You don't understand the issue. It's not whether you technically can manage it -- they have code running at user privileges on your machine, if they were malicious you're already pwned (as a user, not necessarily as an admin).
It's technically can they NOT send it and still have the feature work.
You start typing disgustingfetish.com, and they can't distinguish that you were typing a URL so they send "disgustingfetish" to Google as a search term. This is a privacy problem. They had to send it because they couldn't know a priori that you were not doing a search. If they had a separate box, they could know that this is not a search and thus not send the embarrassing info back to Google HQ.
It isn't that difficult to verify that no, they really aren't doing that. Check your network traffic, and if you're really paranoid also check and track what's written to disk to make sure it isn't just encrypted and sent later as part of some other unrelated data burst. I'm sure plenty of slashdotters have tried, if only to try to catch Microsoft in a legally-binding lie and take them to court.
The arrow of time is the significant difference. There's no other dimension that associates directionality with entropy, and this drives, for example, all chemical reactions to behave the way they do with respect to time. Chemical reactions are completely symmetric with respect to space, but asymmetric with respect to time. The same goes for nuclear reactions, etc.
thinking of it as being the same as the other dimensions makes for a much simpler model of the universe
Sometimes it is, and for that reason sometimes we speak of a space-time continuum and calculate things in 3+1 dimensions. Sometimes it's just wrong though. Often the simpler model is wrong in narrow cases but close enough to be useful in many cases. If it's better in every way, we throw out the complicated model.
...remember the earth also used to be the center of the universe back when we didn't know any better.
The Earth was thought to be the centre of the Universe, in part, because it made for a simpler model of the Universe. You can still work with that assumption and remain consistent in most respects (quick: how often is it important to know where the centre of the Universe lies?), so it's a lot like the space-time continuum. Depending on the geometry of the Universe, an argument could be made that the Earth -- like all points -- *is* the centre of the Universe. It's certainly the centre of the observable Universe, which is kind of tautological but the observable Universe is the only one we can really work with.
That's not actually the case. Canada is a subject state to the Canadian crown. It so happens that the British crown and the Canadian crown are the same person right now (and 14 other country's crowns as well), but Canada is no more constrained by British laws and treaties, like EU membership, than Britain is constrained by Canada's laws and treaties, which preclude EU membership, or the treaties of Tuvalu influence Australia and Jamaica.
When did Ballmer claim he was going to destroy Google? I find it doubtful that he would use the term "destroy" to refer to a competitor at all. Surely his lawyers have trained him a bit better than that.
The only thing I can figure is that's an exaggeration of an exaggeration of the 2005 chair-throwing story, which even taken at face value, was certainly not done to bump any share price.
Also, Bing has street view (they call it streetside), so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Colourblind people have better contrast perception that coloursighted people. Deaf people can operate better in noisy environments. Both contains large subsets of people who are, by and large, happy with how they are and don't need to change. Much as I doubt we're going to chop the arms and legs off of too many women and replace them with cybernetics, even when the neural interface technology is there (what? having less strength on average than a man is a disability because it affects their ability to do $JOB without $TOOL_FOR_JOB).
I might be more inclined to agree with you if there were literally no downside in any possible dimension.
Why should she have to give a non-subjective definition? She only used them in the context of a subjective description.
Maybe I should inform my coworker that takes an aspirin everyday that I don't enjoy his heavy drug use in my office space?
Am I getting "Wooshed" or something? Maybe my sarcasm detector is on the fritz, but that and several other sentences you gave are a textbook strawman.
Wait...do you think that was supposed to be a judgment of the guy on the video being drunk? Even though he's neither a girl nor androgynous? I think you're pulling her phrase out of one context and into another.
Your point seemed to be that bad things are a consequence of a government afraid of its people. His point is that others attribute bad things as a consequence of a people afraid of its government. Strictly speaking, they aren't contradictions, but there is something poetic about that.
Legal purposes are artificial and will eventually disappear. Paper isn't really better for archive purposes, either. I'm not sure what construction issues means in this context, so -- maybe? And the team meetings thing is a good example of what's holing things back today, but "a table display the size of a room which costs less than a roll of paper" would pretty much solve that, actually.
"And it is easy to run away without a limb at all?"
He's arguing that the practical utility of regeneration is low because it leaves you more likely to be eaten by a grue for a long period of time anyway, so if it came at the same time as one that made you a marginally faster runner (with all of your legs), then maybe running would win.
It doesn't have to be literally the same time, but with small populations in the early stages one of the few of the line of non-regenerators could mate with one of the few of the line of slightly-faster-runners, and then the faster running regenerators all die as they try to run away one leggedly.
There's a tonne of possibilities. They mostly hinge on a small isolated population, but then, that's also how speciation happens and it's obviously happened a tonne since the mammalian divergence.
Except is it really the case that kids, without a playstation, could still find nothing they'd rather do than study?
Maybe. But that would be news. Because I think even without a playstation homework is boring and playing with foam swords or whatever is fun. Maybe even kids with kid-like energy get tired of everything else so are only up for homework or playsation? I don't know.
Umm, I guess it depends on the timescales involved, but generally it is more tyrannical than "Forcing them to sit still for 8 hours a day, to the point where they must ask permission to use the bathroom". Unless the library has a bathroom in it. Which I suppose it might, if you mean a separate building rather than an attached section of a school or something. Is it common to send young kids to non-school libraries for schoolwork?
Also, do American schools actually last even close to 8 hours? At ages 6-9, my elementary school in Ontario went from 9:00-3:30 (actually slightly earlier than 3:30 or later than 9:00, but the exact times changed year to year), with an hour for lunch -- 20 minutes to eat inside and 40 minutes of middle recess -- and two 15 minute short recesses, one at 10:30 and one at 2:15. That's 6 hours 30 minutes at school, of which 5 non-consecutive hours were actually sitting and learning (except for gym almost every day, which is 40 minutes more out of it).
Company loyalty (at least in this sense) is a form of willful blindness. Why else would you choose a product that you believe is inferior (and you do believe it's inferior in at least some measure: otherwise you'd have picked it without company loyalty)?
It's one thing if the products are nearly indistinguishable to most people (eg. a Coca-cola employee choosing Coke over Pepsi). Fine, do the "loyal" thing. I bet that a lot of the people who build motorcycles drive cars most of the time, though.
Loyalty is something you give to people. Real people, not legal fictitious people.
No, it's like calling your kid an idiot if, when asked to research the year of the Battle of Hastings, he writes a letter to the publisher of his favourite history textbook demanding that they email to all customers an errata footnote on the year that the battle of hastings occurred. When there's another free (as in beer -- Microsoft employees can install Windows on their work machines for free, obviously, and this is where the analogy came from) history textbook sitting right beside that has it listed and indexed already. Because he doesn't like the other history textbook.
It's not Linux's fault, per se, but it is Linux's problem. The difference between "Linux doesn't have good ACPI support" and "ACPI hardware doesn't have good Linux support" is pedantic and ultimately irrelevant to anybody not in a position to fix it themselves.
I agree with most of that, and I agree it's more odd when the Windows phone teams have iPhones, but to address this:
if they aren't sure in it, or don't think it's good enough, then why are they even working in that team?
For the money?
Aside from that obvious answer, just because you believe in improving something, doesn't mean you think it's currently the best. In fact, rather the opposite. Who would work on something that's already perfect? I'm not saying the iPhone is perfect, far from it; but philosophically I can see no reason that just because you want something to be better in the future then you should be using it exclusively.
I'd expect the windows phone team to use windows phones so they can know what's painful so they are personally motivated to fix it. Also, to develop and test against, of course. I'd also think there is a particularly good reason for them to have a non-windows phone, so they can see what others did well, and either copy it, or build on it; and also what others did poorly, and avoid those mistakes.
I've never seen a fenced playground. I grew up in rural Ontario. I've since moved, but I haven't gone out of my way to examine any schools since, so maybe it's common in more urban areas.
Okay guys, here's where you two are talking past each other:
Vista and 7 don't execute Autorun.exe by default.
So yes, the default option on the modeless dialog prompt is essentially autorun, and in one parsing of the sentence, you can validly say that yes, the default is to execute autorun. So clone53421 has a bit of a point.
However I'm pretty much certain that what that sentence actually means is that the Vista and 7 do not just execute autorun without you touching it. The default referred to here is to throw up the dialog instead of to run autorun. That dialog has a default of autorun. In that sense, gparent is right.
The problem is that we have two levels of the word default.
I feel I must put on my special pedantry pants and point out that Microsoft has refrigerators of both Coke and Pepsi products, both free (not gated by vending machines).
Slashdot Mirror
You don't understand the issue. It's not whether you technically can manage it -- they have code running at user privileges on your machine, if they were malicious you're already pwned (as a user, not necessarily as an admin).
It's technically can they NOT send it and still have the feature work.
You start typing disgustingfetish.com, and they can't distinguish that you were typing a URL so they send "disgustingfetish" to Google as a search term. This is a privacy problem. They had to send it because they couldn't know a priori that you were not doing a search. If they had a separate box, they could know that this is not a search and thus not send the embarrassing info back to Google HQ.
It isn't that difficult to verify that no, they really aren't doing that. Check your network traffic, and if you're really paranoid also check and track what's written to disk to make sure it isn't just encrypted and sent later as part of some other unrelated data burst. I'm sure plenty of slashdotters have tried, if only to try to catch Microsoft in a legally-binding lie and take them to court.
The arrow of time is the significant difference. There's no other dimension that associates directionality with entropy, and this drives, for example, all chemical reactions to behave the way they do with respect to time. Chemical reactions are completely symmetric with respect to space, but asymmetric with respect to time. The same goes for nuclear reactions, etc.
thinking of it as being the same as the other dimensions makes for a much simpler model of the universe
Sometimes it is, and for that reason sometimes we speak of a space-time continuum and calculate things in 3+1 dimensions. Sometimes it's just wrong though. Often the simpler model is wrong in narrow cases but close enough to be useful in many cases. If it's better in every way, we throw out the complicated model.
...remember the earth also used to be the center of the universe back when we didn't know any better.
The Earth was thought to be the centre of the Universe, in part, because it made for a simpler model of the Universe. You can still work with that assumption and remain consistent in most respects (quick: how often is it important to know where the centre of the Universe lies?), so it's a lot like the space-time continuum. Depending on the geometry of the Universe, an argument could be made that the Earth -- like all points -- *is* the centre of the Universe. It's certainly the centre of the observable Universe, which is kind of tautological but the observable Universe is the only one we can really work with.
That's not actually the case. Canada is a subject state to the Canadian crown. It so happens that the British crown and the Canadian crown are the same person right now (and 14 other country's crowns as well), but Canada is no more constrained by British laws and treaties, like EU membership, than Britain is constrained by Canada's laws and treaties, which preclude EU membership, or the treaties of Tuvalu influence Australia and Jamaica.
I'm pretty sure that's on purpose, since he also used "begs the question" in a historically wrong manner.
When did Ballmer claim he was going to destroy Google? I find it doubtful that he would use the term "destroy" to refer to a competitor at all. Surely his lawyers have trained him a bit better than that.
The only thing I can figure is that's an exaggeration of an exaggeration of the 2005 chair-throwing story, which even taken at face value, was certainly not done to bump any share price.
Also, Bing has street view (they call it streetside), so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Colourblind people have better contrast perception that coloursighted people. Deaf people can operate better in noisy environments. Both contains large subsets of people who are, by and large, happy with how they are and don't need to change. Much as I doubt we're going to chop the arms and legs off of too many women and replace them with cybernetics, even when the neural interface technology is there (what? having less strength on average than a man is a disability because it affects their ability to do $JOB without $TOOL_FOR_JOB).
I might be more inclined to agree with you if there were literally no downside in any possible dimension.
Chrome for Windows might be more used than Safari for Windows, but Safari is far more used than Chrome.
Why should she have to give a non-subjective definition? She only used them in the context of a subjective description.
Maybe I should inform my coworker that takes an aspirin everyday that I don't enjoy his heavy drug use in my office space?
Am I getting "Wooshed" or something? Maybe my sarcasm detector is on the fritz, but that and several other sentences you gave are a textbook strawman.
Wait...do you think that was supposed to be a judgment of the guy on the video being drunk? Even though he's neither a girl nor androgynous? I think you're pulling her phrase out of one context and into another.
You're talking past each other.
Your point seemed to be that bad things are a consequence of a government afraid of its people. His point is that others attribute bad things as a consequence of a people afraid of its government. Strictly speaking, they aren't contradictions, but there is something poetic about that.
Everything you said in that post was stupid.
Every. Last. Word.
Legal purposes are artificial and will eventually disappear. Paper isn't really better for archive purposes, either. I'm not sure what construction issues means in this context, so -- maybe? And the team meetings thing is a good example of what's holing things back today, but "a table display the size of a room which costs less than a roll of paper" would pretty much solve that, actually.
That argument worked better before Apple itself decided to give "a PC" a different avatar from "a Mac" and contrast them.
Meanings are contextual.
"And it is easy to run away without a limb at all?"
He's arguing that the practical utility of regeneration is low because it leaves you more likely to be eaten by a grue for a long period of time anyway, so if it came at the same time as one that made you a marginally faster runner (with all of your legs), then maybe running would win.
It doesn't have to be literally the same time, but with small populations in the early stages one of the few of the line of non-regenerators could mate with one of the few of the line of slightly-faster-runners, and then the faster running regenerators all die as they try to run away one leggedly.
There's a tonne of possibilities. They mostly hinge on a small isolated population, but then, that's also how speciation happens and it's obviously happened a tonne since the mammalian divergence.
Except is it really the case that kids, without a playstation, could still find nothing they'd rather do than study?
Maybe. But that would be news. Because I think even without a playstation homework is boring and playing with foam swords or whatever is fun. Maybe even kids with kid-like energy get tired of everything else so are only up for homework or playsation? I don't know.
Umm, I guess it depends on the timescales involved, but generally it is more tyrannical than "Forcing them to sit still for 8 hours a day, to the point where they must ask permission to use the bathroom". Unless the library has a bathroom in it. Which I suppose it might, if you mean a separate building rather than an attached section of a school or something. Is it common to send young kids to non-school libraries for schoolwork?
Also, do American schools actually last even close to 8 hours? At ages 6-9, my elementary school in Ontario went from 9:00-3:30 (actually slightly earlier than 3:30 or later than 9:00, but the exact times changed year to year), with an hour for lunch -- 20 minutes to eat inside and 40 minutes of middle recess -- and two 15 minute short recesses, one at 10:30 and one at 2:15. That's 6 hours 30 minutes at school, of which 5 non-consecutive hours were actually sitting and learning (except for gym almost every day, which is 40 minutes more out of it).
Why?
Company loyalty (at least in this sense) is a form of willful blindness. Why else would you choose a product that you believe is inferior (and you do believe it's inferior in at least some measure: otherwise you'd have picked it without company loyalty)?
It's one thing if the products are nearly indistinguishable to most people (eg. a Coca-cola employee choosing Coke over Pepsi). Fine, do the "loyal" thing. I bet that a lot of the people who build motorcycles drive cars most of the time, though.
Loyalty is something you give to people. Real people, not legal fictitious people.
No, it's like calling your kid an idiot if, when asked to research the year of the Battle of Hastings, he writes a letter to the publisher of his favourite history textbook demanding that they email to all customers an errata footnote on the year that the battle of hastings occurred. When there's another free (as in beer -- Microsoft employees can install Windows on their work machines for free, obviously, and this is where the analogy came from) history textbook sitting right beside that has it listed and indexed already. Because he doesn't like the other history textbook.
It's not Linux's fault, per se, but it is Linux's problem. The difference between "Linux doesn't have good ACPI support" and "ACPI hardware doesn't have good Linux support" is pedantic and ultimately irrelevant to anybody not in a position to fix it themselves.
I agree with most of that, and I agree it's more odd when the Windows phone teams have iPhones, but to address this:
if they aren't sure in it, or don't think it's good enough, then why are they even working in that team?
For the money?
Aside from that obvious answer, just because you believe in improving something, doesn't mean you think it's currently the best. In fact, rather the opposite. Who would work on something that's already perfect? I'm not saying the iPhone is perfect, far from it; but philosophically I can see no reason that just because you want something to be better in the future then you should be using it exclusively.
I'd expect the windows phone team to use windows phones so they can know what's painful so they are personally motivated to fix it. Also, to develop and test against, of course. I'd also think there is a particularly good reason for them to have a non-windows phone, so they can see what others did well, and either copy it, or build on it; and also what others did poorly, and avoid those mistakes.
Plus the side-oriented wiimote, when used as a controller, is far from ergonomic.
I've never seen a fenced playground. I grew up in rural Ontario. I've since moved, but I haven't gone out of my way to examine any schools since, so maybe it's common in more urban areas.
I see the acronym every time. Hearing "lawl" or seeing it referred to as a word with that pronounciation turns me into the Incredible Hulk.
Okay guys, here's where you two are talking past each other:
Vista and 7 don't execute Autorun.exe by default.
So yes, the default option on the modeless dialog prompt is essentially autorun, and in one parsing of the sentence, you can validly say that yes, the default is to execute autorun. So clone53421 has a bit of a point.
However I'm pretty much certain that what that sentence actually means is that the Vista and 7 do not just execute autorun without you touching it. The default referred to here is to throw up the dialog instead of to run autorun. That dialog has a default of autorun. In that sense, gparent is right.
The problem is that we have two levels of the word default.
Can we have peace now?
The "user clicks okay", to be pedantic, was wrong on both sides, because the dialog looks like this, with no OK button: http://htstechtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/vista-autoplay-dialog-box.jpg or http://i.technet.microsoft.com/cc137730.fig01(en-us).gif etc.. XP had an okay button, but that's not what either of you were talking about.
What "standard definition" of ownership excludes non-voting shares?
I feel I must put on my special pedantry pants and point out that Microsoft has refrigerators of both Coke and Pepsi products, both free (not gated by vending machines).