That's it. I'm not putting up with this anymore. It's one thing to kill women and children, blow up our G.I.s, and spread general mayhem throughout the world, but downloading Star Wars?!?!? Ripping off the RIAA?!?
Great. Now along with upgrading my computer to run a new OS, I have to upgrade my printer too.
M.S. is starting to remind of the late night infomercials for Ronco products. They do everything everyone else does, but in a newer, less efficient, and more obscure way.
It occurs to me that MS cannot make an iPod knock off for $50. If so, then they are losing money to build market share. It's been a while since my marketing classes, but it sounds to me like Predatory Pricing. And if I remember right, it is illegal.
I clearly remember a manual for an Apple III stating that 128K was more than sufficient for any computing task. My dad and I found that while we were scouring the manuals trying to figure out why the configuration utility kept crashing with a stack overflow. Turns out the configuration program needed 256k
Clearly Bill Gates stole that statement, bastardized it like everything else he steals, and pretended he was responsible for it.
This has been covered in a previous discussion, but it may be appropriate to revisit the topic.
If Windows is integrated into the BIOS, then presumably the computer makers would have to pay M$ for the privilege of selling this BIOS. Fine. No problem because the computer makes will be able to sell systems with regular BIOS.
But Wait! Now M$ tells the manufacturers that if they do use regular BIOS, then they won't sell them the rights to use the "Trusted" BIOS or they charge more for the "Trusted" BIOS. It's Deja Vu all over again.
So then all the manufacturers stop selling anything that does not use the "Trusted" M$ owned BIOS, which or course will not work with Linux, or anything else other than an M$ OS. And maybe even the latest one. No more foregoing those paid upgrades.
In fact, one could say this is not "decoding" the brain signals at all. It's merely statistically analyzing the noise and then matching the noise patterns with the movement.
Kind of like watching the sheets move and determining that someone is having sex in the bed; a far cry from a matrix like interface.
Yeah... dissenting voices that just happen to have little to no credibility in the wider scientific community, and who are paid by the lobbies of prominent administration allies, and who conviniently offer theories that support the administrations policies.
I forget, who is it that decides which scientist is credible? And I guess the others are not paid by the lobbies of prominent administration detractors. And of course their theories don't conviniently support the agenda of the "others".
Science is as political as any other dicipline.
But this administration wouldn't use experts like that. Why, that would be like not listening to the intelligence agencies....blah, blah, blah
Here is an article that, in addition to being very funny, provides an interesting insight to the scientific community.
http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html
In a nutshell it describes how most academia (which for all practical matters is the "Science" being discusses here) is caught in a feedback loop.
The problem is like minded people, espousing like minded theories, reviewing like minded peers.
Take Global Warming as an example. To hear the news media talk about it, Global Warming is a Fact. Yet there are plenty of well respected scientists that are not convinced either of its existence (in terms of Man being a causal factor) or of its importance (it may exist, but it's not going to destroy mankind). When there is credible dissent on such a theory, would it not be wise to have the dissenters a part of the review process?
Of course this is just one example, and a highly inflammatory one at that. But the fact remains that it all boils down to the administration wanting to have some dissenting voices weigh in on scientific issues when public policy is affected.
Actually, it's not as far fetched as you may think. Just last week there were reports of a Red Army (Chinese) publication that specifically cites Internet based attacks on the U.S. information infrasturcture as one component of a 'Total War' with the U.S., which they believe to be inevitable. So perhaps it's just practice.
Slashdot Mirror
That's it. I'm not putting up with this anymore. It's one thing to kill women and children, blow up our G.I.s, and spread general mayhem throughout the world, but downloading Star Wars?!?!? Ripping off the RIAA?!?
I say give them the needle.
Sounds like a great place for a condo development. Imagine the thousands of people that could admire this little weed from their balconys.
One thing is for sure. If the subject is standards, then you won't find this book on anyone's desk at M.S.
Odds are it was not the web guy, but some marketing puke or editor. Those dumb s**ts always come up with crazy crap like that.
Great. Now along with upgrading my computer to run a new OS, I have to upgrade my printer too.
M.S. is starting to remind of the late night infomercials for Ronco products. They do everything everyone else does, but in a newer, less efficient, and more obscure way.
Dog Bytes Man.
The only thing more pathetic than M.S. doing this kind of thing is the "news media" acting surprised over it.
If developers followed this line of thinking, then there would be no software for M.S. Windows.
If he was convicted of nearly 3000 1st degree muders in NY, then he would be looking at 7-10 years with time off for good behaviour.
Holy F**king S**t.
My machine has a freshly installed XP Pro...downloaded every last freaking update on M.S. servers, SP2 and everthing.
Download the avi and...nothing.
Windows....Industry Standard....my ass.
Has anyone ever heard of mpeg?
...have no business discussing politics.
Blah Blah Blah
If I had a nickle everytime I read about some storage breakthrough, I'd have at least a few dollars.
Kinda late in the post, but here's' how MS makes their software.
1. Take a million monkeys and put them in fron of a keyboard.
2. Try to build every evening.
3. First successful build ships.
It occurs to me that MS cannot make an iPod knock off for $50. If so, then they are losing money to build market share. It's been a while since my marketing classes, but it sounds to me like Predatory Pricing. And if I remember right, it is illegal.
I clearly remember a manual for an Apple III stating that 128K was more than sufficient for any computing task. My dad and I found that while we were scouring the manuals trying to figure out why the configuration utility kept crashing with a stack overflow. Turns out the configuration program needed 256k
Clearly Bill Gates stole that statement, bastardized it like everything else he steals, and pretended he was responsible for it.
Some things never change.
This has been covered in a previous discussion, but it may be appropriate to revisit the topic.
If Windows is integrated into the BIOS, then presumably the computer makers would have to pay M$ for the privilege of selling this BIOS. Fine. No problem because the computer makes will be able to sell systems with regular BIOS.
But Wait! Now M$ tells the manufacturers that if they do use regular BIOS, then they won't sell them the rights to use the "Trusted" BIOS or they charge more for the "Trusted" BIOS. It's Deja Vu all over again.
So then all the manufacturers stop selling anything that does not use the "Trusted" M$ owned BIOS, which or course will not work with Linux, or anything else other than an M$ OS. And maybe even the latest one. No more foregoing those paid upgrades.
Just Say No
In fact, one could say this is not "decoding" the brain signals at all. It's merely statistically analyzing the noise and then matching the noise patterns with the movement.
Kind of like watching the sheets move and determining that someone is having sex in the bed; a far cry from a matrix like interface.
Certainly, though, the Bush administration doesn't hold a monopoly on bad science.
Agreed. Every interest group will view science through their own templates; Conservatives, Liberals, Environmentalists, Creationists, etc.
And these templates have affected public policy time and time again.
It's a natural thing that the group in power gets to choose the current template.
It's also a natural thing that the group out of power gets whine about it.
The Truth lies somewhere in between.
Yeah... dissenting voices that just happen to have little to no credibility in the wider scientific community, and who are paid by the lobbies of prominent administration allies, and who conviniently offer theories that support the administrations policies.
I forget, who is it that decides which scientist is credible? And I guess the others are not paid by the lobbies of prominent administration detractors. And of course their theories don't conviniently support the agenda of the "others".
Science is as political as any other dicipline.
But this administration wouldn't use experts like that. Why, that would be like not listening to the intelligence agencies....blah, blah, blah
Let's stay focused here.
Here is an article that, in addition to being very funny, provides an interesting insight to the scientific community.
http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html
In a nutshell it describes how most academia (which for all practical matters is the "Science" being discusses here) is caught in a feedback loop.
The problem is like minded people, espousing like minded theories, reviewing like minded peers.
Take Global Warming as an example. To hear the news media talk about it, Global Warming is a Fact. Yet there are plenty of well respected scientists that are not convinced either of its existence (in terms of Man being a causal factor) or of its importance (it may exist, but it's not going to destroy mankind). When there is credible dissent on such a theory, would it not be wise to have the dissenters a part of the review process?
Of course this is just one example, and a highly inflammatory one at that. But the fact remains that it all boils down to the administration wanting to have some dissenting voices weigh in on scientific issues when public policy is affected.
Actually, it's not as far fetched as you may think. Just last week there were reports of a Red Army (Chinese) publication that specifically cites Internet based attacks on the U.S. information infrasturcture as one component of a 'Total War' with the U.S., which they believe to be inevitable. So perhaps it's just practice.