I agree that competition is forcing Microsoft to change, but I don't think it is at all fair to say they're "losing badly to competing browsers". They still have a sizable majority of the browser market right now.
They're not making significant changes to IE because they're losing, but because they want to keep winning.
...although a browser that's faster than other browsers on a modern dual-core desktop is not necessarily going to be faster than other browsers on a netbook. If people are going to benchmark browsers, there probably should be at least two separate sets of benchmarks.
...and yeah, I kind of think the problem is with Hotmail. With Chrome, there's a workaround you can use in which you lie to hotmail.com about what browser you're using. Perhaps something similar will work in Safari?
When VCRs first came out, buying a movie on videotape cost what? $50? $60? It took Hollywood years to learn that they made a lot more money selling a very large number of movies at $20 apiece than they made selling a small number of movies at $50 each. One has to wonder why it's taking the game industry so long to learn the same lesson.
Part of the advantage of open source is that they are independent of the corporate world because they are not financially beholden to corporations in the same way a closed source project is.
Taking all that wonderful independence, then making them dependent on the government effectively gives the government influence over these open source projects, which to me takes some of the gleam off of the whole open source movement.
There may very well be a real advantage to having the government make part of the computer infrastructure "free" the same way the government makes roads "free", but for now I'd rather the open source movement be left to its own devices. If a nation becomes dependent on an open source project and that project becomes financially threatened, then sure; that government can prop up that open source project with tax dollars, but until then let's leave it alone.
Geez, I almost sound like one of those libertarian wackos.
Perhaps he phrased it badly, but I think what he meant to say is that having humans on more than one planet enhances our survivability greatly, which [b]does[/b] affect us from the standpoint of evolution.
Obviously, you evil communists just want to punish the most productive members of our society. Productive members like Bernie Madoff and Paris Hilton. If you want to live in a communist country so bad, you can move back to Venezuela, you terrorist-lover!
Indeed. The Apple stores are necessary because there have been too many times in the past when Apple products were not widely available in normal retail outlets. By contrast, pretty much any store that sells computer stuff will sell Microsoft operating systems, Microsoft office suites, Microsoft mice, Microsoft keyboards, etc.
...Microsoft does offer an excellent line of keyboards and mice, but keyboards, mice, operating systems, and office suites are simply not enough to create a viable retail chain in my opinion, particularly not at the start of a looming depression.
Natural Selection has had negligible effect on the Christian Science movement (the ones that refuse medical any treatment and will only use prayer for healing), and they kill their own children far more frequently than the vaccine nuts.
Yeah, it's no different from the way Christians will cling to creationism (and in some extreme cases, geocentrism) regardless of what facts or evidence is presented to them. Ditto with people who believe in JFK assassination conspiracies or 9/11 conspiracies. They're invested in their beliefs and won't let mere evidence get in the way.
The idea of a universal definition of "art" is (IMO) born of art critics trying to keep their jobs. I stick with what one artist friend told me: "If you feel something, it's art".
That is to say that the definition of art is a highly personal one. What is art for me may not be art for you and vice versa.
The only people I've heard use the phrase "Darwinism" are creationists. The only people I've seen fixate on Darwin and equate Darwin with evolution are creationists. I have to wonder if the author has ever been in an actual debate with one of these people.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that competition is forcing Microsoft to change, but I don't think it is at all fair to say they're "losing badly to competing browsers". They still have a sizable majority of the browser market right now.
They're not making significant changes to IE because they're losing, but because they want to keep winning.
...although a browser that's faster than other browsers on a modern dual-core desktop is not necessarily going to be faster than other browsers on a netbook. If people are going to benchmark browsers, there probably should be at least two separate sets of benchmarks.
Perhaps we should become communist like China so that we won't be "governmentally encumbered". :D
...and yeah, I kind of think the problem is with Hotmail. With Chrome, there's a workaround you can use in which you lie to hotmail.com about what browser you're using. Perhaps something similar will work in Safari?
...I would have assumed they were going to block sites like Rapture Ready and the Hannity forums.
If you think this is the only thing coming out of (or happening in) Iran that doesn't involve terrorists or nukes, you are remarkably uninformed.
isn't there malware out there that can make it look like you are receiving an email from someone you know?
If so, this is not just a matter of being smart enough to not open attachments from strangers.
Doesn't that tinfoil hat make you itch sometimes?
The whole moths-flying-at-light sources isn't about mating, it's a malfunction of their navigation methods.
When VCRs first came out, buying a movie on videotape cost what? $50? $60? It took Hollywood years to learn that they made a lot more money selling a very large number of movies at $20 apiece than they made selling a small number of movies at $50 each. One has to wonder why it's taking the game industry so long to learn the same lesson.
Part of the advantage of open source is that they are independent of the corporate world because they are not financially beholden to corporations in the same way a closed source project is.
Taking all that wonderful independence, then making them dependent on the government effectively gives the government influence over these open source projects, which to me takes some of the gleam off of the whole open source movement.
There may very well be a real advantage to having the government make part of the computer infrastructure "free" the same way the government makes roads "free", but for now I'd rather the open source movement be left to its own devices. If a nation becomes dependent on an open source project and that project becomes financially threatened, then sure; that government can prop up that open source project with tax dollars, but until then let's leave it alone.
Geez, I almost sound like one of those libertarian wackos.
Perhaps he phrased it badly, but I think what he meant to say is that having humans on more than one planet enhances our survivability greatly, which [b]does[/b] affect us from the standpoint of evolution.
Obviously, you evil communists just want to punish the most productive members of our society. Productive members like Bernie Madoff and Paris Hilton. If you want to live in a communist country so bad, you can move back to Venezuela, you terrorist-lover!
...which is simply real estate costs. I just don't see how this could be economically viable.
Can't they just get a DNA sample from the nearest redneck?
Just sayin'
Indeed. The Apple stores are necessary because there have been too many times in the past when Apple products were not widely available in normal retail outlets. By contrast, pretty much any store that sells computer stuff will sell Microsoft operating systems, Microsoft office suites, Microsoft mice, Microsoft keyboards, etc.
...Microsoft does offer an excellent line of keyboards and mice, but keyboards, mice, operating systems, and office suites are simply not enough to create a viable retail chain in my opinion, particularly not at the start of a looming depression.
Natural Selection has had negligible effect on the Christian Science movement (the ones that refuse medical any treatment and will only use prayer for healing), and they kill their own children far more frequently than the vaccine nuts.
Yeah, it's no different from the way Christians will cling to creationism (and in some extreme cases, geocentrism) regardless of what facts or evidence is presented to them. Ditto with people who believe in JFK assassination conspiracies or 9/11 conspiracies. They're invested in their beliefs and won't let mere evidence get in the way.
The idea of a universal definition of "art" is (IMO) born of art critics trying to keep their jobs. I stick with what one artist friend told me: "If you feel something, it's art".
That is to say that the definition of art is a highly personal one. What is art for me may not be art for you and vice versa.
The only people I've heard use the phrase "Darwinism" are creationists. The only people I've seen fixate on Darwin and equate Darwin with evolution are creationists. I have to wonder if the author has ever been in an actual debate with one of these people.
Amazon link
No doubt some of the ideas in here are outdated by now, but it almost certainly will fire the imagination of some of your students.
You mean to tell me that squirting random chunks of DNA into the zygote of another species doesn't result in a viable crossbreed? No! Get out of here!
Sorry, had to get a dig in on the Flat Earth crowd.