> Some of them, though, are willing to actually think,
Ok, glad to have ya on the side of sanity.
Not many though. Because for them it is also a matter of faith. They just believe in a different thing, namely fascism. Yes it is time to call it by it's right name. Every stinking one of em is a totalatarian, even the ones who won't admit it even to themselves. And even worse, over the years I have seen enough of em in action to realize guys like Tom Sowell are right: liberals feel, they don't think much. Thus logical arguments aren't the right way to go after them. They BELIEVE in the power of the State and their own Goodness so hard no logic will ever move them. Some will snap out of the mental illness on their own though, many notable leftists came around on 9/12/01 but a few wake up every year... not enough though.
In the end there probably isn't much point in converting the hard core left, we just need to defeat them and drive their ideas out of the public sphere. Because you really can't compromise with guys that are so close to attaining their dream of One Man, One Vote, One Last Time. Compromise just a little more with their kind and classical liberals will be in reeducation camps.
To defeat the left we need arguments that will sway the public educated masses and again, numbers aren't their forte either. Perhaps I'm just too cynical. I really don't see how we win the masses away from their Bread and Circuses and back to self reliance and individual liberty. But doing exactly that is our only remaining hope so I keep pondering on the problem.
> The solution is to look to science and statistics rather than common sense.
Not in matters of basic political philosophy. Because the notion that 300 million people can peacefully govern themselves is irrational, at least to our current understanding[1]. It requires a leap of faith and science is useless in matters of faith. And part of the set of beliefs that our system of government is (ok, was pre Bush/Obama) built on is a fear of government balanced out by the RTKBA.
You can't put numbers to that. If you try to ignore the pig picture and frade a basic freedom for safety you might (but to date haven't, Dodge City was safer than D.C.) reduce crime in the short term but how do you put a number on a loss of the basis for civilization itself?
> The correct approach to gun regulation is to examine the numbers and look at what kinds of gun > control actually have beneficial effects on crime rates.
Wrong. The correct approach to gun control is learning to hit what you are aiming at and nothing else. Gun control is instilling self reliance, confidence and discipline back into our people so they don't do stupid things like shoot up the town or elect people who think like you. So that they become a people capable of and worthy of governing themselves in both senses of the phrase.
In case you morons haven't noticed, the same thinking that can handwave away "shall not be infringed" is exactly the same 'thought' that can ignore "Congress shall make no law." As the Constituition is reduced to toilet paper we really need to be pushing back. Time is running out, soon it will take a revolution to reverse the damage and the odds of success on those are pretty low and the price of winning high.
> Getting back to (or at least closer to) the topic, science is the right way to approach questions > about global warming and man's impact on it as well.
Agreed. But the science has been so politicized as to be useless. For every brand name scientist Al Gore can trot out the other side can now bring out one of their own. And by continuing to give credibility to obvious frauds like Hansen the pro AGW side loses what advantage they would otherwise get by having slightly more bodies in their camp. The notion that Hansen is a scientist anstead of a policy wonk at best or a anarchist activist at worst is laughable. And then there is the issue of Al Gore. Scientist? Not. Social Democrat Politician? Yup. And would Al Gore be pushing most of the same agenda in the absence of AGW or GW in general? Probability so close to 100% as to not matter.
[1] The libertarians are closest to a rational basis for a civilized society but they haven't developed their theories nearly enough to deploy them. Pick at any self professed libertarian's notions a bit and they fall apart. But I do believe that Freedom is the answer, just like I believe in a unified field theory even though a working one doesn't yet exist. And yes at this point belief in either is just another act of faith. So someday we might have a totally rational basis for a civilization. But not today.
Huh? The second musical number is Terrence & Phillip in "Uncle Fucker." This granny STAYED through that? I always thought that little ditty was Matt & Trey's way of clearing the theater of anybody who was likely to be offended so they wouldn't explode when things got REALLY got bad later on. I mean later on you get that great Disneyesque musical number with His Infernal Majesty that is in really poor taste, Satan & Saddam doing the nasty, plus Saddam gets his own musical number. Then there is The Mole and his continual blasphemy just to cheese off the fundies. (Of course The Mole does get killed.)
The South Park guys can't handle being let off the TV leash. Yea SP:BLU was making a useful point about censorship but they just went totally over the top. And just to prove it wasn't a one off they later did Team America. Again, dead on with the point but just they just don't know where to stop.
> For example, when you call in to Microsoft to activate a copy of Windows XP by telephone, you > usually just reach an automated system with voice recognition capabilities, vs. a live human.
Doesn't mean anything. You don't get a human with Vista either. I did it a month ago and got the same robot attendant.
> I don't think microsofts suppport lifecycle policy for windows is unreasonable.
I think it is totally bogus because it measures the time from the wrong start point. It isn't time of release it should be time when sales stopped. I don't give a rats ass when a product was introduced I care about when I bought it and so do you.
Since this is slashdot every argument should include a car analogy. So lets suppose Ford has decided the Mustang has had a good run and announces today they are ceasing all support (except government mandated recalls) on this date next year. When the howls of outrage start the CEO says "Hell guys, we have been selling those things forever suck it up and deal." Can you spot the problem in his argument? Wouldn't the biggest one be the crapload of shiny new Mustangs sitting on dealer lots?
Microsoft is accepting license revenue TODAY on new installs of Windows XP. That means they should not be able to discontinue support for those customers for several years. But in the software world (but nowhere else to the same extent) we don't do that. The last paying customer is abandoned the same day as the first because support is for the product not the customer.
> That gives a much more positive impression than is warranted, in my opinion.
Ok, you probably deserved the flamebait for the way you said it, but you are sorta right. Only you aren't being hard enough.
Windows XP is still being sold on freshly manufactured hardware and will continue to be for at least months after 'all support ends.' In what other industry could that happen? I'm not talking about stuff being remaindered off somewhere after sitting in a warehouse for years unnoticed and then expecting manufacturer support. New product, fresh off the boat from China sold at leading stores and websites will be sold 'as is with no warranty' and with no warning label on the box.
Dell will still be selling 'downgrades' to Windows XP. According to a recent Slashdot story Windows 7 Business and Ultimate will include downgrade rights to XP so expect the brisk sales of XP to continue. And Microsoft thinks it is OK to discontinue support?
> After the debacle most of the vendors had in Linux support on their netbooks..
Yes, many though they could simply wave the magic Pengin around and make the whole software side disappear from the balance sheet. Idiocy like shipping a SuSE on a machine with a webcam but no driver support. I'd have returned turds like that too.
On the other hand Asus and some of the more clueful OEMs got it right. They report return rates in line with other computer products.
>..most will be happy to use M$ if the licensing fees are low enough to offset the support cost savings.
But that is the upcoming problem. To keep Microsoft going in the style they are accustomed they have to reap serious coin per user. That was easy when computers almost always cost >$1000. It showed strains as prices fell to $500. By accepting lower prices and bringing XP back from the dead they survived the $400 netbook and have managed to suck it up as lowball prices fell to $350, then $300. But even Dell doesn't pitch XP when they do the Mini 9 on promo at $199. And if the ARM invasion succeeds $199 will soon be an expensive SKU. There just aren't enough dollars there to feed Microsoft's need for revenue.
> If you can do that with WinCE as well as Linux, then what difference does it make?
First off, Linux has a full software stack. A real working Firefox with most of the expected plugins, OO.o, etc. WinCE has what exactly? To date it, and the apps written for it, have mostly been geared around PDAs and smart phones, usually with a touch screen.
WinCE isn't Windows. The main advantage Windows has for the average customer is the known quantity. It's Windows, just like on the other machines they interact with at home, school, work, friends, etc. The same programs run, etc. WinCE has none of those advantages, in fact the association with Windows will only confuse as it will lead the clueless to think it IS Windows and then be disillusioned when it is discovered to be something completely different.
WinCE will raise the per unit cost of the machine though, and if it isn't to cut too deeply into Microsoft's profits it is going to have to cost a lot to keep the monopoly rents flowing in. Meanwhile the pengin is still Free except for the ARM port of the Flash plugin.
> The only way to keep Microsoft out is to race to the bottom and there's no economic > incentive for the hardware manufacturers to do that.
There is no incentive for the CURRENT manufacturers to do that. But if you aren't in the laptop/pc business right now there is good reasons to see an opportunity to have the first $150 laptop and sell the ever luvin crap out of them as Xmas impulse items through retail outlets that won't care about cannibalizing their laptop sales because they don''t currently sell computers at all.
By your logic we would have never seen the $24.99 DVD player because "Who wants to race to the bottom." No, Sony or Phillips didn't do it but no name Chinese outfits did it and make a profit at it. The computer is poised to make that last transition to disposable consumer electronics.
They won't be trying to kill Microsoft, it will just be that they can't give em enough royalties to matter when selling on consumer electronics margins. So even if Microsoft made em a deal, once the marketplace finishes the move to consumer electronics Microsoft is going to be a shadow of it's former self. And Apple is just as boned.
This isn't shocking at all. The netbook market isn't what it used to be, mostly I suspect because Microsoft AND the hardware makers recoiled in horror from what was happening. Look at the original netbook:
Old cheap Celeron CPU 7-9" Display 2-8GB Flash storage 512MB-1GB RAM Weight 1KG Price centered around $350 +/- $50
Now look at what passes for a netbook:
1.6Ghz Atom 10" Display 160GB HDD 1-2GB RAM Weight 1-2KG Price $300 to $500
The original specs couldn't run XP very well, and it wasn't an option. Vista was right out. So Microsoft brought back XP and everyone amped up the specs until it ran nicely. After all the new above average netbook was a kick ass desktop when XP was introduced.
Add in the fact all of the major netbook makers also make notebooks and desktops and thus need Microsoft's good will and it is easy enough to see how most netbooks now ship with Windows. Anyway, at the current prices and specs they are more like small laptops anyway and pretty much 100% of those have always shipped with Windows.
Wait for the ARM invasion. If hardware CAN run Windows vendors are always going to get pressured to load it. The ARM machines simply can't do it. Give a choice between a full Linux desktop, Android and WinCE and Microsoft's offering is going to come up a little short.
Sooner or later we will see netbooks under $200 and that is where things will get fun. If they give out Windows licenses cheap enough to put it on sub $200 units it will either force an across the board cut in all OEM licensing or really tick a lot of people off.
It was a pretty good idea in the 'day' but in the modern era of bandwidth caps on most broadband accounts it is dumb. You are opening yourself up to an unlimited commitment to provide access to Fon users for the dubious benefit of being able to use the other access points.
> Even if global warming is a complete and total fabrication, polluting our land and water IS NOT.
The problem with that logic is that we really do need to debunk AGW for several different reasons.
1. While you are correct that cutting down on polluting the environment we live in is a good thing, accepting the AGW theory has immediate consequences in what we do. There is no free lunch. If we go all out to reduce CO2 emmissions that means we have fewer resources to expend reducing other things. And if we go cap and trade we put huge parts of teh economy under government control and the history of government is that short of a revolution it rarely releases power once acquired. So stopping cap and trade is, right now, the most important issue.
2. A through debunking of AGW would discredit the radical (mostly Marxist 'watermelons') enviromentalist 'green' movement, this could open up a once in a lifetime opportunity for sensible heads to prevail on steps that would actually help the environment instead of helping promote government control. Personally I'd favor an emergency program of building nuke plants to get the entire electrical grid off of fossil fuels. The only politically viable path to something like that is to reduce the current enviro lobby to impotence.
3. AGW has had a very corrosive effect on science. Rooting that out is a worthwhile goal.
> So if the water level changes, they don't just sit there and starve or whatever.
Nope. They turn their city into a tourist attraction like Venice or a charity case like New Orleans. Seriously, when you see ships going by ABOVE the horizon level shouldn't that be a hint that you might not be in the safest place? Change happens, when your city decides to sink into the swamp perhaps you should move instead of asking the rest of your fellow citizens to spend Sagan's trying to build ever higher levees.
Yes, I'm going to hell for that. But I live in Louisiana so if I can't make jokes about our den of corruption and sin who can?
Ok, so that would kinda preclude jailbreaking. But it is still true you (and Crestron) are leaving money on the table by being tied to Apple's whims. You can't sell a product you don't have. Unless Apple would yank your dealer agreement for daring to use other products, and if they are that anal get out NOW, ya should keep in mind that the world doesn't revolve around em and be prepared to use somebody else's hardware when they get in your way. Enough folk did that and they might become a little less pissy.
> These solutions are anything but "turnkey", by the way, as we've done contracting work > for several owners of Forbes list companies.
Turnkey is what large companies usually want. Guess you are doing something unusual.
> but it's popularity makes it a must for mobile development
Custom home theater app? Are you fricking kidding me? Sounds like you do turnkey solutions. The customer isn't going to give a rats rear what the underlying hardware was when you set them up a custom solution and waiting around months for Apple's permission just means you could have been selling stuff for months had you picked a better platform to build on. Or just jailbreak the damned thing and get on with it.
Google isn't going to allow apps that annoy the carriers. In that respect they will be no better than the iPhone. On the other hand they probably won't be banning apps simply because they don't fit into Google's view of what you 'should' be doing on Android so that is a step up from Steve's Iron Fist.
Bottom line, get an unlocked develoopers handset unless you want the cell company and/or Google to tell you what you can and can't run on THEIR hardware. Because that's the bottom line, get a contract phone and it isn't yours and you shouldn't think it is.
Even better, Moonlight blew up my browser on this site. Just for giggles I went ahead and let it try to install Silverlight. It correctly detected the platform and shipped me to Novell's site. Yup, it wanted to install a quick.xpi and all should be good. Restart the browser and back to Microsoft where it wanted to install a codec pack. BOOM! dead browser. Restart and let FF go back to the page and try again. BOOM! Love it!
> User security restrictions in corporate environments; Windows/Mac OS alike.
Any site with those sort of restrictions wouldn't allow card readers in the first place. If the art dept's new camera needs a driver installed it will happen.
And remember, in my scheme Microsoft will have been publicly offered a FREE (BSD licensed) driver they could have made available in a service pack or just in their online driver accessable download feature of Windows update.
>..do you have any idea how pissed off the general population would be if..
Well first off it won't happen. If the industry made a credible threat MS would quickly realize that having everyone standardized on FAT is worth far more than they can hope to collect in royalties.
Second the idea is to make sure people know to direct their anger at Microsoft for being a dick about this licensing thing. FAT is too simple to be worthy of a patent. The only value in it at this late date is that Windows and everything else reads it.
But it really wouldn't be much of a hassle. The first time simebody encountered one of the new cards they click an icon and install a driver. And if it happens when they have just bought a new device it could happen as part of installing the software bundle that comes with that device.
And since the hardware is 100% backwards compatible with SDHC it makes stocking decisions simple. Just stock the new stuff and let people with legacy SDHC gear reformat the card in the camera/player.
It is time for Microsoft to decide what it wants more. Collect a few cents here and there and spread some FUD or keep all memory cards shipping as FAT.
All the SD trade group would need to do is put together a new spec. It would call for a tiny FAT12 partition on each card sold with an IFS driver for a new file system. No it couldn't be ext2/3/4 because of the GPL. It just couldn't so give that idea up. But there ARE a lot of other proven file systems that support long file names and large filesystems. Getting a Windows IFS written would be cheaper than what the industry is paying Microsoft in one year and it would eliminate the FUD attacks. Writing one would probably be cheaper than what Tom Tom just paid their lawyers. So pick a BSD licensed file system that is available (or could easily be) for OS X, Linux and BSD. Supply the driver for Windows on every piece of media along with a README file explaining to customers why all this is going on.
That readme could say something like:
"The SD industry has previously used Microsoft's FAT filesystem due to it's uniquity. Microsoft has decided to reward us for helping drive their monopoly by suing us. So we have adopted one of the many other competing file systems for (whatever cute name of new standard). All other popular operating systems support this format out of the box. We offered a driver to Microsoft for inclusion in Windows 7 and they refused to include it. So you will need to click (here) to install the copy we include on each drive/memory card if you have not previously done so."
Now take this proposed new standard to Microsoft and offer them a choice. Then let them choose their future. A royalty free perpetual license for vFAT for any implementation that supports removable flash based media or see FAT gone within a couple of years.
> People who talk about "watering the Tree of Liberty" always sound like > they're planning on killing others, not sacrificing themselves...
Well that IS the idea. Letting the poor Marxist bastards die for what they believe.:) Of course when undertaking a revolution, 2nd Civil War, whatever one always should approach it with the knowledge that the risk is great, the historical odds of success low and death a high probability. The Founding Fathers certainly paid a pretty high price for the Republic we have squandered. Go look up how many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence paid for their act of rebellion against the most powerful nation on the planet at the time they decided to tell em to bugger off.
> Come to my neck of the woods (South Bronx) and discuss with the locals about Blue Staters not having guns.
Somehow I don't think those guys are going to line up, and singing _The International_, march forth at the vanguard of the Revolution to put down the reactionaries. But I could be wrong.
Point being that while the punks on the typical college campus can usually make a few Molotov Cocktails without killing themselves I would put three rednecks up against fifty of the Junior Marxist and call it a fair fight. Just playing the odds, at least one of the rednecks will have served a hitch and know how to handle himself in a firefight while none of the rock throwing radicals will have any skills.
> Perhaps you can have black cars with this technology given some special treatment that makes the car even shiner.
Perhaps we can. And if we can whoever invents the new paint can perhaps get rich. If you are right people would gladly pay a little extra for a black car that stays cool in the summer. In which case exactly why do we need the government to threaten the life and liberty of any citizens who disagree with you? Ah but that is the problem, you could care less whether the problem gets solved; you are so terrified of the global warming bogeyman you just want to pass any laws with even a possibility of combating it. If the market can come along behind you and clean up the messes yo left great, if not people should just adapt to grey cars. Because YOU are the superior being and WE are too stupid to make our own decisions.
> Did you discuss the merits like a rational person?
Because reasoning with the unreasoning is not reasonable. You guys begin from such a totally different mental view of the world that there really isn't a point. Your side sees me and mine as useless reactionary elements to be liquidated at the first opportunity and we are finally seeing you as an implaccable foe to be defeated, not appeased.
Any worldview that sees this sort of regulation as a topic for discussion isn't compatible with the Republic our forebearers gave us. So no; the only outcome I want is "We win, you lose."
Typical progressive. Anybody who objects just doesn't understand or is acting from a 'false consciousness.' Sorry pal, I can read and did actually RTFA.
> the summary is abjectly false,
The linked article has the following headline and lead graf has:
"California to reduce carbon emissions by... banning black cars?!"
"Apparently, the California Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings - especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours."
How does that make Slashdot's summary or headline 'abjectly false.'
> and your reply shows you were predisposed to believing this.
Guilty as charged. I now expect this sort of bizarro world stuff, especially from CA. But I do RTFA and yup I was right to expect this sort of crap because it is real.
Sooner or later the Tree of Liberty is going to need watering. Because it is clear that there are only a few probable outcomes left. You guys manage to get my side into death camps or just bred out of the gene pool or eventually we fight another revolution. Or Atlas Shrugs. My team does have one advantage in a revolution though... you guys in the Blue State hives don't have guns.:) Don't count on the Army, though they are normally agents of the State this isn't Russia; most of the US military will be on my side. Those guys take their Oath a lot more seriously than the average elected official who violates the Constitution daily.
> Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must do things the smart way...
If you want to suggest better ways to do things go right ahead. It is when you fascists[1] decide that the stupid people aren't listening to you and decide to just impose your higher wisdom on them that I start the oil boiling and looking for a pitchfork. And since you probably can't understand the difference ignore this, it's for any semi-sane people reading.
Really, if the government can regulate the COLOR of your car in the name of carbon emissions is there any regulation on anything that some pinhead can't find some tortured logic to justify on environmental grounds? So aren't you really arguing for a totalitarian government because you are a bedwetting pansy who let Al Gore terrify you that the world is going to end if we don't abandon Western industrial civilization, eliminate 90% of the human population and return to a pre industrial feudal lifestyle?
Ok, that was slightly over the top but isn't that really what this is all about? We have turned into a nation of pussies unfit for self government because freedom scares us.
[1] Yes the word fascist is used correctly, not in the modern 'anybody progressives/socialists/liberals' don't like sense.
Slashdot Mirror
> Some of them, though, are willing to actually think,
Ok, glad to have ya on the side of sanity.
Not many though. Because for them it is also a matter of faith. They just believe in a different thing, namely fascism. Yes it is time to call it by it's right name. Every stinking one of em is a totalatarian, even the ones who won't admit it even to themselves. And even worse, over the years I have seen enough of em in action to realize guys like Tom Sowell are right: liberals feel, they don't think much. Thus logical arguments aren't the right way to go after them. They BELIEVE in the power of the State and their own Goodness so hard no logic will ever move them. Some will snap out of the mental illness on their own though, many notable leftists came around on 9/12/01 but a few wake up every year... not enough though.
In the end there probably isn't much point in converting the hard core left, we just need to defeat them and drive their ideas out of the public sphere. Because you really can't compromise with guys that are so close to attaining their dream of One Man, One Vote, One Last Time. Compromise just a little more with their kind and classical liberals will be in reeducation camps.
To defeat the left we need arguments that will sway the public educated masses and again, numbers aren't their forte either. Perhaps I'm just too cynical. I really don't see how we win the masses away from their Bread and Circuses and back to self reliance and individual liberty. But doing exactly that is our only remaining hope so I keep pondering on the problem.
> The solution is to look to science and statistics rather than common sense.
Not in matters of basic political philosophy. Because the notion that 300 million people can peacefully govern themselves is irrational, at least to our current understanding[1]. It requires a leap of faith and science is useless in matters of faith. And part of the set of beliefs that our system of government is (ok, was pre Bush/Obama) built on is a fear of government balanced out by the RTKBA.
You can't put numbers to that. If you try to ignore the pig picture and frade a basic freedom for safety you might (but to date haven't, Dodge City was safer than D.C.) reduce crime in the short term but how do you put a number on a loss of the basis for civilization itself?
> The correct approach to gun regulation is to examine the numbers and look at what kinds of gun
> control actually have beneficial effects on crime rates.
Wrong. The correct approach to gun control is learning to hit what you are aiming at and nothing else. Gun control is instilling self reliance, confidence and discipline back into our people so they don't do stupid things like shoot up the town or elect people who think like you. So that they become a people capable of and worthy of governing themselves in both senses of the phrase.
In case you morons haven't noticed, the same thinking that can handwave away "shall not be infringed" is exactly the same 'thought' that can ignore "Congress shall make no law." As the Constituition is reduced to toilet paper we really need to be pushing back. Time is running out, soon it will take a revolution to reverse the damage and the odds of success on those are pretty low and the price of winning high.
> Getting back to (or at least closer to) the topic, science is the right way to approach questions
> about global warming and man's impact on it as well.
Agreed. But the science has been so politicized as to be useless. For every brand name scientist Al Gore can trot out the other side can now bring out one of their own. And by continuing to give credibility to obvious frauds like Hansen the pro AGW side loses what advantage they would otherwise get by having slightly more bodies in their camp. The notion that Hansen is a scientist anstead of a policy wonk at best or a anarchist activist at worst is laughable. And then there is the issue of Al Gore. Scientist? Not. Social Democrat Politician? Yup. And would Al Gore be pushing most of the same agenda in the absence of AGW or GW in general? Probability so close to 100% as to not matter.
[1] The libertarians are closest to a rational basis for a civilized society but they haven't developed their theories nearly enough to deploy them. Pick at any self professed libertarian's notions a bit and they fall apart. But I do believe that Freedom is the answer, just like I believe in a unified field theory even though a working one doesn't yet exist. And yes at this point belief in either is just another act of faith. So someday we might have a totally rational basis for a civilization. But not today.
Huh? The second musical number is Terrence & Phillip in "Uncle Fucker." This granny STAYED through that? I always thought that little ditty was Matt & Trey's way of clearing the theater of anybody who was likely to be offended so they wouldn't explode when things got REALLY got bad later on. I mean later on you get that great Disneyesque musical number with His Infernal Majesty that is in really poor taste, Satan & Saddam doing the nasty, plus Saddam gets his own musical number. Then there is The Mole and his continual blasphemy just to cheese off the fundies. (Of course The Mole does get killed.)
The South Park guys can't handle being let off the TV leash. Yea SP:BLU was making a useful point about censorship but they just went totally over the top. And just to prove it wasn't a one off they later did Team America. Again, dead on with the point but just they just don't know where to stop.
> For example, when you call in to Microsoft to activate a copy of Windows XP by telephone, you
> usually just reach an automated system with voice recognition capabilities, vs. a live human.
Doesn't mean anything. You don't get a human with Vista either. I did it a month ago and got the same robot attendant.
> I don't think microsofts suppport lifecycle policy for windows is unreasonable.
I think it is totally bogus because it measures the time from the wrong start point. It isn't time of release it should be time when sales stopped. I don't give a rats ass when a product was introduced I care about when I bought it and so do you.
Since this is slashdot every argument should include a car analogy. So lets suppose Ford has decided the Mustang has had a good run and announces today they are ceasing all support (except government mandated recalls) on this date next year. When the howls of outrage start the CEO says "Hell guys, we have been selling those things forever suck it up and deal." Can you spot the problem in his argument? Wouldn't the biggest one be the crapload of shiny new Mustangs sitting on dealer lots?
Microsoft is accepting license revenue TODAY on new installs of Windows XP. That means they should not be able to discontinue support for those customers for several years. But in the software world (but nowhere else to the same extent) we don't do that. The last paying customer is abandoned the same day as the first because support is for the product not the customer.
> That gives a much more positive impression than is warranted, in my opinion.
Ok, you probably deserved the flamebait for the way you said it, but you are sorta right. Only you aren't being hard enough.
Windows XP is still being sold on freshly manufactured hardware and will continue to be for at least months after 'all support ends.' In what other industry could that happen? I'm not talking about stuff being remaindered off somewhere after sitting in a warehouse for years unnoticed and then expecting manufacturer support. New product, fresh off the boat from China sold at leading stores and websites will be sold 'as is with no warranty' and with no warning label on the box.
Dell will still be selling 'downgrades' to Windows XP. According to a recent Slashdot story Windows 7 Business and Ultimate will include downgrade rights to XP so expect the brisk sales of XP to continue. And Microsoft thinks it is OK to discontinue support?
> After the debacle most of the vendors had in Linux support on their netbooks..
Yes, many though they could simply wave the magic Pengin around and make the whole software side disappear from the balance sheet. Idiocy like shipping a SuSE on a machine with a webcam but no driver support. I'd have returned turds like that too.
On the other hand Asus and some of the more clueful OEMs got it right. They report return rates in line with other computer products.
> ..most will be happy to use M$ if the licensing fees are low enough to offset the support cost savings.
But that is the upcoming problem. To keep Microsoft going in the style they are accustomed they have to reap serious coin per user. That was easy when computers almost always cost >$1000. It showed strains as prices fell to $500. By accepting lower prices and bringing XP back from the dead they survived the $400 netbook and have managed to suck it up as lowball prices fell to $350, then $300. But even Dell doesn't pitch XP when they do the Mini 9 on promo at $199. And if the ARM invasion succeeds $199 will soon be an expensive SKU. There just aren't enough dollars there to feed Microsoft's need for revenue.
> If you can do that with WinCE as well as Linux, then what difference does it make?
First off, Linux has a full software stack. A real working Firefox with most of the expected plugins, OO.o, etc. WinCE has what exactly? To date it, and the apps written for it, have mostly been geared around PDAs and smart phones, usually with a touch screen.
WinCE isn't Windows. The main advantage Windows has for the average customer is the known quantity. It's Windows, just like on the other machines they interact with at home, school, work, friends, etc. The same programs run, etc. WinCE has none of those advantages, in fact the association with Windows will only confuse as it will lead the clueless to think it IS Windows and then be disillusioned when it is discovered to be something completely different.
WinCE will raise the per unit cost of the machine though, and if it isn't to cut too deeply into Microsoft's profits it is going to have to cost a lot to keep the monopoly rents flowing in. Meanwhile the pengin is still Free except for the ARM port of the Flash plugin.
> The only way to keep Microsoft out is to race to the bottom and there's no economic
> incentive for the hardware manufacturers to do that.
There is no incentive for the CURRENT manufacturers to do that. But if you aren't in the laptop/pc business right now there is good reasons to see an opportunity to have the first $150 laptop and sell the ever luvin crap out of them as Xmas impulse items through retail outlets that won't care about cannibalizing their laptop sales because they don''t currently sell computers at all.
By your logic we would have never seen the $24.99 DVD player because "Who wants to race to the bottom." No, Sony or Phillips didn't do it but no name Chinese outfits did it and make a profit at it. The computer is poised to make that last transition to disposable consumer electronics.
They won't be trying to kill Microsoft, it will just be that they can't give em enough royalties to matter when selling on consumer electronics margins. So even if Microsoft made em a deal, once the marketplace finishes the move to consumer electronics Microsoft is going to be a shadow of it's former self. And Apple is just as boned.
This isn't shocking at all. The netbook market isn't what it used to be, mostly I suspect because Microsoft AND the hardware makers recoiled in horror from what was happening. Look at the original netbook:
Old cheap Celeron CPU
7-9" Display
2-8GB Flash storage
512MB-1GB RAM
Weight 1KG
Price centered around $350 +/- $50
Now look at what passes for a netbook:
1.6Ghz Atom
10" Display
160GB HDD
1-2GB RAM
Weight 1-2KG
Price $300 to $500
The original specs couldn't run XP very well, and it wasn't an option. Vista was right out. So Microsoft brought back XP and everyone amped up the specs until it ran nicely. After all the new above average netbook was a kick ass desktop when XP was introduced.
Add in the fact all of the major netbook makers also make notebooks and desktops and thus need Microsoft's good will and it is easy enough to see how most netbooks now ship with Windows. Anyway, at the current prices and specs they are more like small laptops anyway and pretty much 100% of those have always shipped with Windows.
Wait for the ARM invasion. If hardware CAN run Windows vendors are always going to get pressured to load it. The ARM machines simply can't do it. Give a choice between a full Linux desktop, Android and WinCE and Microsoft's offering is going to come up a little short.
Sooner or later we will see netbooks under $200 and that is where things will get fun. If they give out Windows licenses cheap enough to put it on sub $200 units it will either force an across the board cut in all OEM licensing or really tick a lot of people off.
It was a pretty good idea in the 'day' but in the modern era of bandwidth caps on most broadband accounts it is dumb. You are opening yourself up to an unlimited commitment to provide access to Fon users for the dubious benefit of being able to use the other access points.
> Even if global warming is a complete and total fabrication, polluting our land and water IS NOT.
The problem with that logic is that we really do need to debunk AGW for several different reasons.
1. While you are correct that cutting down on polluting the environment we live in is a good thing, accepting the AGW theory has immediate consequences in what we do. There is no free lunch. If we go all out to reduce CO2 emmissions that means we have fewer resources to expend reducing other things. And if we go cap and trade we put huge parts of teh economy under government control and the history of government is that short of a revolution it rarely releases power once acquired. So stopping cap and trade is, right now, the most important issue.
2. A through debunking of AGW would discredit the radical (mostly Marxist 'watermelons') enviromentalist 'green' movement, this could open up a once in a lifetime opportunity for sensible heads to prevail on steps that would actually help the environment instead of helping promote government control. Personally I'd favor an emergency program of building nuke plants to get the entire electrical grid off of fossil fuels. The only politically viable path to something like that is to reduce the current enviro lobby to impotence.
3. AGW has had a very corrosive effect on science. Rooting that out is a worthwhile goal.
> So if the water level changes, they don't just sit there and starve or whatever.
Nope. They turn their city into a tourist attraction like Venice or a charity case like New Orleans. Seriously, when you see ships going by ABOVE the horizon level shouldn't that be a hint that you might not be in the safest place? Change happens, when your city decides to sink into the swamp perhaps you should move instead of asking the rest of your fellow citizens to spend Sagan's trying to build ever higher levees.
Yes, I'm going to hell for that. But I live in Louisiana so if I can't make jokes about our den of corruption and sin who can?
> we are also an Apple dealer
Ok, so that would kinda preclude jailbreaking. But it is still true you (and Crestron) are leaving money on the table by being tied to Apple's whims. You can't sell a product you don't have. Unless Apple would yank your dealer agreement for daring to use other products, and if they are that anal get out NOW, ya should keep in mind that the world doesn't revolve around em and be prepared to use somebody else's hardware when they get in your way. Enough folk did that and they might become a little less pissy.
> These solutions are anything but "turnkey", by the way, as we've done contracting work
> for several owners of Forbes list companies.
Turnkey is what large companies usually want. Guess you are doing something unusual.
> but it's popularity makes it a must for mobile development
Custom home theater app? Are you fricking kidding me? Sounds like you do turnkey solutions. The customer isn't going to give a rats rear what the underlying hardware was when you set them up a custom solution and waiting around months for Apple's permission just means you could have been selling stuff for months had you picked a better platform to build on. Or just jailbreak the damned thing and get on with it.
Google isn't going to allow apps that annoy the carriers. In that respect they will be no better than the iPhone. On the other hand they probably won't be banning apps simply because they don't fit into Google's view of what you 'should' be doing on Android so that is a step up from Steve's Iron Fist.
Bottom line, get an unlocked develoopers handset unless you want the cell company and/or Google to tell you what you can and can't run on THEIR hardware. Because that's the bottom line, get a contract phone and it isn't yours and you shouldn't think it is.
> Moonlight (1.01) didn't play this for me.
Even better, Moonlight blew up my browser on this site. Just for giggles I went ahead and let it try to install Silverlight. It correctly detected the platform and shipped me to Novell's site. Yup, it wanted to install a quick .xpi and all should be good. Restart the browser and back to Microsoft where it wanted to install a codec pack. BOOM! dead browser. Restart and let FF go back to the page and try again. BOOM! Love it!
> User security restrictions in corporate environments; Windows/Mac OS alike.
Any site with those sort of restrictions wouldn't allow card readers in the first place. If the art dept's new camera needs a driver installed it will happen.
And remember, in my scheme Microsoft will have been publicly offered a FREE (BSD licensed) driver they could have made available in a service pack or just in their online driver accessable download feature of Windows update.
> ..do you have any idea how pissed off the general population would be if..
Well first off it won't happen. If the industry made a credible threat MS would quickly realize that having everyone standardized on FAT is worth far more than they can hope to collect in royalties.
Second the idea is to make sure people know to direct their anger at Microsoft for being a dick about this licensing thing. FAT is too simple to be worthy of a patent. The only value in it at this late date is that Windows and everything else reads it.
But it really wouldn't be much of a hassle. The first time simebody encountered one of the new cards they click an icon and install a driver. And if it happens when they have just bought a new device it could happen as part of installing the software bundle that comes with that device.
And since the hardware is 100% backwards compatible with SDHC it makes stocking decisions simple. Just stock the new stuff and let people with legacy SDHC gear reformat the card in the camera/player.
It is time for Microsoft to decide what it wants more. Collect a few cents here and there and spread some FUD or keep all memory cards shipping as FAT.
All the SD trade group would need to do is put together a new spec. It would call for a tiny FAT12 partition on each card sold with an IFS driver for a new file system. No it couldn't be ext2/3/4 because of the GPL. It just couldn't so give that idea up. But there ARE a lot of other proven file systems that support long file names and large filesystems. Getting a Windows IFS written would be cheaper than what the industry is paying Microsoft in one year and it would eliminate the FUD attacks. Writing one would probably be cheaper than what Tom Tom just paid their lawyers. So pick a BSD licensed file system that is available (or could easily be) for OS X, Linux and BSD. Supply the driver for Windows on every piece of media along with a README file explaining to customers why all this is going on.
That readme could say something like:
"The SD industry has previously used Microsoft's FAT filesystem due to it's uniquity. Microsoft has decided to reward us for helping drive their monopoly by suing us. So we have adopted one of the many other competing file systems for (whatever cute name of new standard). All other popular operating systems support this format out of the box. We offered a driver to Microsoft for inclusion in Windows 7 and they refused to include it. So you will need to click (here) to install the copy we include on each drive/memory card if you have not previously done so."
Now take this proposed new standard to Microsoft and offer them a choice. Then let them choose their future. A royalty free perpetual license for vFAT for any implementation that supports removable flash based media or see FAT gone within a couple of years.
> People who talk about "watering the Tree of Liberty" always sound like
> they're planning on killing others, not sacrificing themselves...
Well that IS the idea. Letting the poor Marxist bastards die for what they believe. :) Of course when undertaking a revolution, 2nd Civil War, whatever one always should approach it with the knowledge that the risk is great, the historical odds of success low and death a high probability. The Founding Fathers certainly paid a pretty high price for the Republic we have squandered. Go look up how many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence paid for their act of rebellion against the most powerful nation on the planet at the time they decided to tell em to bugger off.
> Come to my neck of the woods (South Bronx) and discuss with the locals about Blue Staters not having guns.
Somehow I don't think those guys are going to line up, and singing _The International_, march forth at the vanguard of the Revolution to put down the reactionaries. But I could be wrong.
Point being that while the punks on the typical college campus can usually make a few Molotov Cocktails without killing themselves I would put three rednecks up against fifty of the Junior Marxist and call it a fair fight. Just playing the odds, at least one of the rednecks will have served a hitch and know how to handle himself in a firefight while none of the rock throwing radicals will have any skills.
> Perhaps you can have black cars with this technology given some special treatment that makes the car even shiner.
Perhaps we can. And if we can whoever invents the new paint can perhaps get rich. If you are right people would gladly pay a little extra for a black car that stays cool in the summer. In which case exactly why do we need the government to threaten the life and liberty of any citizens who disagree with you? Ah but that is the problem, you could care less whether the problem gets solved; you are so terrified of the global warming bogeyman you just want to pass any laws with even a possibility of combating it. If the market can come along behind you and clean up the messes yo left great, if not people should just adapt to grey cars. Because YOU are the superior being and WE are too stupid to make our own decisions.
> Did you discuss the merits like a rational person?
Because reasoning with the unreasoning is not reasonable. You guys begin from such a totally different mental view of the world that there really isn't a point. Your side sees me and mine as useless reactionary elements to be liquidated at the first opportunity and we are finally seeing you as an implaccable foe to be defeated, not appeased.
Any worldview that sees this sort of regulation as a topic for discussion isn't compatible with the Republic our forebearers gave us. So no; the only outcome I want is "We win, you lose."
> You don't understand the article,
Typical progressive. Anybody who objects just doesn't understand or is acting from a 'false consciousness.' Sorry pal, I can read and did actually RTFA.
> the summary is abjectly false,
The linked article has the following headline and lead graf has:
"California to reduce carbon emissions by... banning black cars?!"
"Apparently, the California Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings - especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours."
How does that make Slashdot's summary or headline 'abjectly false.'
> and your reply shows you were predisposed to believing this.
Guilty as charged. I now expect this sort of bizarro world stuff, especially from CA. But I do RTFA and yup I was right to expect this sort of crap because it is real.
Sooner or later the Tree of Liberty is going to need watering. Because it is clear that there are only a few probable outcomes left. You guys manage to get my side into death camps or just bred out of the gene pool or eventually we fight another revolution. Or Atlas Shrugs. My team does have one advantage in a revolution though... you guys in the Blue State hives don't have guns. :) Don't count on the Army, though they are normally agents of the State this isn't Russia; most of the US military will be on my side. Those guys take their Oath a lot more seriously than the average elected official who violates the Constitution daily.
> Why is it that when some one finally tells us that we must do things the smart way...
If you want to suggest better ways to do things go right ahead. It is when you fascists[1] decide that the stupid people aren't listening to you and decide to just impose your higher wisdom on them that I start the oil boiling and looking for a pitchfork. And since you probably can't understand the difference ignore this, it's for any semi-sane people reading.
Really, if the government can regulate the COLOR of your car in the name of carbon emissions is there any regulation on anything that some pinhead can't find some tortured logic to justify on environmental grounds? So aren't you really arguing for a totalitarian government because you are a bedwetting pansy who let Al Gore terrify you that the world is going to end if we don't abandon Western industrial civilization, eliminate 90% of the human population and return to a pre industrial feudal lifestyle?
Ok, that was slightly over the top but isn't that really what this is all about? We have turned into a nation of pussies unfit for self government because freedom scares us.
[1] Yes the word fascist is used correctly, not in the modern 'anybody progressives/socialists/liberals' don't like sense.