If you're going to appeal to the lowest common denominator of computer users, as MS has, the worst thing you can do is make something not work for confusing reasons. Because, no matter what their skill level, your clientele will become frustrated and hate you if they can't fix what went wrong, and at the lowest common denominator that encompasses every problem.
So MS causing things to break, as in the updates and Vista, is a more serious problem than it would be for other OSes. It strikes at the heart of their business model--selling things that have basic functionality to clueless users.
With a system of One IP Address, One Vote, these senators' votes will be rigged to those with access to multiple computers--i.e, corrupt politicians.
I highly doubt that whatever security they impose to restrict each individual person to one vote each will prove more effective than the efforts of politicians and lobbyists who see the opportunity to buy a vote at the cost of nothing more than a bunch of computers(reusable).
And when we get to 30-40%, assuming we haven't switched to nuclear, solar, and wind, we'll be underwater. My point is that we won't get to the bad consequences of relying on expensive, inaccessible oil until the bad consequences of relying on oil in general have screwed us sideways.
This is some solution where the perfect is the enemy of the good. He's demanding we do nothing 'til the perfect shows up, because any resources plowed into the good are a waste.
You, and other posters, are right, however, that he's completely and utterly wrong.
Or, as C.S. Lewis put it, the world is "divided between wolves who do not understand, and sheep who cannot defend, the things which make life desirable."
Here's a question I'd like to see answered: Are birds getting better at avoiding hazards? If we put up loads of windmills, will that lead over evolutionary time to smarter birds?
There's a lot more oil, and it's being exploited a lot less efficiently, than people realize. We'll be underwater from global warming before we run out of oil.
Bond started sucking when they ran out of Ian Fleming novels. Casino Royale, being originally written by Fleming, restored the guiding force to the series. Expect it to suck again now that they're out of books again.
And where else will I go when I want to know which MASH episode some event happened in? (I actually have looked that up within the last year). That's useful information for anyone watching the show, and is not readily available in easy-to-use form elsewhere.
Why delete the "fancruft"? Is that making it somehow harder to get at the "important" stuff? No.
Actually, for the PHB it makes sense. If there's a support contract and the support craps out, sure the product fails but the PHB has his ass covered, since it was demonstrably not his fault. Without a support contract, failure may be less likely but is more likely to come down on his head.
For that matter, a spacelike Time is at least 2 degrees of wierdness beyond what we have now. Right now we're in a 1-dimensional, 1-way Time. Time travel would involve turning Time into a 1-dimensional, 2-way time. The Many Worlds theory is an endless branching-off of different 1-dimensional Times. 2-dimensional, 2-way Time would be, I guess, the ability to switch to any of the Many Worlds in order, and to go backwards and forwards along those timelines. 3-dimensional, 2-way Time, I guess, wouldn't be any different, if you constructed the Many Worlds in 3 dimensions.
When the Los Alamos physicists left their labs to watch the first nuclear test, they all passed through a foyer in which was a table on which rested a ball of plutonium. They all touched it for good luck. That just shows how little radiation poisoning and the like was understood in 1945. Considering Truman's level of knowledge, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no more or less blameworthy than the firebombing of Tokyo earlier that year.
I leave the question of what would have happened had we invaded instead to others. My point is that "nuke" only became a byword for barbarism long after 1945.
Incorrect. Evolution would have got rid of it if it was actively detrimental. The human body has plenty of useless-but-neutral features--earlobes, for one--that won't go away.
Evolution doesn't approach the best solution, just the solution that's better than the others in existence at the time.
Would I like to give a fighting chance in court to people who have a patent on a concept but no implementation of that concept that they can develop to benefit society? No.
I'm not demanding a sales-ready product. For physical items, a prototype where the patentable function works. For software, a set of code that will do what the patent covers, even if not attached to anything else. That's not going to break any little-guy companies, but it will shut out patent trolls. Plus, by restricting patents to those who have already done the work of making the product work, it makes it more likely that a patent will result in a product being sold, which benefits society as a whole.
If the little guy is getting screwed either way, the better solution is the one that benefits 3rd parties more, which is this one.
Slashdot Mirror
And he smells of elderberries. But don't tell his son, who's a knight in England.
So MS causing things to break, as in the updates and Vista, is a more serious problem than it would be for other OSes. It strikes at the heart of their business model--selling things that have basic functionality to clueless users.
I highly doubt that whatever security they impose to restrict each individual person to one vote each will prove more effective than the efforts of politicians and lobbyists who see the opportunity to buy a vote at the cost of nothing more than a bunch of computers(reusable).
And when we get to 30-40%, assuming we haven't switched to nuclear, solar, and wind, we'll be underwater. My point is that we won't get to the bad consequences of relying on expensive, inaccessible oil until the bad consequences of relying on oil in general have screwed us sideways.
You, and other posters, are right, however, that he's completely and utterly wrong.
Or, as C.S. Lewis put it, the world is "divided between wolves who do not understand, and sheep who cannot defend, the things which make life desirable."
Here's a question I'd like to see answered: Are birds getting better at avoiding hazards? If we put up loads of windmills, will that lead over evolutionary time to smarter birds?
There's a lot more oil, and it's being exploited a lot less efficiently, than people realize. We'll be underwater from global warming before we run out of oil.
No, those are the Butlerians.
Bond started sucking when they ran out of Ian Fleming novels. Casino Royale, being originally written by Fleming, restored the guiding force to the series. Expect it to suck again now that they're out of books again.
Wait...In Soviet Russia, you fill shit!
Ahh hell, I for one welcome our Orionian overlords a bit sooner.
Why delete the "fancruft"? Is that making it somehow harder to get at the "important" stuff? No.
At least they didn't use waterbuffalo.com
So I expect the complaints about its ToS to die down the day its regional monopolies are rescinded.
Actually, for the PHB it makes sense. If there's a support contract and the support craps out, sure the product fails but the PHB has his ass covered, since it was demonstrably not his fault. Without a support contract, failure may be less likely but is more likely to come down on his head.
For that matter, a spacelike Time is at least 2 degrees of wierdness beyond what we have now. Right now we're in a 1-dimensional, 1-way Time. Time travel would involve turning Time into a 1-dimensional, 2-way time. The Many Worlds theory is an endless branching-off of different 1-dimensional Times. 2-dimensional, 2-way Time would be, I guess, the ability to switch to any of the Many Worlds in order, and to go backwards and forwards along those timelines. 3-dimensional, 2-way Time, I guess, wouldn't be any different, if you constructed the Many Worlds in 3 dimensions.
Iraq?
Wondermark has patented this one already
Yeah, 'cause imposing sanctions on them after they invaded China and massacred hundreds of thousands of people was so unjustified.
I leave the question of what would have happened had we invaded instead to others. My point is that "nuke" only became a byword for barbarism long after 1945.
Link? Not that I don't believe you, but I'm writing a paper about the RIAA at the moment and this would make a great example.
When you have to wait in line, yes. Unless you value your free time at zero, the wealthier people get the benefit.
Evolution doesn't approach the best solution, just the solution that's better than the others in existence at the time.
Would I like to give a fighting chance in court to people who have a patent on a concept but no implementation of that concept that they can develop to benefit society? No.
If the little guy is getting screwed either way, the better solution is the one that benefits 3rd parties more, which is this one.