure their computers work with other operating systems such as Linux. Samsung apparently didn't do that work, and thus we have computers that have been bricked.
Tim Berners Lee just came up with a good idea. He didn't use his dominant market position to impose the standard, which was by the way open, unlike the UEFI system, which is inherently closed.
UEFI has nothing to do with Microsoft, even Secure Boot isn't a Microsoft thing and this story doesn't have anything to do with Secure Boot anyway...nice attempt to drag this topic into another M$ Windoze bash-fest though.
Simple argument: (1) Microsoft is the dominant player in the computer market. (2) Microsoft is dictating that all new Windows 8 computers have both EUFI and Secure Boot. (3) EUFI and Secure Boot both inherently favor large dominant OS players over minority players. Conclusion: Microsoft is the main force driving the adoption via its dominant market share, and it is doing so to limit competition in the market.
Even when using secure boot, you don't need Microsoft to do anything. You can sign your own stuff if you want. If you want to distribute your signed code to others, then they must trust the key that you used to sign. So, you can either a) tell every user how to go about importing your key, b) work with hardware vendors to get them to include your key, or c) sign with a key the user already has. SOME (but not all) Linux vendors decided to make life easy on their customers by having Microsoft sign for them.
Trying to act as if UEFI Secure Boot is not a Microsoft driven initiative is being pedantic at best, for the simple reason that Microsoft requires it on all new Windows 8 computers. Since Microsoft is the dominant player, this declaration will cause most new computers to carry UEFI Secure Boot. It is becoming clear to me, especially after reading TFA, that UEFI Secure Boot inherently favors larger corporate players in the OS market over minority players, and thus implicitly favors Microsoft. Computer makers will have little financial incentive to make their computers work with smaller operating systems such as Linux because of its minority status. The structure of UEFI Secure Boot seems to me to require testing with the OS running the computer to ensure it runs smoothly. Samsung obviously did not test with Linux, and thus we have bricked computers. Computer makers are unlikely to test many different flavors of Linux thoroughly on their machines, and thus we are likely to see more computers that simply will not run Linux. And that is exactly what Microsoft wants.
Hmm, let's see who is behind UEFI, shall we? AMD, AMI, Apple, Dell, HP, IBM, Insyde, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Phoenix. Yup, Linux haters all. Obviously this is all Microsoft's fault.
OK, why do I have to go to Microsoft to get a signing key to run a particular Linux kernel?
Some reports in the Ubuntu bug tracker system report that such notebooks can not be recovered without replacing the main board.
Microsoft is not only guilty of attempted hardware monopoly, but also willfully contributing to the e-waste problem; given that it's a notebook, most folks won't even try to replace the board (and it should just be a replaceable chip, but NOT ALLOWED), but will just throw the whole thing away. Criminal waste due to criminal greed. The EU needs to get their butts in gear and stop this garbage cold.
Modded Troll??? This is true. Microsoft is back to its old monopolistic tricks. They are losing, partly due to their being convicted of monopolistic actions. Now that they see their monopoly slipping they are trying their best to sabotage competitors. They need to have their ass kicked before they leave a giant crater in the tech industry otherwise known as UEFI Secure Boot and Windows 8 Metro. I'm doing my part...I'm typing this from a System76 Ubuntu laptop.
This gives yet more evidence of the flawed nature of the MBA ideology of management methods being independent from the technical processes of what is actually being managed. There is no substitute for hard won knowledge slogging through the real details of industrial processes. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: the cult-like ideology of MBA managers is driving America into the ground.
Windows 95 doesn't stack up by todays standards but OS/2 and MacOS didn't even stack up by the standard of 1995
NeXT existed in 1987, eight years before windows 95. And to be clear, NeXT was only a reflection of what already existed in the sphere of unix...I am not worshiping at the church of Jobs. However, most of the important parts of NeXT went on to become OSX sans certain lovely features like display Post Script. In other words, an operating system of today's standards already existed eight years before the buggy turd that was windows 95. I really don't think you can argue against that juxtaposition, but I'm sure you'll try.
It's just ridiculous that any Microsoft or Apple story never gets to a debate on technical merit because tards with an agenda always interject their religious views as though if we look at the business practices of one of the companies from 3 decades ago...
And yet your angry post lacks technical details and smacks of "religious zealotry", though to be honest I would call it "enthusiasm" in the perjorative Enlightenment sense. I've got one specific example of an OS, and I even mentioned it in my post: NeXT. It was unix based and thus by nature network hardened. It's BSD Unix heritage gave it strong hardware abstraction, such that it was comparatively easy to port it between different architectures. Compare that with win95, whose network security model was based on the assumption that the extent of a computer network wouldn't go beyond the walls of your house.
If you can't see the difference between windows, that was built on a shaky buggy foundation, and unix, that grew up running mainframe computers with hundreds of naughty brilliant computer science students concurrently accessing it, then you aren't even worth talking to.
I read something similar a few years ago, but the connection was made between absolute humidity and the survival of influenza. On reading this article, it seems unclear to me what type of humidity is being referred to...absolute or relative. Leave it to the Wall Street Journal to write a crappy scientific article. I suppose relative humidity is usually measured in percentages, but still.
What I found most compelling about the idea of absolute humidity being the important factor was that it explains why influenza is less common in Phoenix, for example. Hot desert areas usually have low relative humidity, but the absolute humidity in grams H2O per cubic metre is usually quite high.
Pick your poison. They've all been abusive in their own special way, at once point or another.
I just bought a made for linux laptop. On principle. I have been a mac user, since it is based on unix. But I am moving away now. The iPad walled garden creeps me out.
Oh, and about Microsoft. In 1987, NeXT introduced a unix workstation that in many ways wouldn't be terribly out of place today. It was based on BSD unix, and had some features that no operating system has even today, display Post Script for one. I only bring up NeXT as an example of the technology that was available in the mid 1980's (and I admit that the ideas in that OS came from others outside the company). Microsoft used their monopoly to foist a series of abominations disguised as operating systems through the 1990's. Remember Windows 95? I do. User: "My computer is crashing randomly." Tech Support: "Did you try rebooting it?" User: "Yes". Tech Support: "Well, there's the problem. Reboot the computer two more times while praying to the god of your choice". User: "Thanks, that worked."
This is not a debatable point. It is a statement of fact. The principles allowing the design of a strong and secure operating system have been in existance at least since the 1980's, and were in fact implemented in several different operating systems (usually unix based). But Microsoft ignored most of those principles, choosing to push out horrible technology with the intention of slowly polishing the turd over many different operating system versions. Microsoft's monopolistic actions have held back the computing industry by at least a decade. And this makes me angry. I will do what I can to put a knife into their pernicious monopoly.
I don't see any of these things happening at Microsoft, with this project, at this time. Sure, it may have happened in the past, but it's hardly a microsoft thing to do - all the big kids do it.
It is more a matter of history. Considering what they have done in the past, I am NOT ready to trust them. They are a pernicious monopoly that is now beginning to realize that they are threatened. They are starting to act like a cornered animal, trying to pull out many of their old monopolistic tricks out of their war chest.
The DoD already has access through contract to that software. The problem isn't access / purchase of the software, the limitation is the security paperwork needed to USE any of that software! ( https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=22645 ) The security paperwork that is required can be long, very long, sometimes HUNDREDS of pages long, and take *YEARS* to get reviewed and approved! The DoD just keeps ADDING bureaucratic layers to this process every year as well!
Why does this make it seem that the US military is becoming more and more like the Vogon armed forces.
He claims he was concerned about Manning's mental health??? Manning has ended up locked in solitary confinement for YEARS on end. That is cruel and unusual punishment, a stone's throw away from medieval dungeons with assorted torture devices.
I’d rather take the risk of being wrong than not be talking about that.'"
OK, you're wrong. One aspect of the raw, awfulness that is anonymous internet commentary is far more important than polite reasoned discourse. It represents the true feelings of the participants, unhindered by social inhibitions and cultural conditioning. It is digital drunkenness, and like drunkenness, often reveals ugly facts about human nature, which remain facts, nonetheless.
Perhaps you prefer the sweet simpering smiles of courtesy. I do not. I would rather know who and what people really are. Reality rules. Fantasy is for fools.
I think the poster neglects something very important here, that the nature of our discussions and interactions changes us. If our default level of discussion is the internet equivalent of a bar room brawl, it will tend to bring out, to accentuate, to amplify those irrational and cruel tendencies. If this becomes too widespread, it will not end well for society.
The poster refers to the "ugly facts" about human nature. If I want to discover these "ugly facts", a quick survey of Roman history will suffice. Roman legions entering a town and indiscriminately kill 300 000 men, women and children. The mad emperors Caligula, Nero and Commodus committed atrocities that would make most readers want to throw up upon reading about them. Never mind the barbarism of slavery. We humans are quite messed up. We have the potential to be good, but we also have the potential to be monsters. Does that mean that we should tolerate, nay, encourage those traits?
A while ago I saw a movie called The Cave of Forgotten Dreams. It is an exploration of 40000 year old cave paintings found in Europe. It is shot in proper 3D, and is mainly concerned with actually exploring the caves. It gave a sense of being inside the caves that I believe would otherwise be impossible. Since these caves are generally kept sealed off from visitors, this movie allowed me to visit a place that would otherwise be inaccessible. Apart from Avatar and The Cave of Forgotten Dreams, I have not seen a 3D movie that adequately makes proper use of 3D technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Will someone with a better understanding of genetics please explain how a genetic test is even possible?
My understanding is that identical twins -- arising from the same zygote -- are genetically identical. Not just "pretty much identical" as the article states.
What possible "genetic test" is being proposed that could differentiate between the brothers? Is the town being scammed?
I am not really an expert in the field, but I have heard of a field called epigenetics. According to epigenetics, our environment has an impact on how our genes are expressed. Furthermore, epigenetic adaptations can be passed on to children and even grand-children. This field blurs the line between "nature" and "nurture", allowing our actions to impact the epigenetics of our grandchildren or even great grandchildren.
I am not sure if there is yet an epigenetic test to reliably differentiate between identical twins, but I suspect it would be possible.
I was a Windows user who switched to a Mac. Recently I switched from Mac to Linux, and I am not looking back. As for office software, Libre-office does what I need. Microsoft will not get any of my money again.
I'm typing this from a recently purchased System76 Gazelle laptop, and the experience has been good so far. I am coming from running a Macbook Pro, which I had for several years. The mac was a nice machine, but have been getting creeped out by Apple's apparent slow drift towards the "post pc world". My iPad feels like a jail (perhaps more a luxury jail, but a jail nontheless) since I can only run what Apple allows, and I don't think I should have to jailbreak my own computer to gain proper control over it. Microsoft is far far worse, and I will never again buy an MS product. Their recent moves, specifically requiring UEFI secure boot on all computers sold with Windows 8, and requiring that it be turned on on all tablets with Windows sounds to me like a deliberate attempt to reduce my ability to choose computers and to run the operating system of my choice. If a computer maker needs to write their own implementation of UEFI, then they must test it with the OS that they will be running. If they don't test it adequately for Linux, then we will end up with situations like the recent Linux installations bricking Samsung laptops. It seems likely that computer makers won't adequately test their UEFI systems for minority operating systems. This therefore will reduce the inventory of laptops that will run Linux. .Microsoft's recent investment in Dell seems likely aimed to prevent Dell from selling tablet computers that can run Linux. Dell already sells Linux computers, and they seem to be a good candidate to make a non-android Linux tablet.
My choice to run a Linux laptop is partly political and partly a decision that I believe is in my own personal interest. I miss some things about my mac. The touchpad on my Macbook Pro was outstanding, and I really miss the way the Preview software on OSX deals with pdf files, specifically making a box selection on an existing pdf file and creating a new vector-based pdf from the boxed selection. I am not even sure this is possible on Linux, and it is at least difficult to do in Windows (perhaps using Illustrator?). However I have found I can do almost all the things I need to do in Linux, even if sometimes I have to search. The processor is an i7 so it is very fast. There is no real lag apparent in desktop graphics, even Unity. Overall I am happy I made the choice to move to Linux, and I hope more people will follow me.
With Windows XP, not having access to the internet might be the most secure option. The only way I usually run XP is on a virtual machine with the networking turned off, so Windows doesn't even know the internet exists (just like early Windows 95).
For a combat pilot, combat tactics and avionics training are just as important as actual aircraft handling, and those things can be taught in the simulator pretty well.
Yeah, but you can't simulate a 6 g turn, nor can you simulate a pilot coming "out of the sun".
I think the real problem with missile defense is that the enemy could split the missile into numerous parts, only a few of which would contain actual nuclear warheads. I think this would be a viable strategy as decoys are likely to be far less expensive than nuclear bombs. Thus, in order to preserve existing nuclear warheads, the enemy could flood the sky with relatively cheap decoys, overwelming the defense network.
The article is FUD. The implicit message is that because it is asserted that we will not meet all our energy needs using renewable energy, we should not even try to explore renewable energy. Clearly we are already satisfying some of our energy needs using renewable energy. The issue is not whether we can supply all of our energy needs, but merely that we can satisfy more of our energy needs using renewable energy. Given the fact that the last time I flew over the Nevada desert I didn't see any solar panels, I think it is self-evident that America can satisfy more of its energy needs using solar energy.
UEFI (and Secure Boot) are nothing but specifications. Blaming the specification (or even odder, it's author) for someone's failure in implementing the spec is ridiculous. To you blame Tim Berners-Lee every time a web server gets hacked?
I blame Microsoft because they are using their dominant market position to ensure that the majority of computers sold will not easily run Linux by ensuring that all Windows 8 computers are sold with UEFI Secure Boot. The standard that they are pushing is inherently hostile to minority operating systems. TFA makes it clear to me that computer makers will actually have to do work to make sure their computers work with other operating systems such as Linux. Samsung apparently didn't do that work, and thus we have computers that have been bricked.
Tim Berners Lee just came up with a good idea. He didn't use his dominant market position to impose the standard, which was by the way open, unlike the UEFI system, which is inherently closed.
UEFI has nothing to do with Microsoft, even Secure Boot isn't a Microsoft thing and this story doesn't have anything to do with Secure Boot anyway...nice attempt to drag this topic into another M$ Windoze bash-fest though.
Simple argument: (1) Microsoft is the dominant player in the computer market. (2) Microsoft is dictating that all new Windows 8 computers have both EUFI and Secure Boot. (3) EUFI and Secure Boot both inherently favor large dominant OS players over minority players. Conclusion: Microsoft is the main force driving the adoption via its dominant market share, and it is doing so to limit competition in the market.
Even when using secure boot, you don't need Microsoft to do anything. You can sign your own stuff if you want. If you want to distribute your signed code to others, then they must trust the key that you used to sign. So, you can either a) tell every user how to go about importing your key, b) work with hardware vendors to get them to include your key, or c) sign with a key the user already has. SOME (but not all) Linux vendors decided to make life easy on their customers by having Microsoft sign for them.
Trying to act as if UEFI Secure Boot is not a Microsoft driven initiative is being pedantic at best, for the simple reason that Microsoft requires it on all new Windows 8 computers. Since Microsoft is the dominant player, this declaration will cause most new computers to carry UEFI Secure Boot. It is becoming clear to me, especially after reading TFA, that UEFI Secure Boot inherently favors larger corporate players in the OS market over minority players, and thus implicitly favors Microsoft. Computer makers will have little financial incentive to make their computers work with smaller operating systems such as Linux because of its minority status. The structure of UEFI Secure Boot seems to me to require testing with the OS running the computer to ensure it runs smoothly. Samsung obviously did not test with Linux, and thus we have bricked computers. Computer makers are unlikely to test many different flavors of Linux thoroughly on their machines, and thus we are likely to see more computers that simply will not run Linux. And that is exactly what Microsoft wants.
Not an expert, but my impression is that UEFI is (yet another) bad idea poorly implemented from Intel and a committee of camels.
So you are saying that Microsoft is not the prime mover behind UEFI Secure Boot? I don't think so.
Hmm, let's see who is behind UEFI, shall we? AMD, AMI, Apple, Dell, HP, IBM, Insyde, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Phoenix. Yup, Linux haters all. Obviously this is all Microsoft's fault.
OK, why do I have to go to Microsoft to get a signing key to run a particular Linux kernel?
Microsoft is not only guilty of attempted hardware monopoly, but also willfully contributing to the e-waste problem; given that it's a notebook, most folks won't even try to replace the board (and it should just be a replaceable chip, but NOT ALLOWED), but will just throw the whole thing away. Criminal waste due to criminal greed. The EU needs to get their butts in gear and stop this garbage cold.
Modded Troll??? This is true. Microsoft is back to its old monopolistic tricks. They are losing, partly due to their being convicted of monopolistic actions. Now that they see their monopoly slipping they are trying their best to sabotage competitors. They need to have their ass kicked before they leave a giant crater in the tech industry otherwise known as UEFI Secure Boot and Windows 8 Metro. I'm doing my part...I'm typing this from a System76 Ubuntu laptop.
Trying their best to sabotage free software.
I think you are referring to Microsoft. UEFI Secure Boot is their baby.
This gives yet more evidence of the flawed nature of the MBA ideology of management methods being independent from the technical processes of what is actually being managed. There is no substitute for hard won knowledge slogging through the real details of industrial processes. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: the cult-like ideology of MBA managers is driving America into the ground.
Windows 95 doesn't stack up by todays standards but OS/2 and MacOS didn't even stack up by the standard of 1995
NeXT existed in 1987, eight years before windows 95. And to be clear, NeXT was only a reflection of what already existed in the sphere of unix...I am not worshiping at the church of Jobs. However, most of the important parts of NeXT went on to become OSX sans certain lovely features like display Post Script. In other words, an operating system of today's standards already existed eight years before the buggy turd that was windows 95. I really don't think you can argue against that juxtaposition, but I'm sure you'll try.
It's just ridiculous that any Microsoft or Apple story never gets to a debate on technical merit because tards with an agenda always interject their religious views as though if we look at the business practices of one of the companies from 3 decades ago...
And yet your angry post lacks technical details and smacks of "religious zealotry", though to be honest I would call it "enthusiasm" in the perjorative Enlightenment sense. I've got one specific example of an OS, and I even mentioned it in my post: NeXT. It was unix based and thus by nature network hardened. It's BSD Unix heritage gave it strong hardware abstraction, such that it was comparatively easy to port it between different architectures. Compare that with win95, whose network security model was based on the assumption that the extent of a computer network wouldn't go beyond the walls of your house.
If you can't see the difference between windows, that was built on a shaky buggy foundation, and unix, that grew up running mainframe computers with hundreds of naughty brilliant computer science students concurrently accessing it, then you aren't even worth talking to.
I read something similar a few years ago, but the connection was made between absolute humidity and the survival of influenza. On reading this article, it seems unclear to me what type of humidity is being referred to...absolute or relative. Leave it to the Wall Street Journal to write a crappy scientific article. I suppose relative humidity is usually measured in percentages, but still.
What I found most compelling about the idea of absolute humidity being the important factor was that it explains why influenza is less common in Phoenix, for example. Hot desert areas usually have low relative humidity, but the absolute humidity in grams H2O per cubic metre is usually quite high.
Pfft. Who you gonna trust instead? Sony? Apple?
Pick your poison. They've all been abusive in their own special way, at once point or another.
I just bought a made for linux laptop. On principle. I have been a mac user, since it is based on unix. But I am moving away now. The iPad walled garden creeps me out.
Oh, and about Microsoft. In 1987, NeXT introduced a unix workstation that in many ways wouldn't be terribly out of place today. It was based on BSD unix, and had some features that no operating system has even today, display Post Script for one. I only bring up NeXT as an example of the technology that was available in the mid 1980's (and I admit that the ideas in that OS came from others outside the company). Microsoft used their monopoly to foist a series of abominations disguised as operating systems through the 1990's. Remember Windows 95? I do. User: "My computer is crashing randomly." Tech Support: "Did you try rebooting it?" User: "Yes". Tech Support: "Well, there's the problem. Reboot the computer two more times while praying to the god of your choice". User: "Thanks, that worked."
This is not a debatable point. It is a statement of fact. The principles allowing the design of a strong and secure operating system have been in existance at least since the 1980's, and were in fact implemented in several different operating systems (usually unix based). But Microsoft ignored most of those principles, choosing to push out horrible technology with the intention of slowly polishing the turd over many different operating system versions. Microsoft's monopolistic actions have held back the computing industry by at least a decade. And this makes me angry. I will do what I can to put a knife into their pernicious monopoly.
I don't see any of these things happening at Microsoft, with this project, at this time. Sure, it may have happened in the past, but it's hardly a microsoft thing to do - all the big kids do it.
It is more a matter of history. Considering what they have done in the past, I am NOT ready to trust them. They are a pernicious monopoly that is now beginning to realize that they are threatened. They are starting to act like a cornered animal, trying to pull out many of their old monopolistic tricks out of their war chest.
Microsoft Going Its Own Way On Audio/Video Specification
And I too am going my own way. I almost never use Microsoft products, and intend to keep it that way. Bye bye, Microsoft.
The DoD already has access through contract to that software. The problem isn't access / purchase of the software, the limitation is the security paperwork needed to USE any of that software! ( https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=22645 ) The security paperwork that is required can be long, very long, sometimes HUNDREDS of pages long, and take *YEARS* to get reviewed and approved! The DoD just keeps ADDING bureaucratic layers to this process every year as well!
Why does this make it seem that the US military is becoming more and more like the Vogon armed forces.
He claims he was concerned about Manning's mental health??? Manning has ended up locked in solitary confinement for YEARS on end. That is cruel and unusual punishment, a stone's throw away from medieval dungeons with assorted torture devices.
I’d rather take the risk of being wrong than not be talking about that.'"
OK, you're wrong. One aspect of the raw, awfulness that is anonymous internet commentary is far more important than polite reasoned discourse. It represents the true feelings of the participants, unhindered by social inhibitions and cultural conditioning. It is digital drunkenness, and like drunkenness, often reveals ugly facts about human nature, which remain facts, nonetheless.
Perhaps you prefer the sweet simpering smiles of courtesy. I do not. I would rather know who and what people really are. Reality rules. Fantasy is for fools.
I think the poster neglects something very important here, that the nature of our discussions and interactions changes us. If our default level of discussion is the internet equivalent of a bar room brawl, it will tend to bring out, to accentuate, to amplify those irrational and cruel tendencies. If this becomes too widespread, it will not end well for society.
The poster refers to the "ugly facts" about human nature. If I want to discover these "ugly facts", a quick survey of Roman history will suffice. Roman legions entering a town and indiscriminately kill 300 000 men, women and children. The mad emperors Caligula, Nero and Commodus committed atrocities that would make most readers want to throw up upon reading about them. Never mind the barbarism of slavery. We humans are quite messed up. We have the potential to be good, but we also have the potential to be monsters. Does that mean that we should tolerate, nay, encourage those traits?
A while ago I saw a movie called The Cave of Forgotten Dreams. It is an exploration of 40000 year old cave paintings found in Europe. It is shot in proper 3D, and is mainly concerned with actually exploring the caves. It gave a sense of being inside the caves that I believe would otherwise be impossible. Since these caves are generally kept sealed off from visitors, this movie allowed me to visit a place that would otherwise be inaccessible. Apart from Avatar and The Cave of Forgotten Dreams, I have not seen a 3D movie that adequately makes proper use of 3D technology.