And realizing that cookies aren't spyware, but rather a means by which marketing companies gather and compile data about me on my own computer so that they more effectively target me with their advertising makes me more attitudinally inclined too. ..
Ummm, where's that nuke button again?
See, that's the problem with marketers. They like marketing and think it's a good thing, so they think we like marketing and think it's a good thing.
Whereas most of us think that Bill Hicks was being a bit of a soft hearted wuss in his displayed attitude toward them.
He simply called upon them to kill themselves. We want to roast them, slowly, while we watch.
I'd suggest that the study is probably right about the average larger brain providing its owner with a higher intelligence than the average average-sized brain.
People with small brains (PHBs), however, are going to either ignore or misunderstand the fact that the "study" explicitly refers to averages.
I remember when sports physiologists first started using oxygen uptake data to predict endurance sport performance. A journalist was being shown the data for the American National Cycling Team and noted that the figure for Paul Deem, the workhorse member of the team, was only average.
"Well yes," said the physiologist, "but that's just Paul. He wants it more than anyone else."
This study isn't even a study, in the sense that no actual new research was carried out and thus it provides no new data.
It is a meta-study. A conglomeration of already existing studies, and thus is really only as valid as the least valid of the studies upon which it is based.
Garbage in, garbage out.
And it is pathetically easy to pump all sorts of garbage into a meta-study to derive any garbage you want by careful selection of the studies you "study." One good study is worth more than a billion bad ones.
Which brings up the question of methodology. A meta-study is only valid to the degree that it congolmerates similar studies. Differences in methodology of the included studies alone can completely invalidate the meta-study prima facie, because this fails to properly isolate the phenomenon being examined.
At best a meta-study is really only good to provide a clue as to where more study might be valuably directed. At worst they have absolutely no value at all other than getting the author published while pushing his agenda.
. ..asked users to select their gender between "not specified," "male" or "bitch,". ..
Well, according to Dawn French there are two kinds of women, ones with chocolate, and complete bitches, so perhaps Microsoft's real error was the noninclusion of "chocolate" from the available selections.
And always remember to yell "Fire!" when you fall into the chocolate (and a Brownie Point to the first one who correctly answers why you yell "Fire!" without resorting to Google).
Centrifugal force is just another name for circular acceleration. Although it's not a fundamental force, it's a perfectly valid term to use. ..
No. It isn't, and it isn't. It is the exact opposite of "just another name for circular acceleration," which is centripital (toward the center) force,(the only force that can create circular acceleration). The natural inertial motion of the accelerated object is not centrifugal (away from the center) either, being directed along the straight line tangent to the curve of the accelerated motion.
Draw the force vector diagram.
If you are swinging a ball around on a string a centrifugal force is what your hand feels, not what what ball being circularly accelerated feels. ..
. ..just like "a pulling force" or "a pushing force".
Which is actually the pushing force of your feet against the ground and friction. There are no true pulling forces in Newtonian mechanics. They are illusory psuedo forces generated at the atomic level and by the senses being confused by the affects of friction.
You cannot make a rocket engine that will pull itself through space, because there is no such force. Things move in the opposite direction to the applied force. If you want something to move to the left, you have to push it that way from the right. When you "pull" a car with a rope what you are really doing is pushing the earth away from your feet, the earth pushes back on your feet with an equal and opposite force and you move, but the car only moves because it is, in the eyes and ears of Newton's Laws, atomically connected to you. You, the car, and the rope, are the same object to the physics of the situation, just as the front bumper of the car and the back bumper of the car are simply parts of the system "car."
Stories don't need to have their worlds be reconciled with the one we carry around in our heads, but they do need to have the actions in their story make sense relative to the world as it has been revealed in the story.
I hinted at this, but did not expound upon it, when I refered to the "laws" of magic. One of the things that makes magic so attractive to the writer is that he gets to define it's laws himself.
Where many, however, fall down is not paying attention to the fact that once such laws are established in the story they are law and must be followed, as well as having the characters behave reasonably given such laws.
The most annoying version of this, at least to me, that ruins many a decent movie and keeps some decent movies from being great is giving a protagonist some unopposable force, but then have them not use it until the final scene (The Karate Kid), often not until watching everyone they know die first (The Last Starfighter).
Do you think perhaps the reason 2001 was so well recieved is that it didn't spend but a few seconds on how the ship's gravity worked. ..
The issue isn't explanations making it work, but rather explanations not breaking it. Going back to the very dawn of Science Fiction Jules Verne spent a good deal more time on explanations than is common even in "hard" Science Fiction today. The thing is that all of his explanations worked, they were actual, understandable science, extrapolated to some fantastic, but utterly believable, setting.
Like using circular acceleration (not centrifugal force) to simulate gravity (Einstein's Equivilence Principle). No extended explanation was necessary, because the idea was already well understood, at least by the scientifically sophisticated.
Clarke and Kubrick failed to break the story by making up some obviously bullshit and fallsifiable explanation for reincarnation of how the Monolith worked. They just presented the results, what happened, as a given.
Don't forget who originated the famous quote and that the story relied on the characters encountering a technology they could not distinguish from magic.
Man can believe the impossible, but can never believe the improbable. - Oscar Wilde
I truely hate to critise Mr. Wilde, as his genius often relied on chosing exactly the right word at exactly the right time, but. ..
As my own example of the shell casings illustrates there is a good deal more subtlty to it than that. Man can believe the impossible, but it has to be exactly the right kind of believable impossibility.
I believe the word that Mr. Wilde was looking for was not "improbable," but rather "implausible," especially as his greatest art relied on making the entirely improbable plausible.
But then perhaps he got it right after all, as his was the sort of genius that proves the rule.
Come to think of it, knowing Mr. Wilde only through his writings, it's just possible, although perhaps improbable, that he was having a bit of a joke by subtly pointing that out.
You certainly have a point, but then the movies have always been based on some gimmick or other. The original gimmick was simply the fact that the pictures moved. You do not perceive that as a gimmick because you have grown up in an environment where moving pictures are simply taken for granted.
The gimmick that worked for 50 years and the loss of which is resulting in declining attendence was in making the theater experience more luxurious, inexpensively, than could be obtained in the viewer's home. Poor people getting to spend an afternoon as if they were rich for a price a poor person could afford to spend.
And, ultimately, the art of story telling itself is simply in the ability to turn a gimmick into art; and despite many movie makers losing sight of the fact, the art of the movie is inseperable from the art of story telling.
The events in Aarne Thompson tale 510A were "caused" by (insert supernatural agent here).
What the poster above failed to grasp is that the supernatural "McGuffin" (or MacGuffin for traditionalists) doesn't matter. Magical fish (the agent in the earliest known version of the tale), Ghost, Fairy Godmother, Wizard, Invisible little fuzzy pink unicorn with a magic horn, they all simply translate into "it were done by magic."
My original post relates to trying to explain magical events as nonmagical. Claiming a supernatural event as an explanation of a supernatural event begs the question.
Science fiction is writing on the razor's edge. One false move and you lose the balance of the story; and it dies. The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. Death is final even for a story. If you lose your reader in chapter 2 it doesn't matter if you write a "retrieval" in chapter 4, because the reader didn't believe a single damn word of chapter 3. (Yes, there are rare masters who can write books that can only be understood on the second reading, but such are rare, and they are truely masters if they can get you to that second reading in the first place. They created a degree of skepticism in the reader without truely killing the story. It was just mostly dead. Mostly dead you can work with. If you're a master).
Where most science fiction writers lose their balance is in trying to explain the technology at the level of the characters, when what they need to do is explain the technology at the level of the reader.
If, to the reader, the technology is indistinguishable from magic, write as if it were magic, because it is.
This is specifically where Lucas lost his balance and his story died.
Also they tried to explain everything which before where just accepted. ..
Groundhog Day is a great fucking movie. It is a great fucking movie for one primary reason:
They never once, not even to the teeny, tiniest degree, tried to "explain" what was going on. They simply told the story. What happened.
I wish more writers would grasp the essential idea that a story is simply what happens.
Cinderella works, and has continued to work for over a thousand years, not because the paranormal events are well explained, but because they are not "explained" at all. It's magic. Everybody knows that.
The second you try to invoke biological or "quantum flux" into the deal to give a plausable reason for the mice turning into horses you're just going to create an audience that sits there saying "Like, dude, that's completely retarded."
We can accept magic in a story, even if we know there is no such thing, and enjoy it immensely, because magic is, up front and by definition, not subject to the rules of reason or physics and we have suspended our disbelief in such from the outset in order to enjoy the tale.
Any attempt to impose rational explanation on magic simply ruins the exeperinece of the tale by creating obvious falsehood and makes it clear that the story teller is a hack who doesn't know his own business.
Magic wands are perfectly "believable." Showing a.44 casing in a story that requires it to have been fired by a.38 is not. Magic need only be shown to be obeying the "laws" of magic. Reality needs to be shown to be obeying the laws of reality.
Mixing the two up inappropriately innately creates an unbelievable mess.
1. Available in the theaters 2. Available on DVD 3. Available as a pay-for-download
Almost, but not quite.
In first run you make the DVD available, but only in the theater. This brings the theater owners on board by giving them an additional profit center. The movie becomes an "ad" for the DVD.
Then you make the retail DVD and pay per download release cuncurrently with second release to the theaters. Second release theaters and "art houses" are the only ones still selling the "theater experience" and do so at a lower cost than a DVD, so they aren't innately in competition with home viewing.
Everyone should come out a winner under this sytem, accpet the people who have to have everything "Now, or I'll hold my breath until I turn blue."
And those people deserve to have as much of their money taken away from them as is possible. They don't know how to use it anyway.
They don't call theaters "The Big Screen" for nothing.
In my city we have the benefit of having a fully restored vaudevillian theater (and one that was considered the most luxurious in its day at that. The first time I saw I show on Broadway in NYC I was shocked at how pathetic the theater was) with plush seats, $2 tickets, snacks at the same price as you'd pay at CVS and biiiiiig fucking screen.
It's God Almight theater.
Makes a big difference in the willingness to leave home to attend.
The only downside is you have to wait for second run, but second run these days is fairly quick, DVD release being the true second run now.
They'll be showing the latest Harry Potter for the first time next month, but they're going to show all three in succession, and the first one they are showing for free! So that's all three Potter movies, in style and luxury, on an old fashioned really big screen, for less than the cost of a box of popcorn at the icky, cramped Hoyts two car garage they call a "theater."
In the first few decades TV did not significantly hurt the movies, despite the dire predictions, because going to the movies was still a God honest event that surpassed the home experience. Since that time the home event has gotten gobs better, although the price of high end home equipment is high, for the real movie buff it comes out to cheaper than footing the rising price of movies viewed in the theater and the theater experience itself, in the quest of squeezing every dime out of the customers for the least possible capital expenditure to do it, has significantly degraded.
When what they really need to do to make sure they keep asses (interpret that word any way you like) is to make sure the theater experience stays ahead of the home experience.
In other words, it needs to be worth your time, trouble and money.
I think the key to doing this is much what another poster suggests. The studios should start to realize (more than they do now, that is) that the theater movie is really just an advertisment for the DVD sales. That's where the real money for the studios is in the long run.
So, show the movie in a pleasant luxurious surrounding, but lower the prices by lowering the cut taken by the studios and release the DVD cuncurrently. ..
and sell it in the lobby after the movie, the big cut of that going to the studio, with the theater owner getting enough of a cut to make it worth his trouble to participate. Icing on the cake for him, the real profit for the studios.
Everyone, including the customer, should end up happy.
How is it possible for your most popular show to be too expensive?
By costing more than you can sell it for. It might have been the No.1 rated show on the channel, but, let's face it, Sci-Fi ain't the No.1 rated channel on the dial.
What is smart about pushing your customers to anything?
Their willingness to push around their customers is the single largest complaint from corporate customers, and, in fact, they have been convicted of pushing so hard as to violate the law.
It they were smart they would make Longhorn so obviously superior there will be a voluntary stampeed to adopt it.
Slashdot Mirror
And realizing that cookies aren't spyware, but rather a means by which marketing companies gather and compile data about me on my own computer so that they more effectively target me with their advertising makes me more attitudinally inclined too. . .
Ummm, where's that nuke button again?
See, that's the problem with marketers. They like marketing and think it's a good thing, so they think we like marketing and think it's a good thing.
Whereas most of us think that Bill Hicks was being a bit of a soft hearted wuss in his displayed attitude toward them.
He simply called upon them to kill themselves. We want to roast them, slowly, while we watch.
Pass the beer.
KFG
I'd suggest that the study is probably right about the average larger brain providing its owner with a higher intelligence than the average average-sized brain.
People with small brains (PHBs), however, are going to either ignore or misunderstand the fact that the "study" explicitly refers to averages.
I remember when sports physiologists first started using oxygen uptake data to predict endurance sport performance. A journalist was being shown the data for the American National Cycling Team and noted that the figure for Paul Deem, the workhorse member of the team, was only average.
"Well yes," said the physiologist, "but that's just Paul. He wants it more than anyone else."
This study isn't even a study, in the sense that no actual new research was carried out and thus it provides no new data.
It is a meta-study. A conglomeration of already existing studies, and thus is really only as valid as the least valid of the studies upon which it is based.
Garbage in, garbage out.
And it is pathetically easy to pump all sorts of garbage into a meta-study to derive any garbage you want by careful selection of the studies you "study." One good study is worth more than a billion bad ones.
Which brings up the question of methodology. A meta-study is only valid to the degree that it congolmerates similar studies. Differences in methodology of the included studies alone can completely invalidate the meta-study prima facie, because this fails to properly isolate the phenomenon being examined.
At best a meta-study is really only good to provide a clue as to where more study might be valuably directed. At worst they have absolutely no value at all other than getting the author published while pushing his agenda.
KFG
Having a large brain, but a small skull, carries certain disadvantages, however.
You hear about the acid head who quit going to his shrink?
He was afraid to have his head shrunk and his mind expanded at the same time.
KFG
. . .asked users to select their gender between "not specified," "male" or "bitch,". . .
Well, according to Dawn French there are two kinds of women, ones with chocolate, and complete bitches, so perhaps Microsoft's real error was the noninclusion of "chocolate" from the available selections.
And always remember to yell "Fire!" when you fall into the chocolate (and a Brownie Point to the first one who correctly answers why you yell "Fire!" without resorting to Google).
KFG
Watch yourself son. We know your kind. You're the kind who thinks painting a VW blue or green doesn't make it a Bugatti or a Bentley.
Well, we have ways of dealing with you. We call it "marketing."
Prepare to be assimilated!
Or if that fails we'll be perfectly happy to just take you out back and beat you senseless with a tire iron.
KFG
Centrifugal force is just another name for circular acceleration. Although it's not a fundamental force, it's a perfectly valid term to use. . .
.
.just like "a pulling force" or "a pushing force".
No. It isn't, and it isn't. It is the exact opposite of "just another name for circular acceleration," which is centripital (toward the center) force,(the only force that can create circular acceleration). The natural inertial motion of the accelerated object is not centrifugal (away from the center) either, being directed along the straight line tangent to the curve of the accelerated motion.
Draw the force vector diagram.
If you are swinging a ball around on a string a centrifugal force is what your hand feels, not what what ball being circularly accelerated feels. .
. .
Which is actually the pushing force of your feet against the ground and friction. There are no true pulling forces in Newtonian mechanics. They are illusory psuedo forces generated at the atomic level and by the senses being confused by the affects of friction.
You cannot make a rocket engine that will pull itself through space, because there is no such force. Things move in the opposite direction to the applied force. If you want something to move to the left, you have to push it that way from the right. When you "pull" a car with a rope what you are really doing is pushing the earth away from your feet, the earth pushes back on your feet with an equal and opposite force and you move, but the car only moves because it is, in the eyes and ears of Newton's Laws, atomically connected to you. You, the car, and the rope, are the same object to the physics of the situation, just as the front bumper of the car and the back bumper of the car are simply parts of the system "car."
KFG
Stories don't need to have their worlds be reconciled with the one we carry around in our heads, but they do need to have the actions in their story make sense relative to the world as it has been revealed in the story.
I hinted at this, but did not expound upon it, when I refered to the "laws" of magic. One of the things that makes magic so attractive to the writer is that he gets to define it's laws himself.
Where many, however, fall down is not paying attention to the fact that once such laws are established in the story they are law and must be followed, as well as having the characters behave reasonably given such laws.
The most annoying version of this, at least to me, that ruins many a decent movie and keeps some decent movies from being great is giving a protagonist some unopposable force, but then have them not use it until the final scene (The Karate Kid), often not until watching everyone they know die first (The Last Starfighter).
KFG
Do you think perhaps the reason 2001 was so well recieved is that it didn't spend but a few seconds on how the ship's gravity worked. . .
The issue isn't explanations making it work, but rather explanations not breaking it. Going back to the very dawn of Science Fiction Jules Verne spent a good deal more time on explanations than is common even in "hard" Science Fiction today. The thing is that all of his explanations worked, they were actual, understandable science, extrapolated to some fantastic, but utterly believable, setting.
Like using circular acceleration (not centrifugal force) to simulate gravity (Einstein's Equivilence Principle). No extended explanation was necessary, because the idea was already well understood, at least by the scientifically sophisticated.
Clarke and Kubrick failed to break the story by making up some obviously bullshit and fallsifiable explanation for reincarnation of how the Monolith worked. They just presented the results, what happened, as a given.
Don't forget who originated the famous quote and that the story relied on the characters encountering a technology they could not distinguish from magic.
KFG
Man can believe the impossible, but can never believe the improbable. - Oscar Wilde
.
I truely hate to critise Mr. Wilde, as his genius often relied on chosing exactly the right word at exactly the right time, but. .
As my own example of the shell casings illustrates there is a good deal more subtlty to it than that. Man can believe the impossible, but it has to be exactly the right kind of believable impossibility.
I believe the word that Mr. Wilde was looking for was not "improbable," but rather "implausible," especially as his greatest art relied on making the entirely improbable plausible.
But then perhaps he got it right after all, as his was the sort of genius that proves the rule.
Come to think of it, knowing Mr. Wilde only through his writings, it's just possible, although perhaps improbable, that he was having a bit of a joke by subtly pointing that out.
KFG
Pot, meet mirror.
KFG
You certainly have a point, but then the movies have always been based on some gimmick or other. The original gimmick was simply the fact that the pictures moved. You do not perceive that as a gimmick because you have grown up in an environment where moving pictures are simply taken for granted.
The gimmick that worked for 50 years and the loss of which is resulting in declining attendence was in making the theater experience more luxurious, inexpensively, than could be obtained in the viewer's home. Poor people getting to spend an afternoon as if they were rich for a price a poor person could afford to spend.
And, ultimately, the art of story telling itself is simply in the ability to turn a gimmick into art; and despite many movie makers losing sight of the fact, the art of the movie is inseperable from the art of story telling.
KFG
The events in Aarne Thompson tale 510A were "caused" by (insert supernatural agent here).
What the poster above failed to grasp is that the supernatural "McGuffin" (or MacGuffin for traditionalists) doesn't matter. Magical fish (the agent in the earliest known version of the tale), Ghost, Fairy Godmother, Wizard, Invisible little fuzzy pink unicorn with a magic horn, they all simply translate into "it were done by magic."
My original post relates to trying to explain magical events as nonmagical. Claiming a supernatural event as an explanation of a supernatural event begs the question.
Science fiction is writing on the razor's edge. One false move and you lose the balance of the story; and it dies. The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. Death is final even for a story. If you lose your reader in chapter 2 it doesn't matter if you write a "retrieval" in chapter 4, because the reader didn't believe a single damn word of chapter 3. (Yes, there are rare masters who can write books that can only be understood on the second reading, but such are rare, and they are truely masters if they can get you to that second reading in the first place. They created a degree of skepticism in the reader without truely killing the story. It was just mostly dead. Mostly dead you can work with. If you're a master).
Where most science fiction writers lose their balance is in trying to explain the technology at the level of the characters, when what they need to do is explain the technology at the level of the reader.
If, to the reader, the technology is indistinguishable from magic, write as if it were magic, because it is.
This is specifically where Lucas lost his balance and his story died.
KFG
. . .wait, you mean the Disney's, don't you?
No, I do not. I do not even mean Grimm's.
Please, explain "ghost."
KFG
Also they tried to explain everything which before where just accepted. . .
.44 casing in a story that requires it to have been fired by a .38 is not. Magic need only be shown to be obeying the "laws" of magic. Reality needs to be shown to be obeying the laws of reality.
Groundhog Day is a great fucking movie. It is a great fucking movie for one primary reason:
They never once, not even to the teeny, tiniest degree, tried to "explain" what was going on. They simply told the story. What happened.
I wish more writers would grasp the essential idea that a story is simply what happens.
Cinderella works, and has continued to work for over a thousand years, not because the paranormal events are well explained, but because they are not "explained" at all. It's magic. Everybody knows that.
The second you try to invoke biological or "quantum flux" into the deal to give a plausable reason for the mice turning into horses you're just going to create an audience that sits there saying "Like, dude, that's completely retarded."
We can accept magic in a story, even if we know there is no such thing, and enjoy it immensely, because magic is, up front and by definition, not subject to the rules of reason or physics and we have suspended our disbelief in such from the outset in order to enjoy the tale.
Any attempt to impose rational explanation on magic simply ruins the exeperinece of the tale by creating obvious falsehood and makes it clear that the story teller is a hack who doesn't know his own business.
Magic wands are perfectly "believable." Showing a
Mixing the two up inappropriately innately creates an unbelievable mess.
KFG
Bless you. I have no mod points, and you've already capped out anyway, so I shall simply bestow upon your post my highest accolade:
I wish I had written that.
KFG
1. Available in the theaters
2. Available on DVD
3. Available as a pay-for-download
Almost, but not quite.
In first run you make the DVD available, but only in the theater. This brings the theater owners on board by giving them an additional profit center. The movie becomes an "ad" for the DVD.
Then you make the retail DVD and pay per download release cuncurrently with second release to the theaters. Second release theaters and "art houses" are the only ones still selling the "theater experience" and do so at a lower cost than a DVD, so they aren't innately in competition with home viewing.
Everyone should come out a winner under this sytem, accpet the people who have to have everything "Now, or I'll hold my breath until I turn blue."
And those people deserve to have as much of their money taken away from them as is possible. They don't know how to use it anyway.
KFG
They don't call theaters "The Big Screen" for nothing.
.
In my city we have the benefit of having a fully restored vaudevillian theater (and one that was considered the most luxurious in its day at that. The first time I saw I show on Broadway in NYC I was shocked at how pathetic the theater was) with plush seats, $2 tickets, snacks at the same price as you'd pay at CVS and biiiiiig fucking screen.
It's God Almight theater.
Makes a big difference in the willingness to leave home to attend.
The only downside is you have to wait for second run, but second run these days is fairly quick, DVD release being the true second run now.
They'll be showing the latest Harry Potter for the first time next month, but they're going to show all three in succession, and the first one they are showing for free! So that's all three Potter movies, in style and luxury, on an old fashioned really big screen, for less than the cost of a box of popcorn at the icky, cramped Hoyts two car garage they call a "theater."
In the first few decades TV did not significantly hurt the movies, despite the dire predictions, because going to the movies was still a God honest event that surpassed the home experience. Since that time the home event has gotten gobs better, although the price of high end home equipment is high, for the real movie buff it comes out to cheaper than footing the rising price of movies viewed in the theater and the theater experience itself, in the quest of squeezing every dime out of the customers for the least possible capital expenditure to do it, has significantly degraded.
When what they really need to do to make sure they keep asses (interpret that word any way you like) is to make sure the theater experience stays ahead of the home experience.
In other words, it needs to be worth your time, trouble and money.
I think the key to doing this is much what another poster suggests. The studios should start to realize (more than they do now, that is) that the theater movie is really just an advertisment for the DVD sales. That's where the real money for the studios is in the long run.
So, show the movie in a pleasant luxurious surrounding, but lower the prices by lowering the cut taken by the studios and release the DVD cuncurrently. .
and sell it in the lobby after the movie, the big cut of that going to the studio, with the theater owner getting enough of a cut to make it worth his trouble to participate. Icing on the cake for him, the real profit for the studios.
Everyone, including the customer, should end up happy.
KFG
So what the hell is wrong with conflagrantvulpine?
KFG
I loose my mind. . .
Nothing that a bit of Lock Tight won't fix.
KFG
How is it possible for your most popular show to be too expensive?
By costing more than you can sell it for. It might have been the No.1 rated show on the channel, but, let's face it, Sci-Fi ain't the No.1 rated channel on the dial.
KFG
. . .unnameable mollusks and cephalopods.
.
I call this one Herbert, that one you're eating right now is George. Didn't anyone teach you not to eat food you've been introduced to? Sheesh!
Anyhoo, that one flopping around on the floor is Aloysius. .
KFG
Richard Stallman?
KFG
What is smart about pushing your customers to anything?
Their willingness to push around their customers is the single largest complaint from corporate customers, and, in fact, they have been convicted of pushing so hard as to violate the law.
It they were smart they would make Longhorn so obviously superior there will be a voluntary stampeed to adopt it.
Yeah. Right. Maybe in Bizarro World.
KFG
Christ Almighty on a shingle. The fans in my PC are loud enough already without having my cpu going around and whooping all the time.
Are water cooled cpu gags going to be the next hot mod?
KFG
It's possible to be correct by accident.
KFG