Futhermore in markets where the "average" price doesn't reach the marginal price even in an infinite market (these are usually markets with a 0 marginal price) you end up with what are called natural monopolies and they are actually the most efficent that market can get if you want anyone to participate in it. This is because people will pull out of a market if they can't get the price up to the average cost. So there are some markets where price won't reach marginal cost and software may be one of those markets.
If you examine the fault model for C/C++ programs as compared to managed programs you will find that the classes of errors are very different. Its much easier to overflow buffers and overflow integers in an unmanaged language. These types of errors lead to exploitable holes and are just way more common in C/C++ programs.
What browser was better when IE4 and IE5 came out? There were some that had better features but not that were "better browsers" in whole.
I agree that the products have decayed but if they were truely "crap" they would die. Unfortunately "good enough" for the market isn't "good enough" for you and thats why you can buy into alternatives.
I would say this is only partially true. Microsoft products in many cases are best in class. Office really is the best productivity suite. IE until recently really was the best browser. I won't play down the fact that they use thier monopoly status to push thier products but if they really were the complete crap that slashbots like to say they are then the market would have passed them by.
Yes but maybe Microsoft understands that one of the tools to competion is understanding why your opponents are ahead. I mean I've heard that MS employees use linux from time to time as well and it makes good sense to me. How do you understand what is really good about a product if you don't experience the good and bad things for yourself?
And google is not a company who is "influenced by "stockholders' concerns""? What, other than the fact its Microsoft which isn't sufficient argument, makes you think that the search results are skewed by some strange corporate interest? Don't you think it would be quite the oppisite, they would try to give less biased results in order to get more people to put eyes on the page and look at the ads that are on the sides of the page (just like google I might add). I think its completely silly to think that Google is good when they do something and when they are emulated to the T whoever is emulating them is bad. I predict a day when people wish they hadn't given so much of thier info to Google.
Re:So much easier to knock down than to build up
on
Top 10 Apple Flops
·
· Score: 1
How is Word 6.0 for Mac a failure of Apple? Seems like it was a failure of Microsoft?
Except that googles plan seems to be to track your behavior in EVERYTHING you do on the web and aggregate this to sell prime info (directly or indirectly through well targeted advertisement) to the highest bidder. I'm not 100% sure that this is really in the realm of "do no evil".
I would assume because base64 coding of binary data bloats its size (I think up to 40% additional size over the uncoded binary) and takes time to encode/decode. If you were to be able to put a marker in an element that says "binary blob 100 goes here" and include binary blob 100 in some other area that is pure binary then you would have the binary data without encoding overhead.
Probably doesn't do a lot of stuff that Bluetooth does and that is probably the point. Seems like a simple cheap protocol would be advantageous as wireless device control protocol.
Does the ban on funding block funding studies on the stem cells extracted from umbilical cord blood? I was pretty sure you could get clean stem cells from that.
I've been told by people in the profession that this is not true, there are other stem cells that are just as good or better. Its just that they know how to get the embryonic cells and it was cheap. Something like that anyways.
And as soon as the prices go back up any of the previous vendors is able to start in the market at his original price and will easily gain back market share. Unfortunately the predator can't keep up with this forever and will not survive. If you check many economics books written today you will find that studies show that predatory pricing is rarely successful for growth. In one major case where predatory pricing is credited with the success (Standard Oil I think) it is more likely that timely purchase of competitors was a much bigger reason for success than predatory pricing.
I think the DNS attacks they are talking about in the article may trick even SpoofStick as the domain your browser went to really was the site you thought you went to. Its just that DNS (or your hosts file) gave you a bogus IP for that domain which sent you to a phishers server. Your browser really does think it went to: "https://www.paypal.com" for example.
If they hijack the DNS so that https://www.paypal.com actually goes to a site owned by the phisher but looks exactly like paypal it doesn't matter what OS you are on you will get scammed if you type in username/password to log on. I don't see a way to know that you are on the wrong site when its DNS that sent you to the wrong place unless you keep a list of valid paypal IP's and check the IP of the site you went to.
I was pretty sure that Longhorn was a workstation version of the OS and a server version would be coming after that with a new codename. Compare the graphics on win2k3 to XP and you will get a feeling for the different I predict between longhorn and future server releases.
I still don't see how it is the incorrect usage, though the creators of the sticker would like you to jump to that conclusion. It just says that theories are not facts (though they leave out the important point that the theory of evolution is supported by many facts) and that they should be approached with an open critical mind. Everything should be approached with an open critical mind especially science. Is a sticker necessary? Of course not, but should the sticker be censored? No.
theory
n 1: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the
natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge
that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a
specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate
facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and
theory"
2: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that
is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain
facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives
experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he
proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted
in chemical practices" [syn: hypothesis, possibility]
3: a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a
theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory
that dead men tell no tales"
I think the definition of theory is more pertinent to this discussion as many here point out defintion 1 is more appropriate to science and yet the implication of the stickers would lead you toward definition 2. I think it is important that people understand what science really does which is model the world as closely as possible given the facts (observations and empiricle evidence from experimentation). Theories in my less exact definition are hypothesis which have a great deal of facts backing them and have not been disproven by any verifiable test. The stickers are not incorrect and should be a good starting point for a careful discussion of the scientific method.
You still haven't convinced me that evolution is a fact, there are many facts supporting the theory and I happen to believe it, but it is not a fact. The only thing stated in the comments on this article that could push evolution into fact is observation of the change over time of bacteria and yet nothing has shown that this microevolution leads to evolution on a larger scale sufficient to differentiate species. Evolution is very compelling and I'd say that it is the "right" theory but it is not, by definition, a fact.
fact
n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or
events that have occurred; "first you must collect all
the facts of the case"
2: a statement or assertion of verified information about
something that is the case or has happened; "he supported
his argument with an impressive array of facts"
3: an event known to have happened or something known to have
existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of
the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
4: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses
are not facts"
I thought a definition would be useful here. The sticker is completely correct in stating that theory is not fact by all of the above definitions. I agree that the reason the sticker is on the books is definitely biased but the message itself is fairly neutral and fully accurate so far as I can tell. If they had stated that the theory of evolution was false or had been proven incorrect then they would be inaccurate and the sticker defintely should be removed. As it stands it is just a statement of common sense that should be practiced by any scientist.
Since when is the "theory of evolution" not a theory? Since when are theories ever proven? I agree that evolution is very much the accepted scientific theory and I do fully believe it to be very close to the way things happen. I will not however go so far as to say its the "truth". These stickers say what every good scientist should know already. Theories are not truth and you should always approach science with an open mind. Without context they seem harmless to me. Every science text I've ever read started out with the scientific method which pretty much states that you come up with an idea, test it, and so long as it continues to hold up to tests you use it as a model of how things work but you always keep in your mind that if its disproven it is not correct. I think banning the stickers was in some ways silly as they in no way affirm or deny either religious or accepted scientific messages and definitely don't seem to be an abuse of the separation of church and state. In fact they just seem like common sense to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Futhermore in markets where the "average" price doesn't reach the marginal price even in an infinite market (these are usually markets with a 0 marginal price) you end up with what are called natural monopolies and they are actually the most efficent that market can get if you want anyone to participate in it. This is because people will pull out of a market if they can't get the price up to the average cost. So there are some markets where price won't reach marginal cost and software may be one of those markets.
If you examine the fault model for C/C++ programs as compared to managed programs you will find that the classes of errors are very different. Its much easier to overflow buffers and overflow integers in an unmanaged language. These types of errors lead to exploitable holes and are just way more common in C/C++ programs.
Maybe they need personalized search filters and a "never show me results from here" button.
What browser was better when IE4 and IE5 came out? There were some that had better features but not that were "better browsers" in whole.
I agree that the products have decayed but if they were truely "crap" they would die. Unfortunately "good enough" for the market isn't "good enough" for you and thats why you can buy into alternatives.
I would say this is only partially true. Microsoft products in many cases are best in class. Office really is the best productivity suite. IE until recently really was the best browser. I won't play down the fact that they use thier monopoly status to push thier products but if they really were the complete crap that slashbots like to say they are then the market would have passed them by.
Yes but maybe Microsoft understands that one of the tools to competion is understanding why your opponents are ahead. I mean I've heard that MS employees use linux from time to time as well and it makes good sense to me. How do you understand what is really good about a product if you don't experience the good and bad things for yourself?
And google is not a company who is "influenced by "stockholders' concerns""? What, other than the fact its Microsoft which isn't sufficient argument, makes you think that the search results are skewed by some strange corporate interest? Don't you think it would be quite the oppisite, they would try to give less biased results in order to get more people to put eyes on the page and look at the ads that are on the sides of the page (just like google I might add). I think its completely silly to think that Google is good when they do something and when they are emulated to the T whoever is emulating them is bad. I predict a day when people wish they hadn't given so much of thier info to Google.
How is Word 6.0 for Mac a failure of Apple? Seems like it was a failure of Microsoft?
Except that googles plan seems to be to track your behavior in EVERYTHING you do on the web and aggregate this to sell prime info (directly or indirectly through well targeted advertisement) to the highest bidder. I'm not 100% sure that this is really in the realm of "do no evil".
I would assume because base64 coding of binary data bloats its size (I think up to 40% additional size over the uncoded binary) and takes time to encode/decode. If you were to be able to put a marker in an element that says "binary blob 100 goes here" and include binary blob 100 in some other area that is pure binary then you would have the binary data without encoding overhead.
Probably doesn't do a lot of stuff that Bluetooth does and that is probably the point. Seems like a simple cheap protocol would be advantageous as wireless device control protocol.
Does the ban on funding block funding studies on the stem cells extracted from umbilical cord blood? I was pretty sure you could get clean stem cells from that.
I've been told by people in the profession that this is not true, there are other stem cells that are just as good or better. Its just that they know how to get the embryonic cells and it was cheap. Something like that anyways.
And as soon as the prices go back up any of the previous vendors is able to start in the market at his original price and will easily gain back market share. Unfortunately the predator can't keep up with this forever and will not survive. If you check many economics books written today you will find that studies show that predatory pricing is rarely successful for growth. In one major case where predatory pricing is credited with the success (Standard Oil I think) it is more likely that timely purchase of competitors was a much bigger reason for success than predatory pricing.
I think the DNS attacks they are talking about in the article may trick even SpoofStick as the domain your browser went to really was the site you thought you went to. Its just that DNS (or your hosts file) gave you a bogus IP for that domain which sent you to a phishers server. Your browser really does think it went to: "https://www.paypal.com" for example.
If they hijack the DNS so that https://www.paypal.com actually goes to a site owned by the phisher but looks exactly like paypal it doesn't matter what OS you are on you will get scammed if you type in username/password to log on. I don't see a way to know that you are on the wrong site when its DNS that sent you to the wrong place unless you keep a list of valid paypal IP's and check the IP of the site you went to.
I was pretty sure that Longhorn was a workstation version of the OS and a server version would be coming after that with a new codename. Compare the graphics on win2k3 to XP and you will get a feeling for the different I predict between longhorn and future server releases.
I still don't see how it is the incorrect usage, though the creators of the sticker would like you to jump to that conclusion. It just says that theories are not facts (though they leave out the important point that the theory of evolution is supported by many facts) and that they should be approached with an open critical mind. Everything should be approached with an open critical mind especially science. Is a sticker necessary? Of course not, but should the sticker be censored? No.
One further definition though I have no discussion of this:
http://dict.die.net/law%20of%20nature/
Source: WordNet (r) 1.7
law of nature
n : a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in
nature: "the laws of thermodynamics" [syn: law]
http://dict.die.net/fact/
Source: WordNet (r) 1.7
theory
n 1: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the
natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge
that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a
specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate
facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and
theory"
2: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that
is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain
facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives
experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he
proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted
in chemical practices" [syn: hypothesis, possibility]
3: a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a
theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory
that dead men tell no tales"
I think the definition of theory is more pertinent to this discussion as many here point out defintion 1 is more appropriate to science and yet the implication of the stickers would lead you toward definition 2. I think it is important that people understand what science really does which is model the world as closely as possible given the facts (observations and empiricle evidence from experimentation). Theories in my less exact definition are hypothesis which have a great deal of facts backing them and have not been disproven by any verifiable test. The stickers are not incorrect and should be a good starting point for a careful discussion of the scientific method.
You still haven't convinced me that evolution is a fact, there are many facts supporting the theory and I happen to believe it, but it is not a fact. The only thing stated in the comments on this article that could push evolution into fact is observation of the change over time of bacteria and yet nothing has shown that this microevolution leads to evolution on a larger scale sufficient to differentiate species. Evolution is very compelling and I'd say that it is the "right" theory but it is not, by definition, a fact.
That said I happen to strongly believe that evolution is the way that our species developed on this planet the same as all other species.
http://dict.die.net/fact/
Source: WordNet (r) 1.7
fact
n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or
events that have occurred; "first you must collect all
the facts of the case"
2: a statement or assertion of verified information about
something that is the case or has happened; "he supported
his argument with an impressive array of facts"
3: an event known to have happened or something known to have
existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of
the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
4: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses
are not facts"
I thought a definition would be useful here. The sticker is completely correct in stating that theory is not fact by all of the above definitions. I agree that the reason the sticker is on the books is definitely biased but the message itself is fairly neutral and fully accurate so far as I can tell. If they had stated that the theory of evolution was false or had been proven incorrect then they would be inaccurate and the sticker defintely should be removed. As it stands it is just a statement of common sense that should be practiced by any scientist.
Since when is the "theory of evolution" not a theory? Since when are theories ever proven? I agree that evolution is very much the accepted scientific theory and I do fully believe it to be very close to the way things happen. I will not however go so far as to say its the "truth". These stickers say what every good scientist should know already. Theories are not truth and you should always approach science with an open mind. Without context they seem harmless to me. Every science text I've ever read started out with the scientific method which pretty much states that you come up with an idea, test it, and so long as it continues to hold up to tests you use it as a model of how things work but you always keep in your mind that if its disproven it is not correct. I think banning the stickers was in some ways silly as they in no way affirm or deny either religious or accepted scientific messages and definitely don't seem to be an abuse of the separation of church and state. In fact they just seem like common sense to me.
That said spending 10% of your budget on privacy lawsuits would be less efficient.