Doesnt seem likely.. Firefox market share has been dropping since the beginning of 2010 (lost almost 1/3rd of its market share), telling us that more and more people are not satisfied with the browser. Why would people want to adopt an entire new OS built on something that they are growingly not satisfied with?
ChromeOS has much more of a chance, and by most people estimates, that chance is somewhere between slim and fat.
Well, it sure looks to me like the amount of ice at the other pole has been growing.
..the graph, however, only goes to 2008. I am sure someone will reply with data on only part of Antarctica (West Antarctic, or the Antarctic Peninsula) that shows it shrinking rather than growing, but that was also true before 2008, which the graph covers.
Cherry picking? The world is never short on records being broken. To convince others of your beliefs, simply trumpet those records that support you and dont mention those that don't.
I mean, I don't think it's great reasoning either, but try not to deliberately misrepresent the other side of the argument; it actually hurts your side.
Are you suggesting that its wrong to call a political party a bunch of racist bigots just because they support a policy that disproportionately effects minorities? Thats not what Democrats told me.
I think the Republican idea is that the Diversity Lottery is based on bad reasoning to begin with.
The Diversity Lottery gives priority to people from countries that have low rates of immigration to the U.S.
Forget about the "intent" of this lottery for a moment and instead consider what it actually does.. it gives priority to someone from France over someone from Mexico or China, and its simply because fewer people from France want to come and work here. Mexicans and Chinese are not allowed in the Diversity Lottery because more than 50,000 of each have immigrated in the past 5 years, a statistic that disallows them from even entering the lottery.
Here is the list of countries ineligible for DV2013 (according to Wikipedia):
Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.
This new law would re-target the Diversity Visa's to give priority to people with advanced degrees, instead of to people from the 'right' country. What do Democrats have against people from the above listed countries? That is, essentially, what they are arguing.. that something is wrong with those people.
A lot of my searches are for research papers, and the difference between the main Google and Bing is barely noticeable at all. Both get quite a bit of link-farm and paywall noise. However, Google Scholar is superior to everything else.
I have mentioned this search term ("extended compact genetic algorithm") before about articles related to google and bing. Pretty much every time a Google vs Bing article comes up, I fire up this search on both to see how things have improved or gotten worse. Regular Google used to be a lot better, and Bing used to be a lot worse. I only add google scholar to show how good things might actually be if these sites stopped allowing pay-walls at the top.
If you just went to google.com and typed in a search, the IE toolbar wouldnt report things back to bing. It is only if you used the search box of the toolbar that this was happening.
The difference between the IE toolbar and the Google toolbar is that the google toolbar cannot be configured to use any search engine other than google.
Now, next time be totally honest about what was happening. I dont think its too hard to do that. Microsoft still looks bad when being honest.. no need to exaggerate.
Are the schools to blame though, or rent seeking stock photo sources?
The stock photo sources didnt put a gun to the schools head and make them choose this textbook.
In the case of Ontario, the Minister of Education creates a list of acceptable textbooks called the Trillium List which the schools may then choose from.
The question is, do you believe that this was the best art history textbook on the list? The guilty party depends on the answer.
I hate MS myself, but truthfully, wasn't there a split in that time frame too?
These prices account for splits. The split you are talking about was 2 for 1 in February 2003.
There is no evidence here that Microsoft had strong growth in the 2000's. The growth it has is mainly just from the now slowly growing desktop and workstation industry as a whole, which is mostly mature and may be (some say) doomed to be replaced by tablets and phones.
I'm not saying that you should be buying MSFT, and I'm not saying that you should be selling MSFT. However, if Microsofts x86 Surface device (not to be confused with the ARM variant, or OEM WinRT offerings) flops then its probably time to get out and diversify in Android companies, because mobile IS where the growth is.
course i extended the original 12 year range by one year to get the MSFT peak price since it's IPO
Yes, you extended it to right before the tech bubble burst, a bubble which climaxed on March 10th, 2000.
There was a good reason that I went back 10 years, not 12, or 13... because going back farther meant to be honest I would have to go back to before the tech bubble, to 1995, when MSFT was $4.00 per share.
It should be noted that this article is about materials that perform the job of converting temperature gradients into electricity directly. Other methods of doing so are still more efficient (see your local coal, oil, gas, or nuclear plant.)
If only Apple had realized that the mobile market was even more MAD than the desktop market...
In the desktop world, Apple tried to sue Microsoft and HP over the desktop GUI paradigm, but ended up facing a counter-suit from both Microsoft and HP, as well as a fresh lawsuit from Xerox. Apple lost almost every point in these battles, but did win on one point.. HP's icons were too similar to Apples, so HP had to draw new ones.
Battered, bruised, and broke.. Apple was forced to cross-license with Microsoft, make Internet Explorer their default browser, and sell Microsoft $150 million in stock.
Initially when Apple opened up the mobile lawsuits, things were going MAD with pretty much every company going after every other company, but now not so much. In July, 60% of mobile lawsuits involved Apple. The truce among the other companies is mostly restored, putting the bullseye squarely on Apple.
You are right about IE8 but in the summary I read "Adobe announced on the Photoshop Blog that the next version of Photoshop CS would support only Windows 7 and 8."
..it also said that CS6 doesnt support vista... meanwhile I am running CS5 on Win7, and I suspect we could go back to Photoshop 7 or earlier and have no problems.
The threat of new/changing features is the same reason that businesses cannot adopt Google Docs.
Its a threat.
No business in their right mind would use either Office 365 or Google Docs. The standalone office suite? Sure. (Open)LibreOffice? That would work too. But some web-based thing that can change at any moment? No way in hell.
Indeed. $8.33/month is a hefty price for consumer software.
There must be some sort of "service" that comes with the package in order to make it compelling, and I don't mean "free upgrades" and "cloud storage."
Actually since this is "Office 365" and not actually Office, that should be "forced upgrades," the very reason people should be staying clear of both "Office 365" and "Google Docs." Upgrades sometimes mean a break in compatibility, surprise interface changes, and sometimes even feature reduction (as Google has done in the past with some of its online services.)
My rights started with Lyndon B. Johnson, who made sure that new law was written stating not only that I had the right, but also how to exerciser my right.
I didn't read the rest of your post because you began with complete bullshit proving that you are completely willing to make up whatever the fuck you want while pretending to be a fucking authority.
I have this awesome idea.. what you don't know what you are talking about, simply don't open your fucking mouth pretending that you do. Its such a simple thing.. even easier than checking the historic price of MSFT.. and that was fucking VERY easy.
If Mann's work emails has stuff labeled "confidential" then he should be fired immediately, because hes supposed to be a climate scientist, not a member of the dod, cia, nsa, or state department.
I see this so often, but honestly think it is baloney. Some liberals eye others' stuff -- the homologues to Hannity and Beck -- but the *vast* majority of liberals do not believe that taxes should be increased to make a rigged system fair.
Ah yes, and then they turn around and ask that the upper middle class and higher pay their "fair share" in taxes.
The liberals most certainly throw around poorly defined crap like "fair share," and the fact that it is poorly defined leads to the conclusions that its entirely an appeal to emotion, and that the motives are different than the story.
You can't wash the wealth redistribution out of the actions of the liberals in congress, regardless of their motives, motives which they intentionally distract from by appealing to emotions instead of reason.
The liberals successfully altered the popular notion of greed to be 'wanting to keep what you earn' while somehow they get away with not being called greedy for 'wanting what someone else earned.' It is a common theme on the liberal side to accuse the opposition of exactly what they themselves are doing or about to do, in this case calling the opposition "greedy" while appealing to "fair share" emotions.
It seems that you are looking for only one group of people to blame because of your choice of political view.
Some of us realize that its not possible to lay blame on a single individual or single entity. However we do know that the people that actually tried to do something about it deserve absolutely no blame at all, and the people that stopped them from doing something about it most definitely deserve a lot of blame.
Not all House/Senate members tried to do something about it, but some of them did. People like John McCain and Ron Paul.
Meanwhile, not all House/Senate members worked to thwart the attempts to do something about, but some of them did. People like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Feel free to add to the list of people that tried to do something about it, and add to the list of people that stopped something from being done about it. Only include their party affiliation to inform yourself of the very large party bias of the first list (the second list isnt quite as biased, but still is)
The issue was never trying to get unqualified minorities mortgages but rather trying to get qualified minorities mortgages.
No, that was the excuse. The democrats often cry 'racism' in order to disarm the opposition to their corruption.
What were banks supposed to do, put out advertisements saying "If you are a minority and have good credit, why not buy a house?" in order to increase the number of 'qualified minority' mortgage applications? Couldn't the government have just sent in the military and made people buy houses at gunpoint?
Or as Bill Burr puts it, "of course having a gun in the house increases your chances of an accidental gun injury -- having a swimming pool in the backyard also increase your chances of drowning"
Slashdot Mirror
Doesnt seem likely.. Firefox market share has been dropping since the beginning of 2010 (lost almost 1/3rd of its market share), telling us that more and more people are not satisfied with the browser. Why would people want to adopt an entire new OS built on something that they are growingly not satisfied with?
ChromeOS has much more of a chance, and by most people estimates, that chance is somewhere between slim and fat.
Well, it sure looks to me like the amount of ice at the other pole has been growing.
..the graph, however, only goes to 2008. I am sure someone will reply with data on only part of Antarctica (West Antarctic, or the Antarctic Peninsula) that shows it shrinking rather than growing, but that was also true before 2008, which the graph covers.
Cherry picking? The world is never short on records being broken. To convince others of your beliefs, simply trumpet those records that support you and dont mention those that don't.
I mean, I don't think it's great reasoning either, but try not to deliberately misrepresent the other side of the argument; it actually hurts your side.
Are you suggesting that its wrong to call a political party a bunch of racist bigots just because they support a policy that disproportionately effects minorities? Thats not what Democrats told me.
I think the Republican idea is that the Diversity Lottery is based on bad reasoning to begin with.
The Diversity Lottery gives priority to people from countries that have low rates of immigration to the U.S.
Forget about the "intent" of this lottery for a moment and instead consider what it actually does.. it gives priority to someone from France over someone from Mexico or China, and its simply because fewer people from France want to come and work here. Mexicans and Chinese are not allowed in the Diversity Lottery because more than 50,000 of each have immigrated in the past 5 years, a statistic that disallows them from even entering the lottery.
Here is the list of countries ineligible for DV2013 (according to Wikipedia):
Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.
This new law would re-target the Diversity Visa's to give priority to people with advanced degrees, instead of to people from the 'right' country. What do Democrats have against people from the above listed countries? That is, essentially, what they are arguing.. that something is wrong with those people.
A lot of my searches are for research papers, and the difference between the main Google and Bing is barely noticeable at all. Both get quite a bit of link-farm and paywall noise. However, Google Scholar is superior to everything else.
.. standard google .. standard bing .. google scholar
"extended compact genetic algorithm"
"extended compact genetic algorithm"
"extended compact genetic algorithm"
Proposing a simple scoring mechanism with the score being the number of papers (PDF and PS files) actually linked to in the first page of results:
google.com - score 5
bing.com - score 4
scholar.google.com - score 8
I have mentioned this search term ("extended compact genetic algorithm") before about articles related to google and bing. Pretty much every time a Google vs Bing article comes up, I fire up this search on both to see how things have improved or gotten worse. Regular Google used to be a lot better, and Bing used to be a lot worse. I only add google scholar to show how good things might actually be if these sites stopped allowing pay-walls at the top.
If you just went to google.com and typed in a search, the IE toolbar wouldnt report things back to bing. It is only if you used the search box of the toolbar that this was happening.
The difference between the IE toolbar and the Google toolbar is that the google toolbar cannot be configured to use any search engine other than google.
Now, next time be totally honest about what was happening. I dont think its too hard to do that. Microsoft still looks bad when being honest.. no need to exaggerate.
Second of all, none of my computer science books have computers in them
Do they have an empty spaces where a computer was meant to be, with a newegg URL so that you can buy your own?
lots of them don't have code in them.
Do they have empty spaces where source code was meant to be, with a URL?
Are the schools to blame though, or rent seeking stock photo sources?
The stock photo sources didnt put a gun to the schools head and make them choose this textbook.
In the case of Ontario, the Minister of Education creates a list of acceptable textbooks called the Trillium List which the schools may then choose from.
The question is, do you believe that this was the best art history textbook on the list? The guilty party depends on the answer.
I hate MS myself, but truthfully, wasn't there a split in that time frame too?
These prices account for splits. The split you are talking about was 2 for 1 in February 2003.
There is no evidence here that Microsoft had strong growth in the 2000's. The growth it has is mainly just from the now slowly growing desktop and workstation industry as a whole, which is mostly mature and may be (some say) doomed to be replaced by tablets and phones.
I'm not saying that you should be buying MSFT, and I'm not saying that you should be selling MSFT. However, if Microsofts x86 Surface device (not to be confused with the ARM variant, or OEM WinRT offerings) flops then its probably time to get out and diversify in Android companies, because mobile IS where the growth is.
course i extended the original 12 year range by one year to get the MSFT peak price since it's IPO
Yes, you extended it to right before the tech bubble burst, a bubble which climaxed on March 10th, 2000.
There was a good reason that I went back 10 years, not 12, or 13... because going back farther meant to be honest I would have to go back to before the tech bubble, to 1995, when MSFT was $4.00 per share.
If both sides got to the same temperature then you would stop producing electricity, and your device would be maximally* cool
It should be noted that this article is about materials that perform the job of converting temperature gradients into electricity directly. Other methods of doing so are still more efficient (see your local coal, oil, gas, or nuclear plant.)
If only Apple had realized that the mobile market was even more MAD than the desktop market...
In the desktop world, Apple tried to sue Microsoft and HP over the desktop GUI paradigm, but ended up facing a counter-suit from both Microsoft and HP, as well as a fresh lawsuit from Xerox. Apple lost almost every point in these battles, but did win on one point.. HP's icons were too similar to Apples, so HP had to draw new ones.
Battered, bruised, and broke.. Apple was forced to cross-license with Microsoft, make Internet Explorer their default browser, and sell Microsoft $150 million in stock.
Initially when Apple opened up the mobile lawsuits, things were going MAD with pretty much every company going after every other company, but now not so much. In July, 60% of mobile lawsuits involved Apple. The truce among the other companies is mostly restored, putting the bullseye squarely on Apple.
You are right about IE8 but in the summary I read "Adobe announced on the Photoshop Blog that the next version of Photoshop CS would support only Windows 7 and 8."
They say they're going to add new features
The threat of new/changing features is the same reason that businesses cannot adopt Google Docs.
Its a threat.
No business in their right mind would use either Office 365 or Google Docs. The standalone office suite? Sure. (Open)LibreOffice? That would work too. But some web-based thing that can change at any moment? No way in hell.
Indeed. $8.33/month is a hefty price for consumer software.
There must be some sort of "service" that comes with the package in order to make it compelling, and I don't mean "free upgrades" and "cloud storage."
Actually since this is "Office 365" and not actually Office, that should be "forced upgrades," the very reason people should be staying clear of both "Office 365" and "Google Docs." Upgrades sometimes mean a break in compatibility, surprise interface changes, and sometimes even feature reduction (as Google has done in the past with some of its online services.)
what right do you have to them?
My rights started with Lyndon B. Johnson, who made sure that new law was written stating not only that I had the right, but also how to exerciser my right.
I wouldn't laugh too loud. In the last 12 years Microsoft's stock has fallen off a cliff
MSFT $23.73 - Sep 20th, 2002.
.. and that was fucking VERY easy.
MSFT $31.17 - Sep 18th, 2012.
I didn't read the rest of your post because you began with complete bullshit proving that you are completely willing to make up whatever the fuck you want while pretending to be a fucking authority.
I have this awesome idea.. what you don't know what you are talking about, simply don't open your fucking mouth pretending that you do. Its such a simple thing.. even easier than checking the historic price of MSFT
The moral of the story is, that if you think "liberals think this and conservatives think that"
I never talk about what they "think" .. that is the height of arrogance.
I talk about what they do and have done.
Wouldnt you like access to both?
Seriously.. why so partisan about it?
If Mann's work emails has stuff labeled "confidential" then he should be fired immediately, because hes supposed to be a climate scientist, not a member of the dod, cia, nsa, or state department.
I see this so often, but honestly think it is baloney. Some liberals eye others' stuff -- the homologues to Hannity and Beck -- but the *vast* majority of liberals do not believe that taxes should be increased to make a rigged system fair.
Ah yes, and then they turn around and ask that the upper middle class and higher pay their "fair share" in taxes.
The liberals most certainly throw around poorly defined crap like "fair share," and the fact that it is poorly defined leads to the conclusions that its entirely an appeal to emotion, and that the motives are different than the story.
You can't wash the wealth redistribution out of the actions of the liberals in congress, regardless of their motives, motives which they intentionally distract from by appealing to emotions instead of reason.
The liberals successfully altered the popular notion of greed to be 'wanting to keep what you earn' while somehow they get away with not being called greedy for 'wanting what someone else earned.' It is a common theme on the liberal side to accuse the opposition of exactly what they themselves are doing or about to do, in this case calling the opposition "greedy" while appealing to "fair share" emotions.
It seems that you are looking for only one group of people to blame because of your choice of political view.
Some of us realize that its not possible to lay blame on a single individual or single entity. However we do know that the people that actually tried to do something about it deserve absolutely no blame at all, and the people that stopped them from doing something about it most definitely deserve a lot of blame.
Not all House/Senate members tried to do something about it, but some of them did. People like John McCain and Ron Paul.
Meanwhile, not all House/Senate members worked to thwart the attempts to do something about, but some of them did. People like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Feel free to add to the list of people that tried to do something about it, and add to the list of people that stopped something from being done about it. Only include their party affiliation to inform yourself of the very large party bias of the first list (the second list isnt quite as biased, but still is)
The issue was never trying to get unqualified minorities mortgages but rather trying to get qualified minorities mortgages.
No, that was the excuse. The democrats often cry 'racism' in order to disarm the opposition to their corruption.
What were banks supposed to do, put out advertisements saying "If you are a minority and have good credit, why not buy a house?" in order to increase the number of 'qualified minority' mortgage applications? Couldn't the government have just sent in the military and made people buy houses at gunpoint?
Or as Bill Burr puts it, "of course having a gun in the house increases your chances of an accidental gun injury -- having a swimming pool in the backyard also increase your chances of drowning"