If you read TFA, you will find his claims are contradictory.
First it states the premise:-
To displace incumbents, OTT TV has to continue to change TV business models in ways that appeal to consumers and attract content owners.
So far so good. Then it states the facts relied on to suggest OTT TV doesnt appeal enough to customers:-
In its June 2013 Cross Platform Report, Nielsen reported that the average consumer watched over 157 hours of traditional television per month. Nielsen also reported that the average consumer watched only 3.8 minutes per day of OTT TV or about 2 hours per month. If all 11 original TV series from Amazon and Netflix appealed to the average consumer and he or she watched one hour from each series per week, original OTT television content would amount to 44 hours in an average month. The consumer would be left with 111 hours per month of unsatisfied television viewing appetite without cable or satellite pay TV. OTT TV challengers don’t have the economic scale to create or acquire enough content to replace incumbent pay television providers.
Note the assumptions- It assumes that "average consumers" must watch 157 hours of traditional television every month to be satisfied. The article very carefully never explains why it thinks this is a valid assumption. Do we even have any numbers to show that those who watch 157 hours of traditional television every month are happier with their service than those who watch less?
The irony is that right at the beginning of the article, it admits that
"In May, Variety reported that the American Consumer Satisfaction Index ranked cable television providers last in all consumer categories."
So we do know that customers of cable companies are very unhappy with their cable service. This directly contradicts his assumption that"average consumers" must watch 157 hours of traditional television every month to be satisfied, since on average they are obviously unhappy even after watching that much.
This is a badly written article trolling for hits.
And this is precisely what cable companies are banking on to hold their customers hostage. It all boils down to personal choice. Money vs. Addiction.
Using your example:-
Must you watch only the Rachel Maddow Show, or are you willing to accept a substitute, perhaps with a similar format ?
Must you watch it live, or are you willing to put up with the inconvenience of delayed telecasts and/or clicking?
Must you watch those specific ice hockey games?
The cable companies have ensured (through exclusivity agreements etc) that if you answer yes to any of the above, you will have to pay a premium to them to scratch your itch. That is their business model. And if you choose to pay them, that is fine. What I am pointing out is that consumers do have choices. Given the way the fees/premium have been rising over the years, it appears that more and more people are answering "no".
Because as much as they voice their displeasure, turning back isn't really an option for businesses using the cloud.
Maybe in the US, but worldwide is a different matter. Governments could easily force the issue by forbidding the use of US cloud companies, especially for their companies that deal with issues of defence and national security.
Not arguing, per se... But I assume you then feel the same way about the Boy Scouts allowing openly homosexual scouts and leaders?
Obvious flamebait post. The Boy Scout issue carries overtones of social stigma/acceptance and deals with human beings. OTOH not being able to race your horse will cause loss of opportunity to make money. Hardly the same.
One issue is that AQHA runs large commercial races that are open only to its members. They're excercising market control by excluding certain animals based on arbitrary criteria...
And I don't really see what's wrong with that. It's their race, shouldn't they be allowed to set the rules?
To cite another example, it is well known that cars that race in F1 championships have to comply with technical regulations such as their size and dimensions etc. Can an upstart car company demand to be allowed to race with a car that doesn't meet those rules?
Kids are always curious about things their parents forbid. Adults are always curious about things their government forbid.
The Streisand effect on BitCoin is going to be huge.
Easily.
Bitcoin's weakness has always been the desire of its holders to, at some point, convert Bitcoin to fiat currency such as USD and so long as this remains true, governments will always have some measure of control.
Insofar as the Streisand effect is concerned, this will draw more people's attention to Bitcoin yes, but it does not mean the actual usage of Bitcoin will increase. In the same way, people may consume newspaper reports on serial killers en masse, but this will not lead to an increase of serial killings in the future.
Two Texas breeders, rancher Jason Abraham and veterinarian Gregg Veneklasen, sued the American Quarter Horse Association last year, asserting the group was operating a monopoly by excluding clones. No other horse breeding registry allows cloned animals.
The quarter horse association issues and maintains a pedigree registry of American quarter horses... stated in court that it is a private organization and has the right to decide its membership rules.
When individuals with shared interests, goals and values come together to form a voluntary association to serve a common purpose, the members have a right to determine the rules for their association. The wisdom of our membership – which is largely not in favor of the registration of clones and their offspring – has not been upheld by this verdict.
Seriously, now. If you don't like the rules of a voluntary association, work from within to change the rules. Or talk to them, negotiate to get them to accept you. Or leave, and form your own association with the rules you like. Going to court to force others to put up with you is so wrong.
And yes, I dont't see where is the monopoly. The plaintiffs can still whatever they want with their cloned horses, breed them, sell them, race them etc. They just can't be registered with the AQHA.
Your argument is that the NYC stops were unlawful, and you provided the background/context. In that case, I agree with you! You seem to have misunderstood the point I was making, however.
I was responding to parent post, who said:-
When 87% of the people stopped and frisked are young Black or Hispanic males would suggest that these two groups were singled out and that may be illegal.
Unlike you, the parent post provided no links, no references, no attributions, no context. He was simply quoting the raw numbers, and relying on the raw numbers to draw assumptions. That was my 'beef', if you will. To repeat, my response to the parent post was that "What I'm saying is that looking at pure percentages is deceptive if we don't take into account the context in which that figure was calculated or arrived at."
If you feel so strongly about it, I think it is even more important for you to stay and make yourself heard. Fight their impassioned hyperbole with calm logic. Confront their FUD with links, facts and figures. Skewer their fallacies with reasoned arguments.
I have no illusions that you will ever win over these trolls to your point of view. However, there is a chance that the silent majority who read but do not post might be swayed enough not to fall for their false teachings.
Think of it as discrimination against minorities. For example, think of it as discrimination against non-criminals in a certain race group......It is well known that cops are generally too stupid to carry this out fairly and will just fall back on their own racist ideas, invalidating the whole approach.
While I agree with you that we should not assume that all members of a minority race are criminals, on your part it is unfair to assume that "cops are generally too stupid to carry this out fairly and will just fall back on their own racist ideas".
You should apply the Golden Rule -treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
racism the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
racism a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
Racism is fundamentally a belief. As in you believe that (insert race of choice) is fundamentally superior to (lesser race). It is therefore racism to suggest that members of a particular race are more likely to be criminals purely on the basis of their race.
And I think the Judge was right. If you read the Judgment, your argument is the same one the NYC police made.
Right at the start, the Judge said that even if racial profiling is effective at combating crime, being unconstitutional it cannot be used:-
I emphasize at the outset, as I have throughout the litigation, that this case is not about the effectiveness of stop and frisk in deterring or combating crime. This Court’s mandate is solely to judge the constitutionality of police behavior, not its effectiveness as a law enforcement tool. Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example — but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective.
The Judge also found as a fact that the stops were not effective. The uncontested facts are:-
Between January 2004 and June 2012, the NYPD conducted over 4.4 million Terry stops.
In 98.5% of the 2.3 million stops where frisks for weapons were conducted, no weapon was found.
88% of the 4.4 million stops resulted in no further law enforcement action.
In 52% of the 4.4 million stops, the person stopped was black, in 31% the person was Hispanic, and in 10% the person was white. In 2010, New York City’s resident population was roughly 23% black, 29% Hispanic, and 33% white.
Weapons were seized in 1.0% of the stops of blacks, 1.1% of the stops of Hispanics, and 1.4% of the stops of whites.
Contraband other than weapons was seized in 1.8% of the stops of blacks, 1.7% of the stops of Hispanics, and 2.3% of the stops of whites.
The key point to note is that although whites were stopped with much less frequency than blacks or Hispanics, the percentage of them found to be carrying weapons or contraband were higher compared to blacks or Hispanics. So you can't even make the argument that black or Hispanics ought to be stopped more than whites because they were more likely to carry weapons or contraband, because this is untrue.
The Judge also disagreed that it was fair to look at crime rates:-
The City and its highest officials believe that blacks and Hispanics should be stopped at the same rate as their proportion of the local criminal suspect population. But this reasoning is flawed because the stopped population is overwhelmingly innocent — not criminal. There is no basis for assuming that an innocent population shares the same characteristics as the criminal suspect population in the same area.
To put it in simple terms, if you happen to be black or Hispanic and have been clean all your life, you wouldn't like it if you were stopped simply because you are black or Hispanic.
My gut reaction was originally the same as you, but having read the judgment in more detail I cannot say that the decision was wrong or unjust. I hope Bloomberg will at least read the same judgment.
Laws have to be applied equally to every group. When 87% of the people stopped and frisked are young Black or Hispanic males would suggest that these two groups were singled out and that may be illegal.
Relying on raw numbers like that to draw assumptions is dangerous and may mistake the cause for the effect. You can get the same numbers from completely innnocent events- one example I can think of is if there was a crime wave in a particular area which the police are focusing on quelling. The police may, acting in good faith treat everyone in that area the same regardless of race but that area just so happens to be predominantly populated by Blacks and Hispanics. In those circumstances it would not be surprising if a larger number of the arrestees slant towards Blacks and Hispanics.
What I'm saying is that looking at pure percentages is deceptive if we don't take into account the context in which that figure was calculated or arrived at.
The publicity is always about his sexual habits. Not about how good a leader/person he is, his achievements or qualifications, his contributions to society etc. None of that matters. And it gives his opponents a free shot at him that he can't dodge.
The fact that he resigned in 2011 and kept a low profile for a year I'm sure was because he hoped the publicity would die down and be forgotten. All in all, I'm pretty sure he'd rather not have to deal with this '"good" publicity.
Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.
Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database.
The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.
Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.
In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.
So, MS gets lucrative government contracts. What does that say?
Sure, self-hosting may work for now, until the government ups the ante by coming up with a new technical means of attack. At best, this will result in a technological arms race much like the one between malware makers and antivir companies. New exploits are being discovered and (ab)used as we speak.
The only real solution is a political one. The root of the problem is that the current government, in fact all three branches of the executive, legislature and judiciary seem to be of the opinion that their flagrant abuse of the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution as exemplified by the NSA surveillance programs is justified by the exigencies of the war against terrorism. Because all three are shaking hands, there is in effect no check or balance to the system.
There was a time when government employees, including the political class were known as "public servants", since their purpose was to serve members of the public. In present times, when the public is kept in the dark and lied to and bound by secret laws and ruled over by secret courts, tell me, who is the master and who is the servant?
These service providers should be replying to the Government with "Hello no, bitches. Read the damn Constitution of the United States of America."
Your sentiment is admirable, but lets not be naive. Former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio fought back against the government, just as you said. He is now jailed for six years.
Former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio is currently serving a six-year sentence after being convicted of insider trading in April 2007 for selling $52 million of stock in the spring of 2001 as the telecommunications carrier appeared to be deteriorating.
During the trial his defense team argued that Nacchio, 63, believed Qwest was about to win secret government contracts that would keep it in the black.
Nacchio alleged that the government stopped offering the company lucrative contracts after Qwest refused to cooperate with a National Security Agency surveillance program in February 2001.
Before someone makes the asinine argument that he was convicted of "insider trading", take note that he would be in the clear today if he had played ball, and the government awarded Qwest the contracts.
My point is, resistance has a heavy price. I don't think we should be so eager to demand that others become martyrs when it is clear we are willing to do so little to protect them. As evidence, I point to how little is being done for Snowden today.
Novell had accused the company of crippling WordPerfect, by deliberately removing Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) which it used from windows 95, even though they were present in the beta version of the operating system.
To kill off Netscape, they not only bundled IE with every copy of Windows but also allegedly altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) in the OS to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers. This led directly to the anti-trust lawsuit by the government against MS.
Now that the fight is over mobile and tablet space, MS is still sticking to its game plan by trying to leverage its old dominance into these new markets. Hence you only get the full product (in this case, Office) if you use Winph8 for mobile or Surface Pro for tablets. Their hand is weaker though since they do not control the underlying OS (iOS and Android) so they are relying on attachment to Office to drive the numbers.
I shared the same belief as you, until I did some random digging... and wow.
Apparently the Zim government has LOTS of experience with cyber warfare.
By the time Russia ‘e-nvaded’ Georgia and paralyzed its security with cyber-weaponry in August-September 2008, Zimbabwe was in its fifth year of cyber-guerrilla warfare. Using interception gadgets, the Zanu (PF) government of Robert Mugabe jammed radio signal and web traffic that sympathized with the opposition. Online newspapers and internet radios had been using the internet to attack the Mugabe dictatorship for the past four years. Government and anti-Mugabe hackers had been trading long-range artillery fire for three decades.
That article, mind you, was written in 2008. Imagine how much more they would have picked up in the last 4 years.
Great, if in addition to carrying your laptop where ever you go, you also need to carry a laptop sized solar panel just incase your battery goes flat.
By that reasoning laptops in general a terrible design. Why not make the keyboard and screen separate? You could then use a KVM to control many computers with just one keyboard and monitor!
Keyboards and screens of laptops are by design combined together for ease of carriage. You only have to lug around one unit together, which comprises your cpu, your monitor and the keyboard. This is important for a mobile user who only has two hands.
Presumably this is also the reason why they decided to combine the solar panels with the laptop in TFA.
I hope you also see the inconsistency of wanting to separate the keyboard from the screen (inconveniently creating more objects to lug around) while complaining against using separate solar panels because you dont like having more objects to lug around.
I think we humans owe it to the rest of the animal kingdom we share the Earth with to breed the aggression out of ourselves first before we meddle with the lives of other thinking creatures.
You are so wrong and your own link proves it. Let me set out the parts you clipped off in the definition:-
murder noun the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
verb [with object]
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation
By your own source, murder can only be committed by human beings on other human beings. Since whales are not human beings, they cannot commit murder, and by extension they cannot have homicidal tendencies.
Number of attacks on humans by Orcas not in captivity: 1 documented.
Number of attacks on humans by Orcas in captivity: > 27 documented (3 fatal).
I would be more impressed by those figures but for these facts:-
1. Orcas not in captivity roam free in the ocean. They are not being tracked/documented. If they attack/kill a human in the ocean, who's gonna document them?
2. Free orcas have substantially less contact with humans. Less contact means less opportunity to harm humans.
3. Captive orcas are invariably held in aquariums, where most of them put on public performances and come into close contact with their trainers and the public. Of the 46 captive orcas today, 22 are held by SeaWorld . More contact means more opportunity to harm humans.
Those figures you quoted do not lead to any conclusions except that increased contact between two parties gives rise to increased chances for accidents/incidents to occur involving both parties. Which is true for pretty much everything.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read TFA, you will find his claims are contradictory.
First it states the premise:-
So far so good. Then it states the facts relied on to suggest OTT TV doesnt appeal enough to customers :-
Note the assumptions- It assumes that "average consumers" must watch 157 hours of traditional television every month to be satisfied. The article very carefully never explains why it thinks this is a valid assumption. Do we even have any numbers to show that those who watch 157 hours of traditional television every month are happier with their service than those who watch less?
The irony is that right at the beginning of the article, it admits that
So we do know that customers of cable companies are very unhappy with their cable service. This directly contradicts his assumption that"average consumers" must watch 157 hours of traditional television every month to be satisfied, since on average they are obviously unhappy even after watching that much.
This is a badly written article trolling for hits.
And this is precisely what cable companies are banking on to hold their customers hostage. It all boils down to personal choice. Money vs. Addiction.
Using your example :-
Must you watch only the Rachel Maddow Show, or are you willing to accept a substitute, perhaps with a similar format ?
Must you watch it live, or are you willing to put up with the inconvenience of delayed telecasts and/or clicking?
Must you watch those specific ice hockey games?
The cable companies have ensured (through exclusivity agreements etc) that if you answer yes to any of the above, you will have to pay a premium to them to scratch your itch. That is their business model. And if you choose to pay them, that is fine. What I am pointing out is that consumers do have choices. Given the way the fees/premium have been rising over the years, it appears that more and more people are answering "no".
Because as much as they voice their displeasure, turning back isn't really an option for businesses using the cloud.
Maybe in the US, but worldwide is a different matter. Governments could easily force the issue by forbidding the use of US cloud companies, especially for their companies that deal with issues of defence and national security.
Lest you think its farfetched, China already bans the use of Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and FourSquare in China. Local alternatives such as Sina, Tencent, qq etc. took their places fairly quickly. After PRISM, more governments may follow suit.
Not arguing, per se... But I assume you then feel the same way about the Boy Scouts allowing openly homosexual scouts and leaders?
Obvious flamebait post. The Boy Scout issue carries overtones of social stigma/acceptance and deals with human beings. OTOH not being able to race your horse will cause loss of opportunity to make money. Hardly the same.
One issue is that AQHA runs large commercial races that are open only to its members. They're excercising market control by excluding certain animals based on arbitrary criteria...
And I don't really see what's wrong with that. It's their race, shouldn't they be allowed to set the rules?
To cite another example, it is well known that cars that race in F1 championships have to comply with technical regulations such as their size and dimensions etc. Can an upstart car company demand to be allowed to race with a car that doesn't meet those rules?
A hilarious post, yet wholly appropriate. Props to you.
Kids are always curious about things their parents forbid. Adults are always curious about things their government forbid.
The Streisand effect on BitCoin is going to be huge.
Easily.
Bitcoin's weakness has always been the desire of its holders to, at some point, convert Bitcoin to fiat currency such as USD and so long as this remains true, governments will always have some measure of control.
Insofar as the Streisand effect is concerned, this will draw more people's attention to Bitcoin yes, but it does not mean the actual usage of Bitcoin will increase. In the same way, people may consume newspaper reports on serial killers en masse, but this will not lead to an increase of serial killings in the future.
Salient facts from TFA :-
What is more compelling is the statement from AQHA after the verdict :-
Seriously, now. If you don't like the rules of a voluntary association, work from within to change the rules. Or talk to them, negotiate to get them to accept you. Or leave, and form your own association with the rules you like. Going to court to force others to put up with you is so wrong.
And yes, I dont't see where is the monopoly. The plaintiffs can still whatever they want with their cloned horses, breed them, sell them, race them etc. They just can't be registered with the AQHA.
Your argument is that the NYC stops were unlawful, and you provided the background/context. In that case, I agree with you! You seem to have misunderstood the point I was making, however.
I was responding to parent post, who said :-
Unlike you, the parent post provided no links, no references, no attributions, no context. He was simply quoting the raw numbers, and relying on the raw numbers to draw assumptions. That was my 'beef', if you will. To repeat, my response to the parent post was that "What I'm saying is that looking at pure percentages is deceptive if we don't take into account the context in which that figure was calculated or arrived at. "
If you feel so strongly about it, I think it is even more important for you to stay and make yourself heard. Fight their impassioned hyperbole with calm logic. Confront their FUD with links, facts and figures. Skewer their fallacies with reasoned arguments.
I have no illusions that you will ever win over these trolls to your point of view. However, there is a chance that the silent majority who read but do not post might be swayed enough not to fall for their false teachings.
Think of it as discrimination against minorities. For example, think of it as discrimination against non-criminals in a certain race group... ...It is well known that cops are generally too stupid to carry this out fairly and will just fall back on their own racist ideas, invalidating the whole approach.
While I agree with you that we should not assume that all members of a minority race are criminals, on your part it is unfair to assume that "cops are generally too stupid to carry this out fairly and will just fall back on their own racist ideas".
You should apply the Golden Rule -treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
Lets not talk about how _you_ define racism and look at how it is defined in dictionaries.
Like in the Oxford Disctionary.
Or Dictionary.com
Racism is fundamentally a belief. As in you believe that (insert race of choice) is fundamentally superior to (lesser race). It is therefore racism to suggest that members of a particular race are more likely to be criminals purely on the basis of their race.
And I think the Judge was right. If you read the Judgment, your argument is the same one the NYC police made.
Right at the start, the Judge said that even if racial profiling is effective at combating crime, being unconstitutional it cannot be used :-
The Judge also found as a fact that the stops were not effective. The uncontested facts are :-
The key point to note is that although whites were stopped with much less frequency than blacks or Hispanics, the percentage of them found to be carrying weapons or contraband were higher compared to blacks or Hispanics. So you can't even make the argument that black or Hispanics ought to be stopped more than whites because they were more likely to carry weapons or contraband, because this is untrue.
The Judge also disagreed that it was fair to look at crime rates :-
To put it in simple terms, if you happen to be black or Hispanic and have been clean all your life, you wouldn't like it if you were stopped simply because you are black or Hispanic.
My gut reaction was originally the same as you, but having read the judgment in more detail I cannot say that the decision was wrong or unjust. I hope Bloomberg will at least read the same judgment.
Laws have to be applied equally to every group. When 87% of the people stopped and frisked are young Black or Hispanic males would suggest that these two groups were singled out and that may be illegal.
Relying on raw numbers like that to draw assumptions is dangerous and may mistake the cause for the effect. You can get the same numbers from completely innnocent events- one example I can think of is if there was a crime wave in a particular area which the police are focusing on quelling. The police may, acting in good faith treat everyone in that area the same regardless of race but that area just so happens to be predominantly populated by Blacks and Hispanics. In those circumstances it would not be surprising if a larger number of the arrestees slant towards Blacks and Hispanics.
What I'm saying is that looking at pure percentages is deceptive if we don't take into account the context in which that figure was calculated or arrived at.
Well, it got you talking about him, his name on the tip of your tongue and in the mouths of those nationwide
Yes, people are talking about him. Negatively. So?
The publicity from his first scandal caused him to resign form the Congress seat he had already won.
The publicity from his second scandal is doing a fine job of killing his bid to be the NYC mayor.
The publicity is always about his sexual habits. Not about how good a leader/person he is, his achievements or qualifications, his contributions to society etc. None of that matters. And it gives his opponents a free shot at him that he can't dodge.
The fact that he resigned in 2011 and kept a low profile for a year I'm sure was because he hoped the publicity would die down and be forgotten. All in all, I'm pretty sure he'd rather not have to deal with this '"good" publicity.
The first one links back to itself.
The third link (to the actual study) leads to server not found/broken page.
As QWest found out the hard way, if you don't cooperate with NSA, you don't get government contracts.
Here is the background to the story.
So, MS gets lucrative government contracts. What does that say?
Sure, self-hosting may work for now, until the government ups the ante by coming up with a new technical means of attack. At best, this will result in a technological arms race much like the one between malware makers and antivir companies. New exploits are being discovered and (ab)used as we speak.
The only real solution is a political one. The root of the problem is that the current government, in fact all three branches of the executive, legislature and judiciary seem to be of the opinion that their flagrant abuse of the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution as exemplified by the NSA surveillance programs is justified by the exigencies of the war against terrorism. Because all three are shaking hands, there is in effect no check or balance to the system.
There was a time when government employees, including the political class were known as "public servants", since their purpose was to serve members of the public. In present times, when the public is kept in the dark and lied to and bound by secret laws and ruled over by secret courts, tell me, who is the master and who is the servant?
These service providers should be replying to the Government with "Hello no, bitches. Read the damn Constitution of the United States of America."
Your sentiment is admirable, but lets not be naive. Former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio fought back against the government, just as you said. He is now jailed for six years.
Before someone makes the asinine argument that he was convicted of "insider trading", take note that he would be in the clear today if he had played ball, and the government awarded Qwest the contracts.
My point is, resistance has a heavy price. I don't think we should be so eager to demand that others become martyrs when it is clear we are willing to do so little to protect them. As evidence, I point to how little is being done for Snowden today.
And much of their old dominance was founded on their monopoly of the OS through windows, and they were not shy about (ab)using it.
For example, they allegedly tweaked Win95 to kill WordPerfect. Novell sued but lost the court case.
To kill off Netscape, they not only bundled IE with every copy of Windows but also allegedly altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) in the OS to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers. This led directly to the anti-trust lawsuit by the government against MS.
Now that the fight is over mobile and tablet space, MS is still sticking to its game plan by trying to leverage its old dominance into these new markets. Hence you only get the full product (in this case, Office) if you use Winph8 for mobile or Surface Pro for tablets. Their hand is weaker though since they do not control the underlying OS (iOS and Android) so they are relying on attachment to Office to drive the numbers.
I shared the same belief as you, until I did some random digging... and wow.
Apparently the Zim government has LOTS of experience with cyber warfare .
That article, mind you, was written in 2008. Imagine how much more they would have picked up in the last 4 years.
Great, if in addition to carrying your laptop where ever you go, you also need to carry a laptop sized solar panel just incase your battery goes flat.
By that reasoning laptops in general a terrible design. Why not make the keyboard and screen separate? You could then use a KVM to control many computers with just one keyboard and monitor!
Keyboards and screens of laptops are by design combined together for ease of carriage. You only have to lug around one unit together, which comprises your cpu, your monitor and the keyboard. This is important for a mobile user who only has two hands.
Presumably this is also the reason why they decided to combine the solar panels with the laptop in TFA.
I hope you also see the inconsistency of wanting to separate the keyboard from the screen (inconveniently creating more objects to lug around) while complaining against using separate solar panels because you dont like having more objects to lug around.
I think we humans owe it to the rest of the animal kingdom we share the Earth with to breed the aggression out of ourselves first before we meddle with the lives of other thinking creatures.
You are so wrong and your own link proves it. Let me set out the parts you clipped off in the definition:-
By your own source, murder can only be committed by human beings on other human beings. Since whales are not human beings, they cannot commit murder, and by extension they cannot have homicidal tendencies.
Number of attacks on humans by Orcas not in captivity: 1 documented.
Number of attacks on humans by Orcas in captivity: > 27 documented (3 fatal).
I would be more impressed by those figures but for these facts :-
1. Orcas not in captivity roam free in the ocean. They are not being tracked/documented. If they attack/kill a human in the ocean, who's gonna document them?
2. Free orcas have substantially less contact with humans. Less contact means less opportunity to harm humans.
3. Captive orcas are invariably held in aquariums, where most of them put on public performances and come into close contact with their trainers and the public. Of the 46 captive orcas today, 22 are held by SeaWorld . More contact means more opportunity to harm humans.
Those figures you quoted do not lead to any conclusions except that increased contact between two parties gives rise to increased chances for accidents/incidents to occur involving both parties. Which is true for pretty much everything.