Since Vista came out, there seems to be lots of different reports coming out with its adoption, with Microsoft saying that everyone loves Vista, and it is selling at record rates; and lots of incidental evidence (some companies still offering XP as an option on new computers, only 300 legitimate copies having been sold in China, this DRAM news) suggesting that it is not doing very well. But of course, none of this is complete or non-biased. So, can we really say how Vista is faring in the marketplace?
If I could add one more comment to this already burgeoning discussion, it is that many people are under impression that Microsoft actually did do gigantic, mind-boggling technical feats of computer programming that brought the world miraculously forward. (And of course, many geeks think Microsoft has just stolen and repackaged things, which also isn't true) So there is a lot of people, many of them older, or just not in touch with the technological community, who really believe that Microsoft is an 'innovator'. Even when they know better, and can study and find out that all of the things that Microsoft put into their operating system were already floating around, there is still a mystique attached to Microsoft (and computers in general). It is just one of the many little things that might become a bigger issue in 2008 than the things we think will be big issues.
Since when was Canada liberated? Canada is still run by a government that has to swear an oath of personal loyalty to a hereditary theocrat. I don't call that liberated.
It had a technical meaning, but much less than it should.
Almost every cabinet member has at one time or another served as a member of a high level corporation. If something comes up specifically from that, they recuse themselves. They have to put all their stocks in a blind trust. But no, it really doesn't mean much.
Yes, a lot more, but not as much as Spider-Man uses. When he swings, every strand is what, 50 feet long or so? And he might use dozens or even hundreds of those between having to change. So that is anywhere from 500 to 5000 feet of rope, strong rope, inside of an inch wide canister. It doesn't seem likely. Slightly more likely than "unstable molecules", but still.
The most unrealistic thing for me about Spider-Man's web shooters for me was always the amount of compression that would have had to occur. I don't think there is any way to get hundreds of feet of rope inside of a container a few inches around.
Although since there was so much other knowledge of physics that had to be suspended, I managed to let it ride.
I've been noticing for a few years now that laptops are in high demand, often by people who don't seem to have a really great reason for wanting them. It seems that a lot of the demand has to do with people wanting something that looks cool and will allow them to show off in coffeeshops.
And it seems like the manufacturers realize this, and are playing to it.
The biggest problem with laptops is proprietary parts. There are many people who have broken their power supply, battery, screen, keypad etc. and desperately want a new one. But because these parts are proprietary, its often hard to find the right one. Companies should be introducing more standardization in laptop parts now.
But instead, they are probably just going to decide on ways to make them MORE fashionable. Which I am sure will run them well in the shortrun, but fashions change. What are these companies going to do in a few years when laptops are no longer quite so hot, and people are more used to them, and more critical, and ask more questions about durability?
So, with all these crazy ideas of ways to change our gas usage, has anyone noticed if it has made Americans anymore willing to try mass transit? Because using more mass transit is about the quickest way (ie, doesn't need much infrastructure changed) to decrease fuel usage.
But for some reason, people won't go for it, perhaps because a stigma attached to mass transit. Yes, riding the bus can be uncomfortable, but so is being stuck in a traffic jam. Yes, it can take extra time, but so can searching for parking. Yes, you meet crazy people on the bus sometimes, but I've never noticed more of them there than in, say, the grocery store. So why hasn't the most easy idea caught on?
The Chinese refer to themselves as "Zhongguo", the Central Kingdom.
Would you suggest that the Chinese should refer to themselves as something less arrogant?
(Although, of course, the historical reason for the name is not that the Chinese thought that they were in the middle of the world. Just like the historical reason for the name "America" is not that the United States of America were suggesting they were the entire American continent.)
I will keep on with this discussion until this post can't be commented on anymore.
1. America is a name of a continent. Everyone who lives on that continent is an American. 2. America is also a name given to a country on that continent, for historical reasons. People who live in this country call themselves Americans. 3. "America" refers to both a continent, and a country.
Which wasn't my point, my point is that geographical names, and the names people use to describe themselves by, are not accurate. For example, England is named after the Angles, people who came from the North of Germany 1500 years ago or so. A very small amount of the people living in England today are even descended from the Angles, since there is also the descendants of the British (meaning Celtic), other Germanic tribes, Normans, Norsemen, and many later waves of immigration living in England. Yet we still call these people the English. This is just the first example I can think of, but my point is, names aren't always "accurate".
"America" might not be a country, but then neither is "Mexico", or "Brazil", or "France", or "Germany", or many other nations. The United States of America happens to have a casual name that is also the name of the continent that the country is on. Yes, it can be confusing and inaccurate, but names can often be that way.
They have actually been experimenting with this just about since Bernard Vonnegut discovered cloud seeding. The people who designed the experiments only chose to do them under certain conditions, and since sometimes there are years when no hurricanes, or no appropriate hurricanes, it took them a long time to find the right hurricanes to experiment on. And so they did get some results, but hurricanes being what they are, they were never able to come to any conclusions about whether the cloud seeding had any real effects.
If for some reason, google ends their five to ten year winning streak, and starts being evil, or perhaps just bad, how long will it take people to switch off of it?
I imagine that it would start in places like Slashdot. and within a month or so, propelled by snarky comments and funny.sigs, the cognoscenti would realize that google wasn't cool anymore. From there, the regular, but not hardcore net users would start drifting off, and after a year or so, only the people who were clueless or didn't care would still be using it.
This is what I guess because this is how, for example, yahoo was slowly deserted in search, and mail, and maps, etc., by google.
Slashdot Mirror
Fellow Oregonian?
What type of ninja needs that to defeat a pirate? Just wail on your guitar and wait for them to blow up.
I heard something to that effect, but how much of a lie?
I imagine that the real numbers were still pretty low.
Since Vista came out, there seems to be lots of different reports coming out with its adoption, with Microsoft saying that everyone loves Vista, and it is selling at record rates; and lots of incidental evidence (some companies still offering XP as an option on new computers, only 300 legitimate copies having been sold in China, this DRAM news) suggesting that it is not doing very well. But of course, none of this is complete or non-biased.
So, can we really say how Vista is faring in the marketplace?
If I could add one more comment to this already burgeoning discussion, it is that many people are under impression that Microsoft actually did do gigantic, mind-boggling technical feats of computer programming that brought the world miraculously forward. (And of course, many geeks think Microsoft has just stolen and repackaged things, which also isn't true)
So there is a lot of people, many of them older, or just not in touch with the technological community, who really believe that Microsoft is an 'innovator'. Even when they know better, and can study and find out that all of the things that Microsoft put into their operating system were already floating around, there is still a mystique attached to Microsoft (and computers in general).
It is just one of the many little things that might become a bigger issue in 2008 than the things we think will be big issues.
Since when was Canada liberated?
Canada is still run by a government that has to swear an oath of personal loyalty to a hereditary theocrat.
I don't call that liberated.
It had a technical meaning, but much less than it should.
Almost every cabinet member has at one time or another served as a member of a high level corporation. If something comes up specifically from that, they recuse themselves. They have to put all their stocks in a blind trust. But no, it really doesn't mean much.
And what I am saying is there is a limit to how strong and dense you can make something that is that compressible.
Is there a real life example of something that could shoot a 20 foot rope out of an 8 ounce can that can support a light human being?
And then we are looking at something that can come out of a 1 to 3 ounce cannister that can shoot out up to a mile of super strong rope.
But there is also the cube/square problem.
The cross-section needed to support a 50 kilogram man is quite different from that needed to support a 5 gram spider.
Yes, a lot more, but not as much as Spider-Man uses.
When he swings, every strand is what, 50 feet long or so? And he might use dozens or even hundreds of those between having to change. So that is anywhere from 500 to 5000 feet of rope, strong rope, inside of an inch wide canister. It doesn't seem likely. Slightly more likely than "unstable molecules", but still.
The most unrealistic thing for me about Spider-Man's web shooters for me was always the amount of compression that would have had to occur. I don't think there is any way to get hundreds of feet of rope inside of a container a few inches around.
Although since there was so much other knowledge of physics that had to be suspended, I managed to let it ride.
No, but it will soon, right after the SCO case is finally settled.
I've been noticing for a few years now that laptops are in high demand, often by people who don't seem to have a really great reason for wanting them. It seems that a lot of the demand has to do with people wanting something that looks cool and will allow them to show off in coffeeshops.
And it seems like the manufacturers realize this, and are playing to it.
The biggest problem with laptops is proprietary parts. There are many people who have broken their power supply, battery, screen, keypad etc. and desperately want a new one. But because these parts are proprietary, its often hard to find the right one. Companies should be introducing more standardization in laptop parts now.
But instead, they are probably just going to decide on ways to make them MORE fashionable. Which I am sure will run them well in the shortrun, but fashions change. What are these companies going to do in a few years when laptops are no longer quite so hot, and people are more used to them, and more critical, and ask more questions about durability?
And after aleph null, there is...
I think that might have a lot to do with it.
You know, lots of suburban white men who feel tough behind the wheel of their SUV, but would get nervous having to sit close to a BLACK PERSON!
Its a stereotype, but it is true.
So, with all these crazy ideas of ways to change our gas usage, has anyone noticed if it has made Americans anymore willing to try mass transit? Because using more mass transit is about the quickest way (ie, doesn't need much infrastructure changed) to decrease fuel usage.
But for some reason, people won't go for it, perhaps because a stigma attached to mass transit. Yes, riding the bus can be uncomfortable, but so is being stuck in a traffic jam. Yes, it can take extra time, but so can searching for parking. Yes, you meet crazy people on the bus sometimes, but I've never noticed more of them there than in, say, the grocery store. So why hasn't the most easy idea caught on?
::: blinks :::
And how does this relate to the issue of whether countries are sometimes called by names that are not totally accurate?
Unless...they are just pretending to be incompetent to lull you into a false sense of security?
The Chinese refer to themselves as "Zhongguo", the Central Kingdom.
Would you suggest that the Chinese should refer to themselves as something less arrogant?
(Although, of course, the historical reason for the name is not that the Chinese thought that they were in the middle of the world. Just like the historical reason for the name "America" is not that the United States of America were suggesting they were the entire American continent.)
I will keep on with this discussion until this post can't be commented on anymore.
Okay, let me explain this very carefully
1. America is a name of a continent. Everyone who lives on that continent is an American.
2. America is also a name given to a country on that continent, for historical reasons. People who live in this country call themselves Americans.
3. "America" refers to both a continent, and a country.
Which of these statements do you object to?
What about if you drive a station wagon full of tape into that swimming pool?
Or a truck?
Can you imagine how much that would confuse Ted Stevens?
Which wasn't my point, my point is that geographical names, and the names people use to describe themselves by, are not accurate.
For example, England is named after the Angles, people who came from the North of Germany 1500 years ago or so. A very small amount of the people living in England today are even descended from the Angles, since there is also the descendants of the British (meaning Celtic), other Germanic tribes, Normans, Norsemen, and many later waves of immigration living in England. Yet we still call these people the English. This is just the first example I can think of, but my point is, names aren't always "accurate".
"America" might not be a country, but then neither is "Mexico", or "Brazil", or "France", or "Germany", or many other nations.
The United States of America happens to have a casual name that is also the name of the continent that the country is on. Yes, it can be confusing and inaccurate, but names can often be that way.
They have actually been experimenting with this just about since Bernard Vonnegut discovered cloud seeding.
The people who designed the experiments only chose to do them under certain conditions, and since sometimes there are years when no hurricanes, or no appropriate hurricanes, it took them a long time to find the right hurricanes to experiment on. And so they did get some results, but hurricanes being what they are, they were never able to come to any conclusions about whether the cloud seeding had any real effects.
If for some reason, google ends their five to ten year winning streak, and starts being evil, or perhaps just bad, how long will it take people to switch off of it?
.sigs, the cognoscenti would realize that google wasn't cool anymore. From there, the regular, but not hardcore net users would start drifting off, and after a year or so, only the people who were clueless or didn't care would still be using it.
I imagine that it would start in places like Slashdot. and within a month or so, propelled by snarky comments and funny
This is what I guess because this is how, for example, yahoo was slowly deserted in search, and mail, and maps, etc., by google.