I don't recall slashdot mentioning this service. Downloads are $.99 and it seems comparable to what I know iTunes has. They also have nice commercial-free radio stations that let you skip songs you don't like.
An auto-update patch could first be sent out to, say, 100 volunteer test machines. If problems arise the first two days, go back and fix. Next, send it to 1,000 test machines and see what happens for a couple days. Then 10,000, etc. Gradually sweep out to the milliions of real machines in diverse scenarios as reliability is proven.
What is most shocking of all is how easy the terrorists made this look. I can imagine a situation with a single person undertaking this alone. It requires no weapons at all. Any seemingly ordinary person can walk abord a loaded flight. If the person is large/strong enough, it seems conceivable he/she would be able to knock down the few flight staff necessary to get to the cockpit and take over from there. Is it so hard to believe that someone could have knowledge of how to fly these widely used aircraft with precision? The plane could then be aimed at any building desired. It can happen so fast, it will be over before we know it.
As far as I'm concerned, this changes the entire concept of commercial aviation. The industry will never be the same again. Every detail of the flight experience must be completely rethought. And think about other countries flying in here. Any person in the world can go on a kamikaze mission like this alone. Every legal flight must be totally monitored and that requires international cooperation.
Don't even get me started about the prospects of commercial spacecraft.
Clearly the electoral college no longer serves a purpose in this country. Is there really a fundamental difference between any of the states that requires us to consider their views over the people directly? Maybe in the 18th/19th centuries when states had personalities such as pro/anti slavery among others, but thats not true today. And think about how corrupt this can get. What would happen if we started splitting up existing states in order to give more electoral votes to a particular party. For example, divide democratic New York into two states and you have not the same electoral votes as before when combined, but two more for those extra senate seats. Don't think splitting up states would ever happen? Well it actually did at least once that I know of. Massachusettes used to include Maine, but when the country was arguing about slavery they decided to split into two in order to avoid the fact that there would be a majority of pro-slave states. That was clearly a political move.
What is the remedy? Obviously to abolish the practically useless electoral "college." That better get done during the next term or even this one. For the current situation, clearly we are going to have endless battles over this for centuries to come. Now, I think we should do one of two things. We could get the Supreme Court to decide what to do (I don't know if it is allowed to, but who cares - both sides want it resolved by a neutral source so they should agree to this). Or, we should just do the whole election over and see what happens (yes, the whole country).
That's the natureal response of a linux user. Please, Janet Reno, make it easier to compete for me. Gates is too good for us, we just want to be famous. Please help!
What kind of solution is that? I don't think I have to explain what's wrong with that.
The problem with too many of you people is that you think you can do better. Don't acuse MS of having too many bugs in their software. Almost all software has bugs, that's life. And if there's a better company, it would beat them. MS is simply one of the smartest and most appealing companies in American history. Ever wonder why? Not because they are evil. Because they give the people something useful that makes them more productive. They have visions of future software years before it's released and plan their current software around those visions. I have no doubt they have used some business practices that may seem pretty harsh, but its nothing uncommon to most other companies. Due to MS's huge size, these practices are becoming more apparant than those of other companies. Maybe if the other companies start giving the consumers what they want instead of what some programmer or techie wants, there would be greater competition then there is today. Consumers don't care how the internals of an OS works. They also hate unnecssary confusion. Why would someone trying to write a novel on a computer care if thier OS has a better kernal or whatever? They don't and never will. I know most of the people coming to this site seem to be highly technical people, but the vast majority of computer users are not. That consideration is what seems to be missing from a lot of technical people's visions of the future. MS has always been a company of the people, and that's why they succeed.
I think the problem in this whole industry is obvious: It's the same problem happening in Washington right now. The people on the inside of the computer industry tend to hate MS much more than the average user does (theres plenty of poles to back me up), just as Congress tends to hate Clinton more than the public does. I think that if the industry had not followed MS's path, we would not have as big an industry as we do today. They appealed to the PUBLIC. Republicans did not and it hurt them in the last election. You people have to get your priorities strait. Who are you serving, the public or other technical people like yourself? I realize that MS may not have the most optimized OS or apps all the time--But it does what most people need it to. If you want some more precise software, then get it. But you can't blame them--they have a vision of simplicity that many others have not been as successful at and in the end thats whats more appealing. So listen to your customers, not your technical friends.
I've heard plenty of arguments of people who are both for and against MS but have yet to hear anything that can refute the statements made above. I commend the intelligence and passion of all those who take the chance to stand up for themselves and accuse MS of doing something wrong. Unfortunately I do not know of any accusations that are true.
If u have an intelligible argument, I would like to hear it.
Slashdot Mirror
c-span has it here.
I don't recall slashdot mentioning this service. Downloads are $.99 and it seems comparable to what I know iTunes has. They also have nice commercial-free radio stations that let you skip songs you don't like.
An auto-update patch could first be sent out to, say, 100 volunteer test machines. If problems arise the first two days, go back and fix. Next, send it to 1,000 test machines and see what happens for a couple days. Then 10,000, etc. Gradually sweep out to the milliions of real machines in diverse scenarios as reliability is proven.
What is most shocking of all is how easy the terrorists made this look. I can imagine a situation with a single person undertaking this alone. It requires no weapons at all. Any seemingly ordinary person can walk abord a loaded flight. If the person is large/strong enough, it seems conceivable he/she would be able to knock down the few flight staff necessary to get to the cockpit and take over from there. Is it so hard to believe that someone could have knowledge of how to fly these widely used aircraft with precision? The plane could then be aimed at any building desired. It can happen so fast, it will be over before we know it.
As far as I'm concerned, this changes the entire concept of commercial aviation. The industry will never be the same again. Every detail of the flight experience must be completely rethought. And think about other countries flying in here. Any person in the world can go on a kamikaze mission like this alone. Every legal flight must be totally monitored and that requires international cooperation.
Don't even get me started about the prospects of commercial spacecraft.
I think I'll take the train for now.
Clearly the electoral college no longer serves a purpose in this country. Is there really a fundamental difference between any of the states that requires us to consider their views over the people directly? Maybe in the 18th/19th centuries when states had personalities such as pro/anti slavery among others, but thats not true today. And think about how corrupt this can get. What would happen if we started splitting up existing states in order to give more electoral votes to a particular party. For example, divide democratic New York into two states and you have not the same electoral votes as before when combined, but two more for those extra senate seats. Don't think splitting up states would ever happen? Well it actually did at least once that I know of. Massachusettes used to include Maine, but when the country was arguing about slavery they decided to split into two in order to avoid the fact that there would be a majority of pro-slave states. That was clearly a political move.
What is the remedy? Obviously to abolish the practically useless electoral "college." That better get done during the next term or even this one. For the current situation, clearly we are going to have endless battles over this for centuries to come. Now, I think we should do one of two things. We could get the Supreme Court to decide what to do (I don't know if it is allowed to, but who cares - both sides want it resolved by a neutral source so they should agree to this). Or, we should just do the whole election over and see what happens (yes, the whole country).
Sound fair?
That's the natureal response of a linux user. Please, Janet Reno, make it easier to compete for me. Gates is too good for us, we just want to be famous. Please help!
Neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft is making any money off this book. It all goes to charity.
What kind of solution is that? I don't think I have to explain what's wrong with that.
The problem with too many of you people is that you think you can do better. Don't acuse MS of having too many bugs in their software. Almost all software has bugs, that's life. And if there's a better company, it would beat them. MS is simply one of the smartest and most appealing companies in American history. Ever wonder why? Not because they are evil. Because they give the people something useful that makes them more productive. They have visions of future software years before it's released and plan their current software around those visions. I have no doubt they have used some business practices that may seem pretty harsh, but its nothing uncommon to most other companies. Due to MS's huge size, these practices are becoming more apparant than those of other companies. Maybe if the other companies start giving the consumers what they want instead of what some programmer or techie wants, there would be greater competition then there is today. Consumers don't care how the internals of an OS works. They also hate unnecssary confusion. Why would someone trying to write a novel on a computer care if thier OS has a better kernal or whatever? They don't and never will. I know most of the people coming to this site seem to be highly technical people, but the vast majority of computer users are not. That consideration is what seems to be missing from a lot of technical people's visions of the future. MS has always been a company of the people, and that's why they succeed.
Spagetti code??? How can you accuse MS of poor coding if you havn't even seen their code before?
I think the problem in this whole industry is obvious: It's the same problem happening in Washington right now. The people on the inside of the computer industry tend to hate MS much more than the average user does (theres plenty of poles to back me up), just as Congress tends to hate Clinton more than the public does. I think that if the industry had not followed MS's path, we would not have as big an industry as we do today. They appealed to the PUBLIC. Republicans did not and it hurt them in the last election. You people have to get your priorities strait. Who are you serving, the public or other technical people like yourself? I realize that MS may not have the most optimized OS or apps all the time--But it does what most people need it to. If you want some more precise software, then get it. But you can't blame them--they have a vision of simplicity that many others have not been as successful at and in the end thats whats more appealing. So listen to your customers, not your technical friends.
I've heard plenty of arguments of people who are both for and against MS but have yet to hear anything that can refute the statements made above. I commend the intelligence and passion of all those who take the chance to stand up for themselves and accuse MS of doing something wrong. Unfortunately I do not know of any accusations that are true.
If u have an intelligible argument, I would like to hear it.