Would the file sharing widget essentially set up a p2p network? One user would be connecting directly to the other user, correct, possibly going through one of Opera's proxies?
Microsoft contributed more to PCs being commonplace in homes than any other company.
You're assuming that the "home computer industry" took off long before Microsoft, I disagree with that. It got *started* before Microsoft, but the "revolution" you were describing earlier happened after MS was already on the scene, and I'm claiming that MS had a specific influence on that "revolution" more than any other company.
I'm talking about, not only the point when personal computers became useful and inexpensive enough that they could be acquired by the majority of households, but when people actually got them. Most computer sales pre-Microsoft were business machines, not home machines. The vast majority of home machines are Microsoft machines. Again, Microsoft contributed more to PCs being commonplace in homes than any other company. I'm not saying it was all Microsoft. But they did have more of an impact than any other company. You can't argue that Commodore ushered in the era of home computing when it's really difficult to find anyone on the street who knows what a Commodore is, let alone someone who's actually owned one. It's pretty easy to find someone who knows what a 386 was.
I understand that the Commodore-64 is considered the best-selling computer of all time, and that Apple hit $1bn in sales in 1982, and that Apple had a Super Bowl commercial in 1984, all before Windows even came out in 1985. But I still think that Microsoft had the single biggest impact of any company re. getting a PC into most households. You only need to look at the usage numbers to verify that, unless you think that Windows is dominant because it's superior. Do you know anyone today running (actually using) a Commodore, Atari, or Amiga in their home? I had a TI-99 a long time ago, but I didn't really get into computers until I started using MS-DOS.
Microsoft has done more to get computers in every household than any other company. They didn't use the most pleasant tactics, but they did achieve the goal of a personal computer being common and accessible. Apple was not able to do that ($10,000 != accessible), and IBM was not able to do that (not alone, anyway, although they should have been).
The first televised commercial I saw for anything computer-related was for Windows 95, before then all of the computer ads were in computer magazines. Microsoft is really responsible for most home users viewing computers as personal products instead of business machines.
Much later models may have had a front power switch (Quadra-era maybe, I forget), but by then most Mac users wouldn't be likely to make the mistake of assuming it was a floppy eject button, because such a thing had never existed on any Mac.
So if I sit you in a Panoz, or a Cessna, or Gulfstream, and you're looking around for the ignition or controls, you're going to know where they are just because they're in the same place that the designer has always put them? This assumes nothing about your familiarity with the device, you're just saying that people using a Mac would have known that the button near the floppy did not eject the floppy, because that's the way Apple has always done it?
Well, what if the Mac in question was the first Mac the user has ever seen?
That's so perfect. The message that broke poorly-written clients is one that said "The tweets must flow" with a link to a lolcat. This is like critical mass for a pop-culture black hole.
Just to see, I punched out 2^64 in the calculator. That's a really big number, that's over 744 trillion. By "over 744 trillion", I mean that there are 5 other digits in front of the 744 trillion, but I don't know how to say those.
Thank you, I'm glad this is the first post listed.
Dr Roland Ennos designed a machine which enabled him to measure the amount of friction generated by a fingerprint when it was in contact with an acrylic glass at varying levels of pressure. The results showed that friction levels increased by a much smaller amount than had been anticipated, debunking the hypothesis that fingerprints provide an improved grip.
That's totally BS science. That disproves the hypothesis that fingerprints provide improved grip on acrylic glass, not that fingerprints provide improved grip on other surfaces.
That would probably be the only one that makes sense, I would bet that the light pollution in central Tokyo is among the worst in the world, I can't seem to find any rankings. But even there I would imagine that you could still see the moon. Still, the GP claimed this:
There's small chance of seeing even the moon, let alone the milkyway in any major US city.
There's no way that's true, there's not a single US city (let alone "any major" US city) where you can't see the moon because of light pollution.
Which 4 people think that's insightful? If Apple was well-intentioned then they would just make it a feature, and announce that they're making it a feature. The only reason they would patent this is to stop their competitors from using it. It's not an excuse to say that they would patent it to stop someone else from doing the same and then charging them, because surely no company is a big enough douche to patent emergency mode on a cell phone.
I've done it myself, I have a Blackberry pearl 8150 (I think). It's not hard to do, if I press a button while the phone is locked it pops up a menu to either unlock, dial emergency, or cancel. So in order to make an emergency call, I have to hit a button on the phone (any button) twice, once to de-idle it and once to bring up the menu, then the little ball chunk needs to be scrolled down to highlight the second choice, then either the ball or call button gets pressed. I got a phone call from a number that had about 16 digits that came from the local P.D. asking if there was an emergency and telling me to reset my phone.
I don't know how the iPhone works, but you don't have to unlock my phone to make an emergency call, that's the one thing it will do if the phone is locked.
Yes, I understand that, thanks, when I wrote "m/h" I was talking miles per hour (since I was responding to someone who was also talking about miles per hour, since TFA was also talking about miles per hour). OP said a.50 cal bullet goes 250 MPH "at best", I was correcting him. Sorry to the physics nerds for using the wrong symbol for miles.
Firearms expert Julian Hatcher studied falling bullets and found that.30 caliber rounds reach velocities of 300 feet per second (90 m/s) and larger.50 caliber bullets have a velocity of 500 feet per second (150 m/s)
People are injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down. The mortality rate among those struck by falling bullets is about 32%, compared with about 2 - 6% normally associated with gunshot wounds. The higher mortality is related to the higher incidence of head wounds from falling bullets.
In the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.
Between the years 1985 - 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. 38 of them died.
Kuwaitis celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets.
Firearms expert Julian Hatcher studied falling bullets and found that.30 caliber rounds reach velocities of 300 feet per second (90 m/s) and larger.50 caliber bullets have a velocity of 500 feet per second (150 m/s). A bullet traveling at only 150 feet per second (46 m/s) to 170 feet per second (52 m/s) can penetrate human skin, and at less than 200 feet per second (60 m/s), it can penetrate the skull.
You're up to 16 times more likely to be killed by getting hit with a falling bullet vs. a horizontal shot. So go ahead, head outside and start firing rounds up into the air, let us know how that turns out for you and the people around you.
Wrong. Because of past pressure by Microsoft on OEMs and other dirty tricks, all commercial competitors to them in the open OS market have disappeared (OS2,BeOS). The only competitor left is Linux, which for obvious reasons is more difficult to attack, though that hasn't stopped them trying.
That's exactly my point. My question was facetious, consumers do not have a real choice in which OS they purchase, that choice is made for them. That is the issue that needs to be addressed, not what software Microsoft wants to bundle. If consumers had real choice in which OS they purchased, Microsoft would be forced by competition to bundle more software, or risk losing sales. Unbundling IE doesn't really affect Microsoft at all, they're still selling Windows to everyone. That's what I was trying to get at - it seems like the marketplace really, really wants Windows, that's what I don't understand. People have this problem with Microsoft leveraging their monopoly, but they don't address the monopoly itself. The deals with the OEMs that were made to exclude competitors are what need to be fixed, we don't need to dictate to Microsoft what software they're allowed to bundle. Let them bundle what they want, just allow OEMs to sell whatever OS they want also.
I'm sort of playing the devil's advocate, but I do think the move against IE is a good one, but I'm just saying that as a web developer who cares about standards. It would be nice if fewer people were using deficient browsers, and I'm anxiously watching the IE6 and IE7 numbers fall. Even IE8 is a massive improvement from IE7, I would even say that IE8 is the single most significant update IE has ever had. But I'm not delusional into thinking that unbundling IE from Windows is going to have any effect on the OS monopoly which is the true source of the problem.
I realize you're modded Insightful and all, and I guess I'm sticking my "excellent" karma up for grabs, but the GP has a point - what does unbundling the browser from the OS really solve? I mean, what problem is being addressed? Is the problem with Microsoft that they bundle the browser they develop with the operating system they develop? People are free to choose their OS, right? So what does it matter what software the vendor chooses to ship with that OS? If the public doesn't like the software choices they can choose a different OS vendor, right?..right?
No?
Here's a question: why aren't people angry that Apple bundles Safari with OSX?
Allow me to anticipate the answer: because Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems. This is true, Apple does not hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems, and arguably Microsoft does.
So why are people fighting to have Microsoft's software unbundled with Microsoft's other software? Why aren't people fighting against the OS monopoly itself, instead of the fringes of the monopoly?
The problem with MS is that they hold a monopoly on operating systems. Why is it a big deal to fight against their browser? Shouldn't the operating system be the target? No one should care which software a vendor chooses to bundle with their other software (if you don't like it, don't use it), what people should care about is what choice they have in the marketplace. What it sounds like to me is that people *really* want to use Windows, they just don't want to use IE.
Why is Windows not the target? Why has IE been made the target? What problem does this action really solve?
Slashdot Mirror
I concur, 10 alpha was pretty rough. 10 beta is a huge improvement over 9.64.
and yes, I know that tabs was implemented elsewhere before Opera did it
[citation needed]
Would the file sharing widget essentially set up a p2p network? One user would be connecting directly to the other user, correct, possibly going through one of Opera's proxies?
What, do you want me to say it again? Fine:
Microsoft contributed more to PCs being commonplace in homes than any other company.
You're assuming that the "home computer industry" took off long before Microsoft, I disagree with that. It got *started* before Microsoft, but the "revolution" you were describing earlier happened after MS was already on the scene, and I'm claiming that MS had a specific influence on that "revolution" more than any other company.
This isn't difficult stuff to understand.
I'm talking about, not only the point when personal computers became useful and inexpensive enough that they could be acquired by the majority of households, but when people actually got them. Most computer sales pre-Microsoft were business machines, not home machines. The vast majority of home machines are Microsoft machines. Again, Microsoft contributed more to PCs being commonplace in homes than any other company. I'm not saying it was all Microsoft. But they did have more of an impact than any other company. You can't argue that Commodore ushered in the era of home computing when it's really difficult to find anyone on the street who knows what a Commodore is, let alone someone who's actually owned one. It's pretty easy to find someone who knows what a 386 was.
I understand that the Commodore-64 is considered the best-selling computer of all time, and that Apple hit $1bn in sales in 1982, and that Apple had a Super Bowl commercial in 1984, all before Windows even came out in 1985. But I still think that Microsoft had the single biggest impact of any company re. getting a PC into most households. You only need to look at the usage numbers to verify that, unless you think that Windows is dominant because it's superior. Do you know anyone today running (actually using) a Commodore, Atari, or Amiga in their home? I had a TI-99 a long time ago, but I didn't really get into computers until I started using MS-DOS.
Well I guess if you want to get political about it, it could also be the % increase in debt from Clinton to Bush.
Microsoft has done more to get computers in every household than any other company. They didn't use the most pleasant tactics, but they did achieve the goal of a personal computer being common and accessible. Apple was not able to do that ($10,000 != accessible), and IBM was not able to do that (not alone, anyway, although they should have been).
The first televised commercial I saw for anything computer-related was for Windows 95, before then all of the computer ads were in computer magazines. Microsoft is really responsible for most home users viewing computers as personal products instead of business machines.
Much later models may have had a front power switch (Quadra-era maybe, I forget), but by then most Mac users wouldn't be likely to make the mistake of assuming it was a floppy eject button, because such a thing had never existed on any Mac.
So if I sit you in a Panoz, or a Cessna, or Gulfstream, and you're looking around for the ignition or controls, you're going to know where they are just because they're in the same place that the designer has always put them? This assumes nothing about your familiarity with the device, you're just saying that people using a Mac would have known that the button near the floppy did not eject the floppy, because that's the way Apple has always done it?
Well, what if the Mac in question was the first Mac the user has ever seen?
That's so perfect. The message that broke poorly-written clients is one that said "The tweets must flow" with a link to a lolcat. This is like critical mass for a pop-culture black hole.
Just to see, I punched out 2^64 in the calculator. That's a really big number, that's over 744 trillion. By "over 744 trillion", I mean that there are 5 other digits in front of the 744 trillion, but I don't know how to say those.
18,446,744,073,709,551,616
<quote>quote goes here</quote>
If you copy and paste that you'll get this:
quote goes here
You can also do <b>bold</b>, <i>italic</i>, and a few other basic things:
You can also do bold, italic, and a few other basic things.
Thank you, I'm glad this is the first post listed.
Dr Roland Ennos designed a machine which enabled him to measure the amount of friction generated by a fingerprint when it was in contact with an acrylic glass at varying levels of pressure. The results showed that friction levels increased by a much smaller amount than had been anticipated, debunking the hypothesis that fingerprints provide an improved grip.
That's totally BS science. That disproves the hypothesis that fingerprints provide improved grip on acrylic glass, not that fingerprints provide improved grip on other surfaces.
That would probably be the only one that makes sense, I would bet that the light pollution in central Tokyo is among the worst in the world, I can't seem to find any rankings. But even there I would imagine that you could still see the moon. Still, the GP claimed this:
There's small chance of seeing even the moon, let alone the milkyway in any major US city.
There's no way that's true, there's not a single US city (let alone "any major" US city) where you can't see the moon because of light pollution.
Which 4 people think that's insightful? If Apple was well-intentioned then they would just make it a feature, and announce that they're making it a feature. The only reason they would patent this is to stop their competitors from using it. It's not an excuse to say that they would patent it to stop someone else from doing the same and then charging them, because surely no company is a big enough douche to patent emergency mode on a cell phone.
Thanks, Apple.
See my reply to the GP. Granted I've only done it once, but it's not all that difficult to do.
I've done it myself, I have a Blackberry pearl 8150 (I think). It's not hard to do, if I press a button while the phone is locked it pops up a menu to either unlock, dial emergency, or cancel. So in order to make an emergency call, I have to hit a button on the phone (any button) twice, once to de-idle it and once to bring up the menu, then the little ball chunk needs to be scrolled down to highlight the second choice, then either the ball or call button gets pressed. I got a phone call from a number that had about 16 digits that came from the local P.D. asking if there was an emergency and telling me to reset my phone.
I don't know how the iPhone works, but you don't have to unlock my phone to make an emergency call, that's the one thing it will do if the phone is locked.
Yes, I understand that, thanks, when I wrote "m/h" I was talking miles per hour (since I was responding to someone who was also talking about miles per hour, since TFA was also talking about miles per hour). OP said a .50 cal bullet goes 250 MPH "at best", I was correcting him. Sorry to the physics nerds for using the wrong symbol for miles.
I've seen peas the size of .50 caliber rounds...And I doubt 30,000MPH. Maybe 250 at best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire#Falling-bullet_injuries
Firearms expert Julian Hatcher studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach velocities of 300 feet per second (90 m/s) and larger .50 caliber bullets have a velocity of 500 feet per second (150 m/s)
500 f/s ~ 340 m/h
You may resume "bwahaha"ing now.
I like how they also include an actual photograph of the meteoroid traveling through space.
"You'll end up killing someone else." No, they wouldn't. That's my POINT.
You're just pushing and pushing, aren't you? My favorite type of argument, you're just so sure that you're correct but don't actually have a clue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire#Falling-bullet_injuries
People are injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down. The mortality rate among those struck by falling bullets is about 32%, compared with about 2 - 6% normally associated with gunshot wounds. The higher mortality is related to the higher incidence of head wounds from falling bullets.
In the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.
Between the years 1985 - 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. 38 of them died.
Kuwaitis celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets.
Firearms expert Julian Hatcher studied falling bullets and found that .30 caliber rounds reach velocities of 300 feet per second (90 m/s) and larger .50 caliber bullets have a velocity of 500 feet per second (150 m/s). A bullet traveling at only 150 feet per second (46 m/s) to 170 feet per second (52 m/s) can penetrate human skin, and at less than 200 feet per second (60 m/s), it can penetrate the skull.
You're up to 16 times more likely to be killed by getting hit with a falling bullet vs. a horizontal shot. So go ahead, head outside and start firing rounds up into the air, let us know how that turns out for you and the people around you.
This guy now automatically wins all bar scar-comparing competitions (when he's allowed to go in a bar, that is).
See this? My cat attacked me, gashed my wrist all the way to the bone.
That's nothing. Look here, rabid racoon, I had to be quarantined for days.
Child's play. Look at this, shot myself with a nail gun, stumbled back and stepped on a rake.
Oh yeah? Well God shot me with a meteorite.
Wrong. Because of past pressure by Microsoft on OEMs and other dirty tricks, all commercial competitors to them in the open OS market have disappeared (OS2,BeOS). The only competitor left is Linux, which for obvious reasons is more difficult to attack, though that hasn't stopped them trying.
That's exactly my point. My question was facetious, consumers do not have a real choice in which OS they purchase, that choice is made for them. That is the issue that needs to be addressed, not what software Microsoft wants to bundle. If consumers had real choice in which OS they purchased, Microsoft would be forced by competition to bundle more software, or risk losing sales. Unbundling IE doesn't really affect Microsoft at all, they're still selling Windows to everyone. That's what I was trying to get at - it seems like the marketplace really, really wants Windows, that's what I don't understand. People have this problem with Microsoft leveraging their monopoly, but they don't address the monopoly itself. The deals with the OEMs that were made to exclude competitors are what need to be fixed, we don't need to dictate to Microsoft what software they're allowed to bundle. Let them bundle what they want, just allow OEMs to sell whatever OS they want also.
I'm sort of playing the devil's advocate, but I do think the move against IE is a good one, but I'm just saying that as a web developer who cares about standards. It would be nice if fewer people were using deficient browsers, and I'm anxiously watching the IE6 and IE7 numbers fall. Even IE8 is a massive improvement from IE7, I would even say that IE8 is the single most significant update IE has ever had. But I'm not delusional into thinking that unbundling IE from Windows is going to have any effect on the OS monopoly which is the true source of the problem.
I realize you're modded Insightful and all, and I guess I'm sticking my "excellent" karma up for grabs, but the GP has a point - what does unbundling the browser from the OS really solve? I mean, what problem is being addressed? Is the problem with Microsoft that they bundle the browser they develop with the operating system they develop? People are free to choose their OS, right? So what does it matter what software the vendor chooses to ship with that OS? If the public doesn't like the software choices they can choose a different OS vendor, right? ..right?
No?
Here's a question: why aren't people angry that Apple bundles Safari with OSX?
Allow me to anticipate the answer: because Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems. This is true, Apple does not hold a monopoly on consumer operating systems, and arguably Microsoft does.
So why are people fighting to have Microsoft's software unbundled with Microsoft's other software? Why aren't people fighting against the OS monopoly itself, instead of the fringes of the monopoly?
The problem with MS is that they hold a monopoly on operating systems. Why is it a big deal to fight against their browser? Shouldn't the operating system be the target? No one should care which software a vendor chooses to bundle with their other software (if you don't like it, don't use it), what people should care about is what choice they have in the marketplace. What it sounds like to me is that people *really* want to use Windows, they just don't want to use IE.
Why is Windows not the target? Why has IE been made the target? What problem does this action really solve?
Someone should tell them Safari, and good browsers in general, aren't exclusive to Macs. That's like buying a car because you like the chrome wheels.