Except that the standard for "beauty" changes over time. I'm not sure I'm buying this
not really. In magazines they change, but the real beauty does not. There are basic qualities that have withstood the test of time. Also there have been MANY studies using the baby smile test. You take babies ranging from 3 months to 1 year old. These kids are too young to have been influenced by what the media/general public considers to be attractive (e.g. magazine influence). You show them pictures of people of one attractive person and one unattractive person. The babies will gaze and smile towards what they find attractive, and ignore what they don't find attractive. So put up a picture of Rosie O'donnal vs Scarlett Johanson and Rosie won't get more then a glance from the baby. They have found, over the years and even regions, babies find similar things to be attractive. A few of the features I remember
Symmetry (e.g. Chunk from the goonies is not symmetrical)
Smooth/similar colored skin (not black vs white, but your skin color is even colored. If you have a melanoma condition you are screwed)
Developed hips (for women) which helps in child birthing
Healthy weight (anorexia is not healthy, but neither is a person who is 10 lbs overweight)
Developed/Square jaw (for men)
Good muscles for men (yes your abs are important) - it shows you can physically protect and hunt for your mate
Good teeth (shows you get things like vitamin C)
Developed breasts (for women duh)
Smell (yes being clean is a physically attractive trait)
This test has been done over and over since at least the 60's (if not before). It always has the same results (meaning its verifiable and reliable).
What has been considered attractive, for the most part, has been the same over time.
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern.
Prettier women have a better chance of getting married and having kids then less attractive women. Yea this makes sense. Given all else equal I would rather marry the hot babe then the ugly chick.
On a personal note I think the sex icons of today are better looking then those of the 30's, 40's, 50's, etc. Marilyn Monroe was hot but I think there are so many better looking girls out there today and most of them will never get in your local newspaper ad let alone become famous as an american icon (as far as looks are concerned).
Isn't that infrared light, or heat signature that everything with a temperature emits? The naked eye can't see it but special tools (infrared lenses) can.
Except the need for the CO / XO is implemented in the form of a physical key, that actually closes the electrical circuit, something that can't be bypassed with software.
You sir bring up a good point and it sounds correct.
GM is sinking faster than an anvil in a swimming pool....1000 bucks for 472 dollar rally stripes and some tacky emblems applied in a couple of spots? WOW....HOW about 472 bucks for rally stripes and 500 bucks into a decent aftermarket exhaust? Its obvious they are smoking the good shit in Detroit...
$1,000 for custom stripes, custom emblems (on paint, emblems on car, etched into the leather), custom rims, is about right for the car market. There may be other things with this car (e.g. it may be the big engine model) - but i am not sure.
You will have a really hard time finding a high-end aftermarket place to paint on the rally stripes correctly. Then the wording. Plus getting the emblems = very difficult if not impossible. The leather etched emblem? not likely. The rims? Not likely. Plus someone had to design these.
Face it - while it may be transformers - this article is not for the/. crowd
Launch from a nuclear submarine by a hack?. Not possible. CO, XO, weapons officer would all have to be in the loop for it to work. (circa 1995 that is, not sure about now). ex-boomer guy.
Bypassing the crappiness of this article - all of these systems are run by computers. Assuming a hacker could bypass security, could install software that interfaced with the weapons software then the hacker would not need CO, XO, or the weapons officer...the hack would (presumably) bypass these needs similar to hacks which bypass the need to use a password to activate software.
I'd like to hear a statement from microsoft on this claim
1) Why would MS have to make a statement on this claim? They may have signed an NDA or other similar Top Secret documents
2) It may be attached to non-security related systems (e.g. letting sailors e-mail home) that are stand-alone units (e.g. not connected to the security network).
3) It may not be the windows OS but be something totally different or a hybrid
4) Mentioning Windows in a security flaw article is just a way to get some bonus points with people like the/. crowd.
5) Windows can be locked down fairly well where you can't install software, play flash, download programs, or even right click the desktop. Basically you can read news-sites and check your gmail account
Unless someone here knows exactly what MS product is being used, how it is being used, and if it has any modifications (assuming it is a mod'd version of a standard product) then just saying "Microsoft" should not raise alarms.
Ignore for a moment your hatred for RIAA/MPAA (i know it's hard, but try).
RIAA sued Piratebay
RIAA won
RIAA want's their money before Piratebay tries to run off with it
Now again, ignore your hatred of the RIAA - or swap RIAA for say your grandmother. How is this such a bad thing that the RIAA wants the money they won in a lawsuit? Imagine your grandmother sued the local supermarket and won. Now the supermarket is trying to sell itself and figure out a way to not pay your grandmother. Why would you object to your mother trying to claim the money she won?
Hate them - love them - or be indifferent - but they won a lawsuit and they should get what they are owed...and in this case its about 3.2 million.
Here is an idea facebook. Give the user an option to not give the app creators 100% access to the facebook users data. I reject all of those apps because all of them expect me to give up my data - all of my data. It is very invasive.
I'm assuming facebook gives this control to the app makers - but as we know - when you have an option and it is free then why not use it?
I can't stand places like gamestop. $60 game (brand new). They buy it back for $10 to $15. They resell it at $55. No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.
Craigslist/Ebay and other similar sites is the way to buy used games.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=infidel
S: (n) heathen, pagan, gentile, infidel (a person who does not acknowledge your god)
People in sandy countries are infidels to us.
I agree with your definition of infidel....but I disagree with your "people in sandy countries are infidels..." The US:
1) A country of pluralism and multiple religions with no state religion. So this right there kills your argument
2) The heart of christianity is in a sandy city located in a sandy country (jeruselum, israel)
3) Judaism - a religion that spawned christianity - has it's heart rooted in jeruselum, israel
4) Depending on where you are in the US you would see a lot of sand (and i am not talking about the beaches).
You can't even say "But that is the word that they use about us!" because they really don't. I would say that most of them don't use English when they discuss with each other.
Hmm....first you are getting too literal and second you are wrong. In the literal sense they do use the word infidel, just in their own language. In the wrong sense terrorists do know some english words and when they want to get a point across they will say "infidel"
Remember that USA hasn't had much wars with mainly Christian nations. (World wars and the independence war excluded)
ORLY? Let's see...War with Mexico, france, england (oh wait can't use that one), war with germany (oh wait can't use those two), war in vietnam (lots of christians there). But I love your stance "I am right as long as you don't include all the points that make me wrong...like world war 1, world war 2, and the revolutionary war"....but wait you forgot to exclude...wait for it: the US civil war.
Haven't companies learned by now that if you are going to instruct your people to do shady/illegal stuff that you should NOT put it in a memo. Just go by word of mouth "hey bob, make some fake posts"....dumb asses
BTW I find politicians a bit hypocritical. In politics the tech writers will write a nice constituant letter about their politician. They will then give it to a loyal constituant and ask them to sign it. So the constituant never wrote the words, never had the experience, but because they like the politician they will put their name to it...and this makes it 100% perfectly legal. So the next time you see grandma who says her politician is the second coming of christ just realize the words/experience may have come from some paid writer and grandma just signed her name to it.
[quote]a) they maintain copyright for another 90 years
b) the old product worked fine
c) nobody else can fix any problems
d) they have to buy another one that will have the same problems in 3-5 years[/quote]
WIth regards to your items:
a) Irrelevant to this topic - who cares? It's a new copyright btw. Honestly in 90 years who will care about win3.1...who cares about win3.1 right now?
b) So does a 1980 toyota corolla but look at where we are now - upgrades, new features, etc
c) This doesn't make sense. Rephrase?
d) They don't have to buy a new one. You can still use office 2003 and someone using office 2010 can read it...and a new version with new/updated features is not a problem.
Unless you have more information to flesh out, which makes sense, it seems like you are trolling.
It's got to be tough. You can't kill off XP like you want to, because people really really might leave. But it looks foolish to support that morass of code in spite of the NEW morass you've spent all that money on.
In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.
People might leave to what? To Apple? Not likely. There are always people who transition from apple to ms and ms to apple but, and greater so doing OS upgrades as people search new avenues and reevaluate their needs but for the most part this will not cause any appreciable (to the companies) change. Though i find it interesting...now XP is a morass of code.
Webapps are still far into the future...i'd expected windows 9 to come out ebfore web apps become mainstream.
Then by that argument why did they upgrade from NT to server 2003?
With each generation of software it is more intensive then the last. Then again the hardware is also more intensive. A person running windows NT/2003 servers won't upgrade to windows 7 because the hardware can't handle it....then again the brand new dell computer is more powerful then that old win nt/2003 server. Once they upgrade their servers they will upgrade their software.
Internet/web apps is still very much pie in the sky. It has a TON of hurdles before it becomes adopted. First proponents have to guarantee 100% up time and second they have to gaurantee 100% privacy with no bull crap like "we can change the terms of the agreement at anytime", oh and third - the price better be absolutely right.
Most companies refuse to upgrade their systems to a new product (at least major product) unless there is 1) pressure from the top, 2) The hardware vendor only sells with that software, 3) a service patch has been released, or 4) they receive such an unbelievable discount it borders on payola.
This is nothing new. This happened with windows NT, XP, 2003, Vista and it will continue to happen. Though most people who have tried windows 7 have stated they loved it. I've had it installed for months now and I have not experienced a single crash and my laptop is running faster with windows 7 then it did vista.
Wait until windows 7 is out for 6 months, has it's first patch and then come out with an verifiable/reliable article saying this information.
Do you think that in 2 years the entire world will switch from Windows to something else? No, the GP had it right. You're a little dense, and your going off a tangent about affirmative action doesn't help much to hide that fact.
If the entire world had enough motive. But why would they? Most apps are made for windows (followed by apple) and apple products are still way more expensive then windows. How many brand new apple computers can you buy for $350? No the GP had it wrong, and you have it wrong on both counts.
Nobody is complaining about a Hotmail or MSN monopoly. And despite its success, Firefox is still not bigger than IE6. But it's the desktop where MS rules, and that's where I can't ignore them no matter how much I'd like to, because a lot of third-party software is only being published for the monopolist's platform, because no other OS matters enough.
Nobody is complaining about hotmail/msn monopoly because there isn't one - just like their isn't a windows monopoly. Google is the most used search engine - are you calling them a monopoly? Here let's take your statement "But it's the search engine where Google rules, and taht's where I can't ignore them no matter how much I'd like to, because a lot of third-party software is only being published for the monopolist's website, because no other search engine matters enough"
But wait a moment, son, you said third party publishers are producing these apps...so MS is to blame because XYZ company produces for MS exclusively? I swore that each person/group was responsible for their own actions. MS was responsible for pressuring retailers...now that they are no longer pressuring retailers they are responsible for third party vendors who want to produce only for MS? Now your goign to say MS is expected to go to these vendors and force them to produce for Linux? GTFO
Congratulations on getting modded up though. My theory that mod points are being increasingly farmed out to rhesus monkeys and squirrels on steroids continues to pan out.
Dude your saying good things about MS. Let me get on my other five/. accounts so i can mod you down.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you mean Sloth?
My bad :)
Yea but don't you work at corporate headquarters for the WNBA?
In seriousness you are correct - over the years we have been getting taller.
Don't forget alimony when you divorce her. Leave it to gov't to kill evolution!
Except that the standard for "beauty" changes over time. I'm not sure I'm buying this
not really. In magazines they change, but the real beauty does not. There are basic qualities that have withstood the test of time. Also there have been MANY studies using the baby smile test. You take babies ranging from 3 months to 1 year old. These kids are too young to have been influenced by what the media/general public considers to be attractive (e.g. magazine influence). You show them pictures of people of one attractive person and one unattractive person. The babies will gaze and smile towards what they find attractive, and ignore what they don't find attractive. So put up a picture of Rosie O'donnal vs Scarlett Johanson and Rosie won't get more then a glance from the baby. They have found, over the years and even regions, babies find similar things to be attractive. A few of the features I remember
Symmetry (e.g. Chunk from the goonies is not symmetrical)
Smooth/similar colored skin (not black vs white, but your skin color is even colored. If you have a melanoma condition you are screwed)
Developed hips (for women) which helps in child birthing
Healthy weight (anorexia is not healthy, but neither is a person who is 10 lbs overweight)
Developed/Square jaw (for men)
Good muscles for men (yes your abs are important) - it shows you can physically protect and hunt for your mate
Good teeth (shows you get things like vitamin C)
Developed breasts (for women duh)
Smell (yes being clean is a physically attractive trait)
This test has been done over and over since at least the 60's (if not before). It always has the same results (meaning its verifiable and reliable).
What has been considered attractive, for the most part, has been the same over time.
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern.
Prettier women have a better chance of getting married and having kids then less attractive women. Yea this makes sense. Given all else equal I would rather marry the hot babe then the ugly chick.
On a personal note I think the sex icons of today are better looking then those of the 30's, 40's, 50's, etc. Marilyn Monroe was hot but I think there are so many better looking girls out there today and most of them will never get in your local newspaper ad let alone become famous as an american icon (as far as looks are concerned).
Isn't that infrared light, or heat signature that everything with a temperature emits? The naked eye can't see it but special tools (infrared lenses) can.
Except the need for the CO / XO is implemented in the form of a physical key, that actually closes the electrical circuit, something that can't be bypassed with software.
You sir bring up a good point and it sounds correct.
GM is sinking faster than an anvil in a swimming pool....1000 bucks for 472 dollar rally stripes and some tacky emblems applied in a couple of spots? WOW....HOW about 472 bucks for rally stripes and 500 bucks into a decent aftermarket exhaust? Its obvious they are smoking the good shit in Detroit...
$1,000 for custom stripes, custom emblems (on paint, emblems on car, etched into the leather), custom rims, is about right for the car market. There may be other things with this car (e.g. it may be the big engine model) - but i am not sure.
/. crowd
You will have a really hard time finding a high-end aftermarket place to paint on the rally stripes correctly. Then the wording. Plus getting the emblems = very difficult if not impossible. The leather etched emblem? not likely. The rims? Not likely. Plus someone had to design these.
Face it - while it may be transformers - this article is not for the
It needs to randomly spout out short music clips.
Launch from a nuclear submarine by a hack?. Not possible. CO, XO, weapons officer would all have to be in the loop for it to work. (circa 1995 that is, not sure about now). ex-boomer guy.
Bypassing the crappiness of this article - all of these systems are run by computers. Assuming a hacker could bypass security, could install software that interfaced with the weapons software then the hacker would not need CO, XO, or the weapons officer...the hack would (presumably) bypass these needs similar to hacks which bypass the need to use a password to activate software.
Thyroid cancer is the biggest scam perpetrated on the world public since one hour martinizing..
Go hug a spent nuclear fuel rod and post back letting us know how you are doing.
I'd like to hear a statement from microsoft on this claim
1) Why would MS have to make a statement on this claim? They may have signed an NDA or other similar Top Secret documents /. crowd.
2) It may be attached to non-security related systems (e.g. letting sailors e-mail home) that are stand-alone units (e.g. not connected to the security network).
3) It may not be the windows OS but be something totally different or a hybrid
4) Mentioning Windows in a security flaw article is just a way to get some bonus points with people like the
5) Windows can be locked down fairly well where you can't install software, play flash, download programs, or even right click the desktop. Basically you can read news-sites and check your gmail account
Unless someone here knows exactly what MS product is being used, how it is being used, and if it has any modifications (assuming it is a mod'd version of a standard product) then just saying "Microsoft" should not raise alarms.
If you look at the shadows you can obviously tell this was made in a movie studio.
Ignore for a moment your hatred for RIAA/MPAA (i know it's hard, but try).
RIAA sued Piratebay
RIAA won
RIAA want's their money before Piratebay tries to run off with it
Now again, ignore your hatred of the RIAA - or swap RIAA for say your grandmother. How is this such a bad thing that the RIAA wants the money they won in a lawsuit? Imagine your grandmother sued the local supermarket and won. Now the supermarket is trying to sell itself and figure out a way to not pay your grandmother. Why would you object to your mother trying to claim the money she won?
Hate them - love them - or be indifferent - but they won a lawsuit and they should get what they are owed...and in this case its about 3.2 million.
Here is an idea facebook. Give the user an option to not give the app creators 100% access to the facebook users data. I reject all of those apps because all of them expect me to give up my data - all of my data. It is very invasive.
I'm assuming facebook gives this control to the app makers - but as we know - when you have an option and it is free then why not use it?
I can't stand places like gamestop. $60 game (brand new). They buy it back for $10 to $15. They resell it at $55. No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.
Craigslist/Ebay and other similar sites is the way to buy used games.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=infidel
S: (n) heathen, pagan, gentile, infidel (a person who does not acknowledge your god)
People in sandy countries are infidels to us.
I agree with your definition of infidel....but I disagree with your "people in sandy countries are infidels..." The US:
1) A country of pluralism and multiple religions with no state religion. So this right there kills your argument
2) The heart of christianity is in a sandy city located in a sandy country (jeruselum, israel)
3) Judaism - a religion that spawned christianity - has it's heart rooted in jeruselum, israel
4) Depending on where you are in the US you would see a lot of sand (and i am not talking about the beaches).
You can't even say "But that is the word that they use about us!" because they really don't. I would say that most of them don't use English when they discuss with each other.
Hmm....first you are getting too literal and second you are wrong. In the literal sense they do use the word infidel, just in their own language. In the wrong sense terrorists do know some english words and when they want to get a point across they will say "infidel"
Remember that USA hasn't had much wars with mainly Christian nations. (World wars and the independence war excluded)
ORLY? Let's see...War with Mexico, france, england (oh wait can't use that one), war with germany (oh wait can't use those two), war in vietnam (lots of christians there). But I love your stance "I am right as long as you don't include all the points that make me wrong...like world war 1, world war 2, and the revolutionary war"....but wait you forgot to exclude...wait for it: the US civil war.
Now the US navy can bring death upon the infidels in a clean and environmentally safe way
Hmm...the US Navy is going to bomb US citizens? Remember, the US (and some of the Western world) are the infidels.
Haven't companies learned by now that if you are going to instruct your people to do shady/illegal stuff that you should NOT put it in a memo. Just go by word of mouth "hey bob, make some fake posts"....dumb asses
BTW I find politicians a bit hypocritical. In politics the tech writers will write a nice constituant letter about their politician. They will then give it to a loyal constituant and ask them to sign it. So the constituant never wrote the words, never had the experience, but because they like the politician they will put their name to it...and this makes it 100% perfectly legal. So the next time you see grandma who says her politician is the second coming of christ just realize the words/experience may have come from some paid writer and grandma just signed her name to it.
[quote]a) they maintain copyright for another 90 years b) the old product worked fine c) nobody else can fix any problems d) they have to buy another one that will have the same problems in 3-5 years[/quote] WIth regards to your items:
a) Irrelevant to this topic - who cares? It's a new copyright btw. Honestly in 90 years who will care about win3.1...who cares about win3.1 right now?
b) So does a 1980 toyota corolla but look at where we are now - upgrades, new features, etc
c) This doesn't make sense. Rephrase?
d) They don't have to buy a new one. You can still use office 2003 and someone using office 2010 can read it...and a new version with new/updated features is not a problem.
Unless you have more information to flesh out, which makes sense, it seems like you are trolling.
It's got to be tough. You can't kill off XP like you want to, because people really really might leave. But it looks foolish to support that morass of code in spite of the NEW morass you've spent all that money on. In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.
People might leave to what? To Apple? Not likely. There are always people who transition from apple to ms and ms to apple but, and greater so doing OS upgrades as people search new avenues and reevaluate their needs but for the most part this will not cause any appreciable (to the companies) change. Though i find it interesting...now XP is a morass of code.
Webapps are still far into the future...i'd expected windows 9 to come out ebfore web apps become mainstream.
Then by that argument why did they upgrade from NT to server 2003?
With each generation of software it is more intensive then the last. Then again the hardware is also more intensive. A person running windows NT/2003 servers won't upgrade to windows 7 because the hardware can't handle it....then again the brand new dell computer is more powerful then that old win nt/2003 server. Once they upgrade their servers they will upgrade their software.
Internet/web apps is still very much pie in the sky. It has a TON of hurdles before it becomes adopted. First proponents have to guarantee 100% up time and second they have to gaurantee 100% privacy with no bull crap like "we can change the terms of the agreement at anytime", oh and third - the price better be absolutely right.
Most companies refuse to upgrade their systems to a new product (at least major product) unless there is 1) pressure from the top, 2) The hardware vendor only sells with that software, 3) a service patch has been released, or 4) they receive such an unbelievable discount it borders on payola.
This is nothing new. This happened with windows NT, XP, 2003, Vista and it will continue to happen. Though most people who have tried windows 7 have stated they loved it. I've had it installed for months now and I have not experienced a single crash and my laptop is running faster with windows 7 then it did vista.
Wait until windows 7 is out for 6 months, has it's first patch and then come out with an verifiable/reliable article saying this information.
Do you think that in 2 years the entire world will switch from Windows to something else? No, the GP had it right. You're a little dense, and your going off a tangent about affirmative action doesn't help much to hide that fact.
If the entire world had enough motive. But why would they? Most apps are made for windows (followed by apple) and apple products are still way more expensive then windows. How many brand new apple computers can you buy for $350? No the GP had it wrong, and you have it wrong on both counts.
Nobody is complaining about a Hotmail or MSN monopoly. And despite its success, Firefox is still not bigger than IE6. But it's the desktop where MS rules, and that's where I can't ignore them no matter how much I'd like to, because a lot of third-party software is only being published for the monopolist's platform, because no other OS matters enough.
Nobody is complaining about hotmail/msn monopoly because there isn't one - just like their isn't a windows monopoly. Google is the most used search engine - are you calling them a monopoly? Here let's take your statement "But it's the search engine where Google rules, and taht's where I can't ignore them no matter how much I'd like to, because a lot of third-party software is only being published for the monopolist's website, because no other search engine matters enough"
But wait a moment, son, you said third party publishers are producing these apps...so MS is to blame because XYZ company produces for MS exclusively? I swore that each person/group was responsible for their own actions. MS was responsible for pressuring retailers...now that they are no longer pressuring retailers they are responsible for third party vendors who want to produce only for MS? Now your goign to say MS is expected to go to these vendors and force them to produce for Linux? GTFO
Congratulations on getting modded up though. My theory that mod points are being increasingly farmed out to rhesus monkeys and squirrels on steroids continues to pan out.
Dude your saying good things about MS. Let me get on my other five /. accounts so i can mod you down.