Why does it have the ribbon? I've used Paint a lot, and as far as I can see it offers no improvement at all over the standard GUI. In Paint there are only two ribbon buttons, Home and View. Isn't the whole point of the ribbon that you don't have to go menu-trawling? But you never had to in Paint to begin with. Basically all they've achieved is hiding some of the interface.
At least they fixed the magnifier from Vista though. I can't believe they used an unlabeled volume bar for that. In 7 it's a slider with the zoom level shown to the left, placed at the bottom of the window. Pretty handy.
It makes you look petty. Childish. By extension this implies you're overreacting, exaggerating or both. This undermines your case, a situation compounded by the fact that the majority of their naughtiness isn't common knowledge. As a result you will be greeted with some skepticism, and because of the perception of childishness they will be inclined to dismiss you as a crank.
You should care because these 'idiots' are the ones you're trying to convince. How will they get the abuse they allegedly deserve if nobody takes the allegations seriously? There's no point in preaching to the choir about it, and even then it's long since become tiresome.
Naturally it's illogical to disregard your point due to any of this, but most people aren't smart enough to see beyond their initial impression. You have to take that into account.
People who think that AMD's current position is solely the result of Intel's anticompetitive actions are fooling themselves... Intel has enjoyed a very solid technical lead in all but one area from 2006 onwards, and with Nehalem, they've eliminated that last corner.
I don't. Intel do have an obvious technical lead, my current system has an Intel CPU because of this. Only recently has AMD caught up with the Core 2 range. I had forgotten that the Phenom II CPUs weren't around back when Apple were changing the architecture of their PCs. Intel's lead was much greater back then.
Sure, Asimov is a good starting point for discussion, but his laws aren't a good basis for actual AI ethics programming.
I don't think they were really intended to be even in the books. The robots typically worked in industry doing specialised tasks, the laws being a safety measure in that light. They weren't designed to interact with people in general and they didn't have human-level intelligence. The ones that did were anomalies warranting special treatment.
A quote form a Greek, that believed in the predestination of Hellenic Gods. A 300 BCE quote really?
Damn, I can't think of anything to refute this. I know, I'll use an ad hominem and mouth off some horseshit about how old the quote is to serve as a distraction. A 'really' at the end for blasé and I'm on the way to a winning argument for sure!
Don't be ridiculous. It's not going to fill them any more than you can fill the ocean by pissing in it. Nor are they exclusively fining American companies; many based in the EU have been fined for the very same reason.
The goal is to stop their anti-competitive practises, not put them out of business in a fit of rage. The EU aren't just fining them and letting it go; they're monitoring them for compliance. If they fuck around, they're going to be fined even more. And more and more and more until they stop. I think the tactic will be successful.
In 11 years, I grew about one metre. Another 11 years later and I'm two metres tall. I'm going to live around 75 years; when I die they'll need a coffin six metres long!
Or just changed it back. At one point it was a perfectly reasonable 17 years. More than enough time to make a ton of money from it, yet still have an incentive to create more. (Which is the entire point)
Two people get together initially to start off the project. After that anyone that interacts with it shapes its development; although initially it changes quite rapidly, little patches are constantly applied throughout its life. A rare few become genuinely useful entities that improve all the others.
As the project begins to die, it becomes bloated and gets abandoned. Maintenance ceases. The valuable lessons accumulated over its life are then discarded as the next generation is created, stupid as a dunce brick with plenty of interoperability problems. The process continues, repeating the same old mistakes over and over again until the end of time.
Part of their problem is that they haven't even got the LAN cable plugged in yet. What do they even do online?
These are huge companies. They could offer better speeds and better quality than torrent sites and still maintain a low enough price to be enticing. They can afford mainstream advertising to bring in lots of customers. They can offer more features and better ease of use than a torrent site.
They could use the BT protocol to save on bandwidth costs. Offer both one-off-payment single movie downloads and subscriptions to all movies. Have an optional embedded player for the technologically retarded but allow downloads of individual files. Lay off the DRM, offer the service worldwide and lose the geographical restrictions. The competition doesn't have those limitations.
Where is all this stuff? They've had the means for years and they still haven't done it. My dad actually askes me where he can go online and buy a movie to watch when he feels like it; where can he? It's just not there.
The simple explanation is that it's easier to block everything rather than being selective. No doubt this realisation is part of the motivation behind the proposal.
Slashdot Mirror
Paint in Windows 7
Why does it have the ribbon? I've used Paint a lot, and as far as I can see it offers no improvement at all over the standard GUI. In Paint there are only two ribbon buttons, Home and View. Isn't the whole point of the ribbon that you don't have to go menu-trawling? But you never had to in Paint to begin with. Basically all they've achieved is hiding some of the interface.
At least they fixed the magnifier from Vista though. I can't believe they used an unlabeled volume bar for that. In 7 it's a slider with the zoom level shown to the left, placed at the bottom of the window. Pretty handy.
Should've used Notepad 2 for the coding, it has syntax highlighting.
It sounds like thousands of tiny holes being made in your ship. Shrapnel is bad enough with an atmosphere to slow it down.
Captain planet
He's a hero
Gonna bring latency
Down to zero
I drive a bagel slicer to work.
I also mount them on my sharks.
It's not a matter of them deserving it or not.
It makes you look petty. Childish. By extension this implies you're overreacting, exaggerating or both. This undermines your case, a situation compounded by the fact that the majority of their naughtiness isn't common knowledge. As a result you will be greeted with some skepticism, and because of the perception of childishness they will be inclined to dismiss you as a crank.
You should care because these 'idiots' are the ones you're trying to convince. How will they get the abuse they allegedly deserve if nobody takes the allegations seriously? There's no point in preaching to the choir about it, and even then it's long since become tiresome.
Naturally it's illogical to disregard your point due to any of this, but most people aren't smart enough to see beyond their initial impression. You have to take that into account.
People who think that AMD's current position is solely the result of Intel's anticompetitive actions are fooling themselves... Intel has enjoyed a very solid technical lead in all but one area from 2006 onwards, and with Nehalem, they've eliminated that last corner.
I don't. Intel do have an obvious technical lead, my current system has an Intel CPU because of this. Only recently has AMD caught up with the Core 2 range. I had forgotten that the Phenom II CPUs weren't around back when Apple were changing the architecture of their PCs. Intel's lead was much greater back then.
I said that to one of my coworkers once. She responded, "Are you a troll?"
She meant WoW, but it really caught me off guard...
Sure, Asimov is a good starting point for discussion, but his laws aren't a good basis for actual AI ethics programming.
I don't think they were really intended to be even in the books. The robots typically worked in industry doing specialised tasks, the laws being a safety measure in that light. They weren't designed to interact with people in general and they didn't have human-level intelligence. The ones that did were anomalies warranting special treatment.
A quote form a Greek, that believed in the predestination of Hellenic Gods. A 300 BCE quote really?
Damn, I can't think of anything to refute this. I know, I'll use an ad hominem and mouth off some horseshit about how old the quote is to serve as a distraction. A 'really' at the end for blasé and I'm on the way to a winning argument for sure!
Just shows that Intel must not have faith in their own silicone
Damn it Jim, I'm a CPU company not a plastic surgeon!
Don't be ridiculous. It's not going to fill them any more than you can fill the ocean by pissing in it. Nor are they exclusively fining American companies; many based in the EU have been fined for the very same reason.
According to what others are saying, you have to pay immediately. So I would be inclined to think so.
The goal is to stop their anti-competitive practises, not put them out of business in a fit of rage. The EU aren't just fining them and letting it go; they're monitoring them for compliance. If they fuck around, they're going to be fined even more. And more and more and more until they stop. I think the tactic will be successful.
Nonsense.
In 11 years, I grew about one metre. Another 11 years later and I'm two metres tall. I'm going to live around 75 years; when I die they'll need a coffin six metres long!
And wait till you hear about my penis!
At least in America, a lot of the network providers are also media publishers and distributors.
Or just changed it back. At one point it was a perfectly reasonable 17 years. More than enough time to make a ton of money from it, yet still have an incentive to create more. (Which is the entire point)
The masts vary in height, most of them are much higher than that. Have a look for yourself.
Actually the one you linked is the lowest I've seen so far. You picked out the lowest one you could find, didn't you? Naughty!
Don't the cars have big masts on them for the camera? They see into places you can't see walking down the street.
How about a little context with my stuff that matters?
Suddenly the entire editorial staff burst out in a fit of riotous laughter.
We all know it wasn't decided on merit.
Open source brain
They're already developed that way.
Two people get together initially to start off the project. After that anyone that interacts with it shapes its development; although initially it changes quite rapidly, little patches are constantly applied throughout its life. A rare few become genuinely useful entities that improve all the others.
As the project begins to die, it becomes bloated and gets abandoned. Maintenance ceases. The valuable lessons accumulated over its life are then discarded as the next generation is created, stupid as a dunce brick with plenty of interoperability problems. The process continues, repeating the same old mistakes over and over again until the end of time.
Sound familiar?
Ah. I see your legitimate criticism and raise you one "Why do you hate America?!"
Part of their problem is that they haven't even got the LAN cable plugged in yet. What do they even do online?
These are huge companies. They could offer better speeds and better quality than torrent sites and still maintain a low enough price to be enticing. They can afford mainstream advertising to bring in lots of customers. They can offer more features and better ease of use than a torrent site.
They could use the BT protocol to save on bandwidth costs. Offer both one-off-payment single movie downloads and subscriptions to all movies. Have an optional embedded player for the technologically retarded but allow downloads of individual files. Lay off the DRM, offer the service worldwide and lose the geographical restrictions. The competition doesn't have those limitations.
Where is all this stuff? They've had the means for years and they still haven't done it. My dad actually askes me where he can go online and buy a movie to watch when he feels like it; where can he? It's just not there.
The simple explanation is that it's easier to block everything rather than being selective. No doubt this realisation is part of the motivation behind the proposal.