i don't know, i'd disagree. i have always smelled them coming (OH), and the sky does tend to turn that sickly greenish color. you've *got* to know something's wrong when that happens. usually 30 min of warning. i'm much less worried by tornadoes than earthquakes.
there's not a damn thing you can do about an earthquake, comparatively. granted, i wierdly predicted this one the night before (i'm in SF), but still...
if you're not averse to working out what you need to do on your own (there's a lot of literature out there on this subject), then i suggest PD (this is a nice place to start).
runs on windows (NT/etc.) and linux, OS X port is in the works, IRIX is also supported. it's fast and very flexible, and will support a simpler solution - like gating, matrixed switching (if you've got separated inputs at hand), whatever - if you find one. the pd-list is quite supportive.
actually, smooth fast motion can be pretty relaxing. think about how nice starfield simulation screensavers used to look (comparatively). since we're generally overstimulated much of the time, fast motion is probably more relaxing. (it also looks better on screen.) these days, it seems most people get tense when moving slowly... and though that's rather sad, this gets at *unrestricted motion*, free motion.
in addition, i can see some potential psychological benefits for people that get into this - encounter a slowdown when you don't want one, and impulse.relax becomes more likely. definitely a good thing.
Here are a few obvious applications, all following one basic principle: not everyone needs everything, and a large chunk of the market wants to be able to do one thing well.
1. Audio workstations (DAW's)
2. Video/Graphics workstations
3. Killer gaming machines
4. Nice programming environment (!)
Etc...
I think Microsoft is plenty big enough and has plenty of expertise to begin offering market segment versions of Windows. If people wanted to install other stuff, they could, but they'd have to download some libraries and *make the conscious choice* to take a performance hit.
I feel sort of evil suggesting this, but I'd like to support my theories on capitalism - the primary tenet being that the best long-term strategy is a good quality product that people want.
Why is it that medicines and medical attention cost as much as ten times as what they cost in other countries?
Because our health system is seriously brain-damaged. Ask almost any doctor about this. Those that disagree are likely not very good at their jobs. I know a lot of doctors, and none of the good ones think the system works well. They think it's a miracle that it works at all.
The problem I see with doctors is that they all want us to believe that they're 'hollier than thou'.
I don't see that. In some cases, yes, but you'll find that applies to people in general. Many doctors do, however, care deeply about their work - and it's supremely easy for this particular line of work to be justified or explained. It's very direct in relation to most ethical systems. It's comparatively tough to provide the same kind of justification for programming, though I think many of the same justifications do apply when you get down to it.
Essentially, I'm just trying to say this: don't broadly criticize an entire profession - it's never that simple.
"Have you considered trying to fully integrate the two?"
You are my hero. If I could (a) code like g0d and (b) pay you millions and (c) make you code like g0d if you can't, i would hire you to help me with my super-secret super-configurable OS plan.
I have no idea where this artificial separation of UIs comes from. It's like the possibility of graphics makes everyone assume that a line interface is useless, and vice versa. We need context line interfaces, dammit!
"The author was too quick to discard the REASONS for wars simply because the two sides might have conflicting explanations."
Unfortunately I haven't read the article, but this sounds to me like a classic error. Why is there a war? Well, one REASON is that the antagonists have different REASONS for doing what they're doing. They DISAGREE.:-)
Wars don't generally happen between people that agree, nor is the situation universally acknowledged as a "Good Guy, Bad Guy" situation. Wars happen because things are complicated and people have different needs and wants, because they misunderstand each other... I'd be highly suspicious of any model that didn't assume that it was at least somewhat LIKELY that two sides would have conflicting explanations, reasons, stories.
Displomacy is far more likely to succeed if you can bring the parties to the table agreeing on what the conflict is about.
for some reason i feel the need to pull certain of mister gates' statements for closer inspection. this covers paragraphs 1 through 223 (i have to stop, ugh) - i think most of us are capable of finding the bugs in each of these statements. this is not to say that there is no valid argument in the entire document; a lot of the issues he raises are really ugly and bear consideration. i'm coming to the conclusion that the states are going about this the wrong way, and that unless there's a miracle of some sort, no one (except perhaps microsoft) is going to get what they really want. (my opinion? it's all about the API's.)
32. In view of the close interrelationships among PC hardware and software products, the industry is often referred to as the PC ecosystem. Microsofts Windows operating system is a key component of the PC ecosystem, and thus the health of the ecosystem depends in substantial part upon the continued health of and improvements to Windows.
47. To make computing more pervasive, the industry needs to build systems that excel in availability, reliability and security, which I call Trustworthy Computing. Today the PC ecosystem falls short in all three respects. Internet connections may fail, software programs may crash, and viruses may infect any computer that interacts with any other. Even when working as designed, computers remain too hard to use. Absent sustained effort to attack these engineering challenges, the problem is likely to get worse, not better, as the computing environment becomes ever more complex with greater interoperation of a broad range of devices via the Internet and other networks.
49. Three overarching aspects of Microsofts business and technology model are imperiled by the NSPR: (i) the considerable benefits provided by Microsofts ongoing development of successive versions of Windows as consistent, well-tested, well-supported platforms for software development; (ii) Microsofts efforts to promote the development of a broad range of hardware and software products that interoperate well with one another; and (iii) the central role played by intellectual property protection in providing an incentive for Microsoft to invest capital, time and energy in software development. I discuss each of these in turn.
82. A third key aspect of Microsofts successful development and promotion of its Windows operating system products that is imperiled by the NSPR is the work Microsoft does to test thoroughly each operating system product it releases. Our testing work is not glamorous, but it is essential to the success of Windows in the marketplace.
94. We work to enable interoperability because the market demands it. Proof of our success is provided by the large number of products that interoperate with Windows today, including server software from Sun and Novell and, of course, tens of thousands of Web sites that run on various versions of UNIX and are accessible from Windows-based PCs.
96. As in any area of technology, room for improvement always exists, and Microsoft is working hard to continue to enhance interoperability in a wide variety of ways. Among other things, we are continuing to build support for industry-standard protocols and other industry-standard technologies into Windows, thereby enhancing interoperability between Windows and non-Windows operating systems. For this and other reasons, Windows XP provides greater opportunities for interoperability than did Windows 2000, and Windows 2000 provided greater opportunities for interoperability than its predecessor, Windows NT 4.0. The NSPR would frustrate our efforts in this regard by authorizing OEMs and others to remove technologies, including support for basic Internet standards like HTML and HTTP, from Windows that are essential to broad interoperability.
103. As shown in Appendix A, Microsoft has steadily increased the number of protocols supported in Windows that it makes available to developers, enhancing interoperability with each new release. We will continue to do so in the future.
104. I understand that the non-settling States believe the Court should enter a disclosure remedy in this matter directed at permit[ting] rival software to achieve interoperability with Microsoft software . . . . (Plaintiff Litigating States First Amended Proposed Remedy, March 4, 2002 at 12.) Section 4 of the NSRP would mandate an extraordinarily broad disclosure of technical information concerning Windows interfaces and protocols. Yet, all the disclosure imaginable will do little to promote interoperability if, as Sections 1, 2 and 7 provide, OEMs and others are free to remove the software that supports the disclosed interfaces and protocols from Windows. If software code is removed, the APIs and protocols supported by that code are removed as well.
116. For the reasons set forth in Section III, the utility of Microsofts disclosures of technical information described above would be greatly reduced if the NSPR were in effect. Among other things, Microsoft would be obligated to devote massive resources to documenting thousands of internal interfaces within Windows that are neither intended nor tested for use by external developers rather than focusing upon delivering documentation that developers actually need to make products that work well with Windows. Even more fundamentally, the NSPR would greatly reduce Microsofts incentive to invest in innovation, so that there would be fewer innovative technologies in the future that would be of any interest to developers.
121. Microsoft would be prohibited from providing information and obtaining feedback via the Open Review Process if the NSPR were in effect. Section 4, read in conjunction with the definition of Timely Manner (Section 22.pp), appears to require that Microsoft disclose technical information to the industry generally (ISVs, IHVs, etc.) at the same time that information is disclosed to any third party. It is not practical to disclose information concerning a new technology to the industry at large before specifications for the new technology have even been prepared, much less before significant development work has been undertaken.
130. I believe that the NSPR would greatly reduce Microsofts incentive and ability to develop and deliver new technologies to the marketplace. The consequences would be three-fold. First, all those who build upon or otherwise benefit from Microsofts heavy investment in developing new technologiesOEMs, ISVs and the businesses and consumers who use our softwarewould be harmed. With the loss of the positive feedback benefits provided by Windows, the marketplace would experience higher prices and less innovation.
131. Second, Microsoft would be greatly devalued as a company. Microsofts market capitalization is based on the markets well-founded belief that Microsoft is on a path to deliver a wide range of breakthrough technologies that will generate new sources of revenue.
150. Section 22.w is also very broad because it is not limited to software platforms that run on a PC and thus can provide a substitute for PC operating system functionality. For example, Section 22.w states that a network operating system is an example of middleware, but such products run, by definition, on servers, not on PCs. (Novell is the only company I know of that markets what it calls a network operating system.) For many years to come, however, the thousands of applications that run directly on Windows-based PCs today will continue to run on PCs. For that reason, server operating systems, set top box software, and other software that doesnt run on PCs will not commoditize Microsofts PC operating system software.
160. For example, Section 4 imposes broad obligations on Microsoft to disclose a wide range of technical information concerning interfaces in Windows for the stated purpose of promoting interoperability with Windows. Yet Sections 1 and 2 authorize third parties to remove large portions of Windows, including software that supports the interfaces that must be disclosed under Section 4. If OEMs remove software that supports APIs, disclosure concerning those APIs is not going to promote interoperability. The APIs will not work if the software is removed and developers will be much less likely to use them if that is a possibility.
161. Similarly, Section 16 establishes circumstances under which Microsoft is obligated to comply fully with certain industry standards in Windows (and other products). Once again, Microsoft would be unable to provide any assurance that its operating systems actually comply with industry standards (so that developers writing applications for Windows could rely upon those standards) if third parties were free to remove the software that implements the standards. If an OEM exercises its right under Sections 1 and 2 to remove Microsofts Web browsing software, for example, Windows will no longer comply with the HTTP standard (and other Internet-related standards), in apparent violation of Section 16.
yeh, the record industry receives all its demos on ADAT, DAT, Minidisc, and cassette tape, not to mention the odd LP or eight-track. nobody legitimately burns copyrighted music to CD. their business doesn't rely on legitimate use of the consumer-level technology now, does it? not in the studios, not for the demos, not to move stuff around internally, not for backups, not for anything. we should have their CD-R's taken away and see how they like it.
"And finally, ample supply of drinks and snacks readily available within an arms reach, otherwise I'm forced to break my concentration to get up and to refill my drink or snack."
i find i'm most productive when i am compulsive about getting up frequently: to prepare some food, take a shit, walk around the block, take a shower, stretch, clean house, etc. i work about half the time, but i get twice as much done as i would if i tried to work the whole time. different kinds of thinking lead me down more option-paths than i would normally explore staring at the CRT. if i feel like i'm getting something done, i'm more likely to get something done. if i'm bored, watch out.
i hate to say it, and not to invalidate anything you're saying about programming, but your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of the medical profession in general, not just surgery.
there are reasons for the constant stream of development of new techniques and devices in surgery, and there are reasons some surgeons merely make lots of money while others are called "great"... much like programming.
you've got basic skills, then you've got the ability to react the right way, with millisecond timing, in a life-or-death situation that you couldn't see coming, and probably haven't seen before... all this in an active, semi-chaotic system. don't put down medicine with regard to programming - it's a different field, with different requirements, and there aren't that many people with the breadth of ability and education to function well in both.
seriously... how hard is it to have your mailbot send me a registration code or even just the typical verification-of-human email? what's the holdup that makes this take two hours?
it'd better be some serious software i'm trying to evaluate if you're going to respond at human-speed... in other words, it absolutely must be worth the wait.
Unfortunately, it's the same people that think cutting taxes only benefits "the rich". You cut taxes across the board by 2%, and they all cry foul, like the rich are "getting more". Well hello, they pay more! Don't you understand what a percentage means??!?
Unfortunately, your interpretation of the issue there sucks. The point is better explained with a nice use of the properties of percentages - which, as you note, are quite simple. You talk about tax cuts, I'll talk about tax rates in general.
We take two people. One (A) has 10 dollars. The other (B) has 100 dollars. Let's try something a bit Scandinavian - 50% tax rate. (A) ends up with 5 dollars, not quite enough for an expensive burger. (B) ends up with 50 dollars, enough for at least five expensive burgers.
Perhaps it's not the clearest example, but does this illustrate to you why people have a problem with flat percentage tax cuts and rises? I'm tempted to posit that the value of money increases exponentially as you have less and less of it. Bush's $300 giveaway last year would have meant something on these terms if they hadn't taxed it as part of this year's income (sweet). In addition, it's hard to look at someone making $300,000 per year, imagine their flat-percentage tax cut, and realize that even a small portion of that tax cut could have bailed out three families in need... while instead, it will go towards a nice new SUV. How much money do you and your family - hell, even your extended family - need to average in a year to be comfortable and save for your future needs? (And by future needs, I mean needs, within this lifetime.)
Maybe $300,000 is reasonable. $7,000,000 sure as hell isn't. I could live on that much, without adjusting for inflation, for approximately 100 years, including a very significant increase in my quality of life.
I guess what I'm getting at is that percentage operations are fine above a certain minimum level, but below that they're either harmful or meaningless. The rich pay more, yes, and some of the poor don't pay anything at all - but that doesn't mean that the poor still aren't having trouble feeding their families while the rich drive by in their Cadillac SUV on the way to the Ritz for dinner. (And you know what? Sometimes it's not the fault of the poor that they're poor. Sometimes, circumstances just suck.)
yerba mate had the advertised effects for me the first few times i drank it. it was really strong, i felt clear, alert, and mentally capable. after that, it fucked me up - i can't really describe what would happen, but i'd get this wierd feeling that my immune system was just sort of tenuously holding on. imagine drinking a large amount of coffee and not drinking water, but without the jitters and a more feverish sort of reaction. it sucked.
that said, i think it's tasty and i wish i could still drink it. the reaction was just too much for me.
Just because I'm curious: I've heard in a few places that OSX doesn't allow the customization that OS9 does, and you say the OSX Finder is missing functionality... Can you explain this? OS9 seems rigid, inflexible, and it's been a pain in the ass to make even slightly usable - OSX has been perfectly sane for me. What are they missing (that I'm missing too)?
It takes a little extra care while authoring, but printing is fully supported in Flash. Not a big deal, really. Since Flash can do it, I can only assume Director can too.
actually, that seems to be how it works on yahoo's end. i finally got around to changing my settings (to nothing at all, please), and immediately started receiving more spam at my yahoo account (which forwards elsewhere for hefty filtering). there had been no noticeable change before i changed the settings, after they changed their policy.
Slashdot Mirror
i don't know, i'd disagree. i have always smelled them coming (OH), and the sky does tend to turn that sickly greenish color. you've *got* to know something's wrong when that happens. usually 30 min of warning. i'm much less worried by tornadoes than earthquakes.
there's not a damn thing you can do about an earthquake, comparatively. granted, i wierdly predicted this one the night before (i'm in SF), but still...
runs on windows (NT/etc.) and linux, OS X port is in the works, IRIX is also supported. it's fast and very flexible, and will support a simpler solution - like gating, matrixed switching (if you've got separated inputs at hand), whatever - if you find one. the pd-list is quite supportive.
actually, smooth fast motion can be pretty relaxing. think about how nice starfield simulation screensavers used to look (comparatively). since we're generally overstimulated much of the time, fast motion is probably more relaxing. (it also looks better on screen.) these days, it seems most people get tense when moving slowly... and though that's rather sad, this gets at *unrestricted motion*, free motion.
in addition, i can see some potential psychological benefits for people that get into this - encounter a slowdown when you don't want one, and impulse.relax becomes more likely. definitely a good thing.
thanks for the pointer, much appreciated... an effort is better than nothing. can't be worse than showing me it's a bad implementation. :-)
Yeah.
Here are a few obvious applications, all following one basic principle: not everyone needs everything, and a large chunk of the market wants to be able to do one thing well.
1. Audio workstations (DAW's)
2. Video/Graphics workstations
3. Killer gaming machines
4. Nice programming environment (!)
Etc...
I think Microsoft is plenty big enough and has plenty of expertise to begin offering market segment versions of Windows. If people wanted to install other stuff, they could, but they'd have to download some libraries and *make the conscious choice* to take a performance hit.
I feel sort of evil suggesting this, but I'd like to support my theories on capitalism - the primary tenet being that the best long-term strategy is a good quality product that people want.
Because our health system is seriously brain-damaged. Ask almost any doctor about this. Those that disagree are likely not very good at their jobs. I know a lot of doctors, and none of the good ones think the system works well. They think it's a miracle that it works at all.
The problem I see with doctors is that they all want us to believe that they're 'hollier than thou'.
I don't see that. In some cases, yes, but you'll find that applies to people in general. Many doctors do, however, care deeply about their work - and it's supremely easy for this particular line of work to be justified or explained. It's very direct in relation to most ethical systems. It's comparatively tough to provide the same kind of justification for programming, though I think many of the same justifications do apply when you get down to it.
Essentially, I'm just trying to say this: don't broadly criticize an entire profession - it's never that simple.
"Have you considered trying to fully integrate the two?"
You are my hero. If I could (a) code like g0d and (b) pay you millions and (c) make you code like g0d if you can't, i would hire you to help me with my super-secret super-configurable OS plan.
I have no idea where this artificial separation of UIs comes from. It's like the possibility of graphics makes everyone assume that a line interface is useless, and vice versa. We need context line interfaces, dammit!
What world are you talking about? Is this Slashdot?
"The author was too quick to discard the REASONS for wars simply because the two sides might have conflicting explanations."
:-)
Unfortunately I haven't read the article, but this sounds to me like a classic error. Why is there a war? Well, one REASON is that the antagonists have different REASONS for doing what they're doing. They DISAGREE.
Wars don't generally happen between people that agree, nor is the situation universally acknowledged as a "Good Guy, Bad Guy" situation. Wars happen because things are complicated and people have different needs and wants, because they misunderstand each other... I'd be highly suspicious of any model that didn't assume that it was at least somewhat LIKELY that two sides would have conflicting explanations, reasons, stories.
Displomacy is far more likely to succeed if you can bring the parties to the table agreeing on what the conflict is about.
"Video connectors on more recent macs aren't compatible with VGA monitors. (although they've finally corrected this by finally shipping an adaptor)."
how recent do you mean? my g4/867 has a standard VGA out... and i got the cheapest card. it works just fine with my A90.
for some reason i feel the need to pull certain of mister gates' statements for closer inspection. this covers paragraphs 1 through 223 (i have to stop, ugh) - i think most of us are capable of finding the bugs in each of these statements. this is not to say that there is no valid argument in the entire document; a lot of the issues he raises are really ugly and bear consideration. i'm coming to the conclusion that the states are going about this the wrong way, and that unless there's a miracle of some sort, no one (except perhaps microsoft) is going to get what they really want. (my opinion? it's all about the API's.)
s / 002/billgates/billgates.asp
false assumptions: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/mswitnes
32. In view of the close interrelationships among PC hardware and software products, the industry is often referred to as the PC ecosystem. Microsofts Windows operating system is a key component of the PC ecosystem, and thus the health of the ecosystem depends in substantial part upon the continued health of and improvements to Windows.
47. To make computing more pervasive, the industry needs to build systems that excel in availability, reliability and security, which I call Trustworthy Computing. Today the PC ecosystem falls short in all three respects. Internet connections may fail, software programs may crash, and viruses may infect any computer that interacts with any other. Even when working as designed, computers remain too hard to use. Absent sustained effort to attack these engineering challenges, the problem is likely to get worse, not better, as the computing environment becomes ever more complex with greater interoperation of a broad range of devices via the Internet and other networks.
49. Three overarching aspects of Microsofts business and technology model are imperiled by the NSPR: (i) the considerable benefits provided by Microsofts ongoing development of successive versions of Windows as consistent, well-tested, well-supported platforms for software development; (ii) Microsofts efforts to promote the development of a broad range of hardware and software products that interoperate well with one another; and (iii) the central role played by intellectual property protection in providing an incentive for Microsoft to invest capital, time and energy in software development. I discuss each of these in turn.
82. A third key aspect of Microsofts successful development and promotion of its Windows operating system products that is imperiled by the NSPR is the work Microsoft does to test thoroughly each operating system product it releases. Our testing work is not glamorous, but it is essential to the success of Windows in the marketplace.
94. We work to enable interoperability because the market demands it. Proof of our success is provided by the large number of products that interoperate with Windows today, including server software from Sun and Novell and, of course, tens of thousands of Web sites that run on various versions of UNIX and are accessible from Windows-based PCs.
96. As in any area of technology, room for improvement always exists, and Microsoft is working hard to continue to enhance interoperability in a wide variety of ways. Among other things, we are continuing to build support for industry-standard protocols and other industry-standard technologies into Windows, thereby enhancing interoperability between Windows and non-Windows operating systems. For this and other reasons, Windows XP provides greater opportunities for interoperability than did Windows 2000, and Windows 2000 provided greater opportunities for interoperability than its predecessor, Windows NT 4.0. The NSPR would frustrate our efforts in this regard by authorizing OEMs and others to remove technologies, including support for basic Internet standards like HTML and HTTP, from Windows that are essential to broad interoperability.
103. As shown in Appendix A, Microsoft has steadily increased the number of protocols supported in Windows that it makes available to developers, enhancing interoperability with each new release. We will continue to do so in the future.
104. I understand that the non-settling States believe the Court should enter a disclosure remedy in this matter directed at permit[ting] rival software to achieve interoperability with Microsoft software . . . . (Plaintiff Litigating States First Amended Proposed Remedy, March 4, 2002 at 12.) Section 4 of the NSRP would mandate an extraordinarily broad disclosure of technical information concerning Windows interfaces and protocols. Yet, all the disclosure imaginable will do little to promote interoperability if, as Sections 1, 2 and 7 provide, OEMs and others are free to remove the software that supports the disclosed interfaces and protocols from Windows. If software code is removed, the APIs and protocols supported by that code are removed as well.
116. For the reasons set forth in Section III, the utility of Microsofts disclosures of technical information described above would be greatly reduced if the NSPR were in effect. Among other things, Microsoft would be obligated to devote massive resources to documenting thousands of internal interfaces within Windows that are neither intended nor tested for use by external developers rather than focusing upon delivering documentation that developers actually need to make products that work well with Windows. Even more fundamentally, the NSPR would greatly reduce Microsofts incentive to invest in innovation, so that there would be fewer innovative technologies in the future that would be of any interest to developers.
121. Microsoft would be prohibited from providing information and obtaining feedback via the Open Review Process if the NSPR were in effect. Section 4, read in conjunction with the definition of Timely Manner (Section 22.pp), appears to require that Microsoft disclose technical information to the industry generally (ISVs, IHVs, etc.) at the same time that information is disclosed to any third party. It is not practical to disclose information concerning a new technology to the industry at large before specifications for the new technology have even been prepared, much less before significant development work has been undertaken.
130. I believe that the NSPR would greatly reduce Microsofts incentive and ability to develop and deliver new technologies to the marketplace. The consequences would be three-fold. First, all those who build upon or otherwise benefit from Microsofts heavy investment in developing new technologiesOEMs, ISVs and the businesses and consumers who use our softwarewould be harmed. With the loss of the positive feedback benefits provided by Windows, the marketplace would experience higher prices and less innovation.
131. Second, Microsoft would be greatly devalued as a company. Microsofts market capitalization is based on the markets well-founded belief that Microsoft is on a path to deliver a wide range of breakthrough technologies that will generate new sources of revenue.
150. Section 22.w is also very broad because it is not limited to software platforms that run on a PC and thus can provide a substitute for PC operating system functionality. For example, Section 22.w states that a network operating system is an example of middleware, but such products run, by definition, on servers, not on PCs. (Novell is the only company I know of that markets what it calls a network operating system.) For many years to come, however, the thousands of applications that run directly on Windows-based PCs today will continue to run on PCs. For that reason, server operating systems, set top box software, and other software that doesnt run on PCs will not commoditize Microsofts PC operating system software.
160. For example, Section 4 imposes broad obligations on Microsoft to disclose a wide range of technical information concerning interfaces in Windows for the stated purpose of promoting interoperability with Windows. Yet Sections 1 and 2 authorize third parties to remove large portions of Windows, including software that supports the interfaces that must be disclosed under Section 4. If OEMs remove software that supports APIs, disclosure concerning those APIs is not going to promote interoperability. The APIs will not work if the software is removed and developers will be much less likely to use them if that is a possibility.
161. Similarly, Section 16 establishes circumstances under which Microsoft is obligated to comply fully with certain industry standards in Windows (and other products). Once again, Microsoft would be unable to provide any assurance that its operating systems actually comply with industry standards (so that developers writing applications for Windows could rely upon those standards) if third parties were free to remove the software that implements the standards. If an OEM exercises its right under Sections 1 and 2 to remove Microsofts Web browsing software, for example, Windows will no longer comply with the HTTP standard (and other Internet-related standards), in apparent violation of Section 16.
yeh, the record industry receives all its demos on ADAT, DAT, Minidisc, and cassette tape, not to mention the odd LP or eight-track. nobody legitimately burns copyrighted music to CD. their business doesn't rely on legitimate use of the consumer-level technology now, does it? not in the studios, not for the demos, not to move stuff around internally, not for backups, not for anything. we should have their CD-R's taken away and see how they like it.
"The decision tree for software design is many orders of magnitude larger"
:-)
well put, thanks... point taken.
"And finally, ample supply of drinks and snacks readily available within an arms reach, otherwise I'm forced to break my concentration to get up and to refill my drink or snack."
i find i'm most productive when i am compulsive about getting up frequently: to prepare some food, take a shit, walk around the block, take a shower, stretch, clean house, etc. i work about half the time, but i get twice as much done as i would if i tried to work the whole time. different kinds of thinking lead me down more option-paths than i would normally explore staring at the CRT. if i feel like i'm getting something done, i'm more likely to get something done. if i'm bored, watch out.
i hate to say it, and not to invalidate anything you're saying about programming, but your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of the medical profession in general, not just surgery.
there are reasons for the constant stream of development of new techniques and devices in surgery, and there are reasons some surgeons merely make lots of money while others are called "great"... much like programming.
you've got basic skills, then you've got the ability to react the right way, with millisecond timing, in a life-or-death situation that you couldn't see coming, and probably haven't seen before... all this in an active, semi-chaotic system. don't put down medicine with regard to programming - it's a different field, with different requirements, and there aren't that many people with the breadth of ability and education to function well in both.
seriously... how hard is it to have your mailbot send me a registration code or even just the typical verification-of-human email? what's the holdup that makes this take two hours? it'd better be some serious software i'm trying to evaluate if you're going to respond at human-speed... in other words, it absolutely must be worth the wait.
heehee... :-)
Unfortunately, your interpretation of the issue there sucks. The point is better explained with a nice use of the properties of percentages - which, as you note, are quite simple. You talk about tax cuts, I'll talk about tax rates in general.
We take two people. One (A) has 10 dollars. The other (B) has 100 dollars. Let's try something a bit Scandinavian - 50% tax rate. (A) ends up with 5 dollars, not quite enough for an expensive burger. (B) ends up with 50 dollars, enough for at least five expensive burgers.
Perhaps it's not the clearest example, but does this illustrate to you why people have a problem with flat percentage tax cuts and rises? I'm tempted to posit that the value of money increases exponentially as you have less and less of it. Bush's $300 giveaway last year would have meant something on these terms if they hadn't taxed it as part of this year's income (sweet). In addition, it's hard to look at someone making $300,000 per year, imagine their flat-percentage tax cut, and realize that even a small portion of that tax cut could have bailed out three families in need... while instead, it will go towards a nice new SUV. How much money do you and your family - hell, even your extended family - need to average in a year to be comfortable and save for your future needs? (And by future needs, I mean needs, within this lifetime.)
Maybe $300,000 is reasonable. $7,000,000 sure as hell isn't. I could live on that much, without adjusting for inflation, for approximately 100 years, including a very significant increase in my quality of life.
I guess what I'm getting at is that percentage operations are fine above a certain minimum level, but below that they're either harmful or meaningless. The rich pay more, yes, and some of the poor don't pay anything at all - but that doesn't mean that the poor still aren't having trouble feeding their families while the rich drive by in their Cadillac SUV on the way to the Ritz for dinner. (And you know what? Sometimes it's not the fault of the poor that they're poor. Sometimes, circumstances just suck.)
Not likely, considering Amazon's penchant for patenting their (dead obvious) functionality. Hooray for the USPTO! Yeah!
yerba mate had the advertised effects for me the first few times i drank it. it was really strong, i felt clear, alert, and mentally capable. after that, it fucked me up - i can't really describe what would happen, but i'd get this wierd feeling that my immune system was just sort of tenuously holding on. imagine drinking a large amount of coffee and not drinking water, but without the jitters and a more feverish sort of reaction. it sucked.
that said, i think it's tasty and i wish i could still drink it. the reaction was just too much for me.
d00d, if you can prove that you can deliver on that kind of promise, that's a freaking sweet little proposition...
here is the indiatimes-branded site:c download.asp
http://www.soundbuzz.com/partners/indiatimes/musi
(no mod)
Just because I'm curious:
I've heard in a few places that OSX doesn't allow the customization that OS9 does, and you say the OSX Finder is missing functionality... Can you explain this? OS9 seems rigid, inflexible, and it's been a pain in the ass to make even slightly usable - OSX has been perfectly sane for me. What are they missing (that I'm missing too)?
Tx...
It takes a little extra care while authoring, but printing is fully supported in Flash. Not a big deal, really. Since Flash can do it, I can only assume Director can too.
actually, that seems to be how it works on yahoo's end. i finally got around to changing my settings (to nothing at all, please), and immediately started receiving more spam at my yahoo account (which forwards elsewhere for hefty filtering). there had been no noticeable change before i changed the settings, after they changed their policy.