That's ludicrous. Organic molecules are constantly being bent and deformed due to thermal collisions.
Yes, but the precise statistics of those collisions matter. That's why many enzymes work well over only a very narrow temperature range and why you die if your body temperature deviates a few degrees from 98.6F
We use microwaves for heating water because it's good at moving polar molecules around. Well, in addition to heating, that may have a direct effect on some enzymes and proteins and the way they bend and deform randomly over time, that can cause changes in cell regulation, and that can potentially lead to cancer. Microwaves have been shown to cause other effects, like causing carbon nanotubes to associate with cell membranes, which might also lead to cancer.
The energy of a carbon bond is a few electron volts. IOW, that much energy is needed to cause a chemical change in the molecule. The energy of a 2GHz cell-phone photon is about 0.00001 eV. Cell-phone photons cannot cause a chemical change.
Where do you get the idea from that the only thing that can cause cancer is changes in chemical bonds?
In fact, anything that alters regulatory mechanisms within the cell might cause cancer. A lot of the structure and function of cells are determined by electrical fields, conformations of molecules, and vibrations of molecules. 2GHz microwave radiation can certainly change those.
You seem to think that a hospital should be like a hotel, where everybody gets their own room and a continental breakfast.
No, I don't think everybody should get it. I think I should get it if I'm willing to pay for it. You may, instead, prefer to spend your money on a bigger car or house (things I don't care about).
Space is a commodity; I, for one, will put up with a little less room if it means that the impoverished family down the street's daughter gets necessary treatment.
That kind of either/or choice occurs with Canada-style systems. In a more flexible system, the fact that I pay for nicer accommodations doesn't prevent other people from getting their necessary treatments.
By the way, HR676 doesn't in any way affect your relationship with your doctor and/or hospital other than who they bill.
As I see it, it changes the amounts my doctor can bill, it changes what is covered, and it changes my contributions. All of that changes my relationship with my doctor significantly.
I mean really, we could just boil this down to "I've got mine, so fuck the rest of you."
Call it what you want, I'm not going to vote for a change from the status quo unless I can be reasonably assured that my coverage doesn't get worse and that what you're proposing actually is effective.
I give you H.R. 676 [loc.gov], a bill which would provide simple, single-payer health care to all legal residents of the United States,
And why would I want that? I have full coverage and competent doctors, and a choice in health plans. And many voters are in the same boat as me.
It has been shown several times that single-payer care costs far, far less in the long run, and allows you to keep everything you have now, minus the insurance company that wants profit over your own health
The single payer health systems I have seen are worse than what I have right now. And any increase in my salary would probably be eaten by having to pay in post-tax dollars and probably losing various credits, so that in the end, I'd have worse coverage and no more money.
you'd rather pay more than the government would take to a third party, to get worse service? That doesn't make sense.
But your assumption is wrong. Many Americans are happy with their health plans; they get good service from competent doctors, and they don't ever really see how much it costs because their employer health plan takes care of it. Why should I vote for politicians who want to change a health plan that works for me? The reason US governments keep having such a hard time to pass health care reform is that the voters are not convinced.
Yeah, you can rant about "choice" and "not being forced to", but you don't have any real choice anyway.
I do have a choice in health plans, style of coverage, and coverage amounts, and so do many other people. Furthermore, I get credit for healthy living, and I don't want to subsidize people who choose to live unhealthily.
You're guaranteed to have to pay for medicine at some point in your life, one way or another.
If you live a reasonably healthy life and get regular checkups, you probably won't ever need expensive treatments. A lot of the expenses of the medical systems come from preventable chronic conditions (obesity, heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure) and from needless end of life care, and both of those are under your control.
Really, what is so damned scary about a national health care system
I have private insurance and I'm well covered; any national health care system would probably mean longer waits, more rationing, and worse service for me. About 50% of Americans are in the same situation. We vote, and you need to do a lot of convincing to get me to vote for any change of the status quo. Another 30%, including most elderly, are covered through public plans. A public health care system that extends to additional groups would also mean a lot of changes for them, and potentially crowding. Again, they vote and they'll be hard to convince too. Of the uninsured, a significant percentage are young people who don't believe they need health insurance and don't want to pay for it. They aren't going to be too happy about the extra expense of mandatory health coverage either. So, between those, that's most of the US voting population, and that means that any reform is going to face an uphill battle.
I would kick any politician who proposes a UK/Canada-style system out of office; apart from resulting in much worse services than I currently receive, I think they infringe on my (and everybody's) essential liberties to make medical decisions. You may think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, I think it's morally wrong, and so do a lot of other Americans.
People like me do realize that there is a problem with the US health care system: prices are out of control, people are falling through the cracks, etc. But I think those can be addressed with specific legislation: regulation of drug prices, tighter regulation of insurance companies in areas like pre-existing conditions, etc. There probably should be a limited public option for people who otherwise fall through the cracks and aren't 65 yet.
Supercooled water will freeze with just about any trigger. The precise mechanism of this is kind of neat, but as an effect, it's not terribly surprising.
Just in the interest of accuracy: I did get the date wrong, in 2002 he was still working somewhere else; he worked for Microsoft twice after that. Also, his job in marketing was a technical job in a subsidiary.
I'm not saying he's a marketing shill (I think MS marketing is a bit smarter than that), I just think he's inexperienced, and he simply won't stop making false claims even when presented with links, patents, and other information.
Look, the pertinent fact here is that you worked for Microsoft, including Microsoft marketing. From that point on, all your credibility went out the window, particularly since every single claim about Microsoft innovation you have made has been disproven.
If people want to know more about you or your resume, they shouldn't take my word for it, they can just follow the link to your resume.
No, I didn't "read" it (do you really think you are that interesting?). I just glanced over it and noticed that you worked for several years at Microsoft (including marketing) and that there is no evidence that you have ever worked with any other technologies since graduating from college.
You are a lying piece of shit.
I think we have established who is being dishonest here": it is you who keeps claiming that Microsoft invented this, that, and the other thing, despite numerous examples of prior art.
I don't know why you'd even think I'd give a shit what you think after you smeared me like that.
I don't give a damn what you think. As far as I'm concerned, you're both incompetent and dishonest. I just don't think the lies and misrepresentations from people like you should go unanswered.
My big problem is that I'm being correct by people who *clearly* don't know what they're talking about. The first respondent was telling me that the Arc Mouse wasn't innovative, but he didn't even know what it was!
Well, I do, and I pointed you at a prior patent by HP:
You're giving me a load of stuff about Linux, but you don't have anything in your post that illustrates that you understand what Fast User Switching is, or demonstrates that Linux' feature is equivalent.
What is there to "demonstrate"? Run any Linux distribution.
I've had Windows, Linux, and Macs on my desk for the past 10 years. Can you say the same?
You also haven't addressed whether it appeared in Linux distros before Windows XP (innovative) or after Windows XP (not innovative.)
First of all, the first commercial OS I have seen with fast user switching was OS X. If anything, Microsoft copied it from Apple.
And then--are you deaf or something? Yes, Linux developed this by itself, before XP or OS X because it just falls out of mechanisms Linux has had nearly since the beginning.
Then to cap it off, you serve up a whole bunch of bullshit about my career that's clearly wrong. Basically resorting to a smear campaign.
Your resume shows you to be just what you are: a 20 something who's grown up around Microsoft and with Microsoft technologies and who obviously has had no exposure to anything else.
There's nothing wrong with that background, until you start making grandiose assertions about Microsoft innovation and get your computer history completely wrong. Do your homework, then come back.
So you're telling me that 5 different Linux users can be logged into a single workstation with a single screen at the same time, and seamlessly switch between accounts without ever logging off?
Yes.
Note: you have to know WHAT THE FEATURE IS before you can address the point. Please keep that in mind before replying.
Yes, you should.
Linux has a well-designed GUI? When did this happen?
You should be more concerned with the question of whether Microsoft is ever going to have a well designed GUI.
What the fuck homepage are you looking at? I worked at a hospital in 2002.
In many ways whether they are 'rip-offs' doesn't matter in this context
Well, yes, it kind of does: if an idea is unsuccessful and you rip it off, chances are you're going to fail with it as well.
Actually subpixel rendering has been successful: everybody is using it. But it wasn't a big business because it was effectively public domain.
Tablets failed back then because of cost, battery life, and weight. Microsoft would have failed with tablets even if their software didn't suck (which it did). Tablets may succeed now not because of Apple, but because finally the cost and weight work out.
If Balmer really wanted to change this culture of infighting,
The infighting at Microsoft simply doesn't matter. Microsoft makes its money like toilet paper and toothpaste companies: they provide mediocre commodity products. They don't need to innovate as long as they don't screw up too badly and market things right.
Microsoft has plenty of potential, but it needs to put these smart minds in place
Who are you kidding? Nobody with a money-making idea and half a brain is going to hand it over to corporate management; they are going to leave and found a startup. Microsoft should just deal with it, just like other tech companies.
(Microsoft Research still has a purpose, but it's not to create new technologies for products.)
I agree; so take your case to Stormwatch, because he made the unfounded blanket statement.
I simply made a sarcastic reply on it, which apparently went over your head. And what makes this place so tiring is people like you: you're both stupid and have an ax to grind.
I guess my question then is, did Linux distros have this feature in the GUI before Windows XP came out? Or is it in the GUI now as a response to Windows XP?
Linux (and UNIX before it) has multiple users, they can log in, and each of them can run whatever graphical environment they want to on whatever graphics devices they have access to. It's been that way since even before Windows 1.0. It wasn't a "feature" that needed to be added, it was the logical consequence of having a well-designed multi-user system together with a well-designed GUI. And as soon as the hardware supported it, people created virtual graphics devices and you essentially got fast user switching. Later, people started adding some GUI elements to make this kind of switching easier.
Look, you have been working for Microsoft since 2002 (I'm going by your home page), pretty much since you finished college. For the last few years, you've been working for Microsoft marketing. In your work, you have had no exposure to either research or non-Microsoft technologies. Much of the technology you comment on has existed since before you were born. Why do you feel compelled to make definitive-sounding statements on things you apparently know nothing about? Sounds to me like you're a victim of Dunning-Kruger.
All that aside, fine: tell me what you consider an innovative product? Give me an example.
"Innovative" just means new in some sense. If you don't floss, dental floss may be an innovation for you, but that doesn't mean it's a new technology. Marketers like to confuse "new to the mass market" (innovative product) with "newly invented technology" (innovative technology).
Making an "innovative product" often just requires a good business sense and some ruthlessness. Apple makes "innovative products" (because Jobs is ruthless and drives products to market quickly), but they don't create innovative technologies.
Microsoft Research creates innovative technologies, but Microsoft as a company rarely creates innovative products.
[ribbon interface] No, it's not. Try actually using it.
It is, however, pretty close to badly designed early user interfaces.
Fair enough; though I've never seen a Linux distro with that option enabled.
Every Linux distro since day 1 has had multiple virtual terminals. And almost since day 1, Linux has had screen. Almost as soon as graphics hardware allowed it, you could have multiple graphical login sessions. And for more than a decade, Linux had had VNC, which lets you create an unlimited number of simultaneous graphical sessions.
The fact that it folds is the innovative part.
Except that collapsible mice were invented before (e.g., patent 6304249, including the arc form). Microsoft Arc is at best a minor variation.
Do you have any familiarity with these products at all? So far you've been wrong on pretty much every detail... [...] and your poor track record, I'm inclined to call BS on that as well.
So far, you have gotten every single example of Microsoft innovation wrong.
Tell us: do you work for Microsoft marketing and are you making deliberate misrepresentations, or are have you simply been living in Bill Gates's basement for the past 20 years and just have no clue of what's going on in industry?
Translation: Mundie wants people to get on the Internet only if (1) they are trained in using Microsoft Windows or Apple Macintosh (the token "competitor"), and (2) if they are using a licensed Windows or Macintosh machine.
ClearType had plenty of prior art, so I don't think it counts as significant innovation.
TabletPC wasn't just a "me too" project, Microsoft actually actively sabotaged their competitors to drive them out of the market and then tried to grab the market for themselves (and failed).
So, if these are the kinds of "promising innovative technologies" that fail at Microsoft, let's just all say "good riddance".
Android has limited multitasking that isn't terribly intuitive to use
You don't "use" multitasking on Android at all; it's completely transparent to the user, since all activities can be fully stopped and resumed.
Yet all I hear on/. is "iPhone, Android, iPhone, Android" ALL FRACKING DAY LONG. It's like WebOS isn't even on your radar,
I tried WebOS and I like neither the hardware, nor the software, nor the programming model. In addition, it looks to me like the company is going to die. Why would I care about WebOS?
What a magical wonderland you live in, where everyone else takes care of you, instead of you taking care of yourself. You have no responsibility for anything, right?
What kind of nitwit are you that you keep confusing issues of educational policy and criminal justice with my personal life?
The problem is that assholes exist. You CANNOT CHANGE THIS.
You can be an asshole as much as you want; people will just avoid you.
But if you cross the line to bullying, that is if you actually become violent towards others, then government can and must intervene. And there are plenty of effective interventions: sending you to special schools, sending you to boot camp, or locking you up, for example.
Violence towards others is not acceptable in this society, and that lesson needs to be taught in school from day one.
Slashdot Mirror
That's ludicrous. Organic molecules are constantly being bent and deformed due to thermal collisions.
Yes, but the precise statistics of those collisions matter. That's why many enzymes work well over only a very narrow temperature range and why you die if your body temperature deviates a few degrees from 98.6F
We use microwaves for heating water because it's good at moving polar molecules around. Well, in addition to heating, that may have a direct effect on some enzymes and proteins and the way they bend and deform randomly over time, that can cause changes in cell regulation, and that can potentially lead to cancer. Microwaves have been shown to cause other effects, like causing carbon nanotubes to associate with cell membranes, which might also lead to cancer.
The energy of a carbon bond is a few electron volts. IOW, that much energy is needed to cause a chemical change in the molecule. The energy of a 2GHz cell-phone photon is about 0.00001 eV. Cell-phone photons cannot cause a chemical change.
Where do you get the idea from that the only thing that can cause cancer is changes in chemical bonds?
In fact, anything that alters regulatory mechanisms within the cell might cause cancer. A lot of the structure and function of cells are determined by electrical fields, conformations of molecules, and vibrations of molecules. 2GHz microwave radiation can certainly change those.
You seem to think that a hospital should be like a hotel, where everybody gets their own room and a continental breakfast.
No, I don't think everybody should get it. I think I should get it if I'm willing to pay for it. You may, instead, prefer to spend your money on a bigger car or house (things I don't care about).
Space is a commodity; I, for one, will put up with a little less room if it means that the impoverished family down the street's daughter gets necessary treatment.
That kind of either/or choice occurs with Canada-style systems. In a more flexible system, the fact that I pay for nicer accommodations doesn't prevent other people from getting their necessary treatments.
By the way, HR676 doesn't in any way affect your relationship with your doctor and/or hospital other than who they bill.
As I see it, it changes the amounts my doctor can bill, it changes what is covered, and it changes my contributions. All of that changes my relationship with my doctor significantly.
I mean really, we could just boil this down to "I've got mine, so fuck the rest of you."
Call it what you want, I'm not going to vote for a change from the status quo unless I can be reasonably assured that my coverage doesn't get worse and that what you're proposing actually is effective.
I give you H.R. 676 [loc.gov], a bill which would provide simple, single-payer health care to all legal residents of the United States,
And why would I want that? I have full coverage and competent doctors, and a choice in health plans. And many voters are in the same boat as me.
It has been shown several times that single-payer care costs far, far less in the long run, and allows you to keep everything you have now, minus the insurance company that wants profit over your own health
The single payer health systems I have seen are worse than what I have right now. And any increase in my salary would probably be eaten by having to pay in post-tax dollars and probably losing various credits, so that in the end, I'd have worse coverage and no more money.
you'd rather pay more than the government would take to a third party, to get worse service? That doesn't make sense.
But your assumption is wrong. Many Americans are happy with their health plans; they get good service from competent doctors, and they don't ever really see how much it costs because their employer health plan takes care of it. Why should I vote for politicians who want to change a health plan that works for me? The reason US governments keep having such a hard time to pass health care reform is that the voters are not convinced.
Yeah, you can rant about "choice" and "not being forced to", but you don't have any real choice anyway.
I do have a choice in health plans, style of coverage, and coverage amounts, and so do many other people. Furthermore, I get credit for healthy living, and I don't want to subsidize people who choose to live unhealthily.
You're guaranteed to have to pay for medicine at some point in your life, one way or another.
If you live a reasonably healthy life and get regular checkups, you probably won't ever need expensive treatments. A lot of the expenses of the medical systems come from preventable chronic conditions (obesity, heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure) and from needless end of life care, and both of those are under your control.
Really, what is so damned scary about a national health care system
I have private insurance and I'm well covered; any national health care system would probably mean longer waits, more rationing, and worse service for me. About 50% of Americans are in the same situation. We vote, and you need to do a lot of convincing to get me to vote for any change of the status quo. Another 30%, including most elderly, are covered through public plans. A public health care system that extends to additional groups would also mean a lot of changes for them, and potentially crowding. Again, they vote and they'll be hard to convince too. Of the uninsured, a significant percentage are young people who don't believe they need health insurance and don't want to pay for it. They aren't going to be too happy about the extra expense of mandatory health coverage either. So, between those, that's most of the US voting population, and that means that any reform is going to face an uphill battle.
I would kick any politician who proposes a UK/Canada-style system out of office; apart from resulting in much worse services than I currently receive, I think they infringe on my (and everybody's) essential liberties to make medical decisions. You may think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, I think it's morally wrong, and so do a lot of other Americans.
People like me do realize that there is a problem with the US health care system: prices are out of control, people are falling through the cracks, etc. But I think those can be addressed with specific legislation: regulation of drug prices, tighter regulation of insurance companies in areas like pre-existing conditions, etc. There probably should be a limited public option for people who otherwise fall through the cracks and aren't 65 yet.
Google docs doesn't exactly offer more features,
It offers one very important feature: no need to sync anything.
For a netbook, that's exactly what's needed.
Supercooled water will freeze with just about any trigger. The precise mechanism of this is kind of neat, but as an effect, it's not terribly surprising.
Just in the interest of accuracy: I did get the date wrong, in 2002 he was still working somewhere else; he worked for Microsoft twice after that. Also, his job in marketing was a technical job in a subsidiary.
I'm not saying he's a marketing shill (I think MS marketing is a bit smarter than that), I just think he's inexperienced, and he simply won't stop making false claims even when presented with links, patents, and other information.
Look, the pertinent fact here is that you worked for Microsoft, including Microsoft marketing. From that point on, all your credibility went out the window, particularly since every single claim about Microsoft innovation you have made has been disproven.
If people want to know more about you or your resume, they shouldn't take my word for it, they can just follow the link to your resume.
and that there is no evidence that you have
Ah, wait, sorry, you actually claim that you were a Linux administrator a while back. I just don't believe that you can have been a very good one.
You didn't even read my resume.
No, I didn't "read" it (do you really think you are that interesting?). I just glanced over it and noticed that you worked for several years at Microsoft (including marketing) and that there is no evidence that you have ever worked with any other technologies since graduating from college.
You are a lying piece of shit.
I think we have established who is being dishonest here": it is you who keeps claiming that Microsoft invented this, that, and the other thing, despite numerous examples of prior art.
I don't know why you'd even think I'd give a shit what you think after you smeared me like that.
I don't give a damn what you think. As far as I'm concerned, you're both incompetent and dishonest. I just don't think the lies and misrepresentations from people like you should go unanswered.
My big problem is that I'm being correct by people who *clearly* don't know what they're talking about. The first respondent was telling me that the Arc Mouse wasn't innovative, but he didn't even know what it was!
Well, I do, and I pointed you at a prior patent by HP:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=dncIAAAAEBAJ&dq=collapsible+mouse
You're giving me a load of stuff about Linux, but you don't have anything in your post that illustrates that you understand what Fast User Switching is, or demonstrates that Linux' feature is equivalent.
What is there to "demonstrate"? Run any Linux distribution.
I've had Windows, Linux, and Macs on my desk for the past 10 years. Can you say the same?
You also haven't addressed whether it appeared in Linux distros before Windows XP (innovative) or after Windows XP (not innovative.)
First of all, the first commercial OS I have seen with fast user switching was OS X. If anything, Microsoft copied it from Apple.
And then--are you deaf or something? Yes, Linux developed this by itself, before XP or OS X because it just falls out of mechanisms Linux has had nearly since the beginning.
Then to cap it off, you serve up a whole bunch of bullshit about my career that's clearly wrong. Basically resorting to a smear campaign.
Your resume shows you to be just what you are: a 20 something who's grown up around Microsoft and with Microsoft technologies and who obviously has had no exposure to anything else.
There's nothing wrong with that background, until you start making grandiose assertions about Microsoft innovation and get your computer history completely wrong. Do your homework, then come back.
So you're telling me that 5 different Linux users can be logged into a single workstation with a single screen at the same time, and seamlessly switch between accounts without ever logging off?
Yes.
Note: you have to know WHAT THE FEATURE IS before you can address the point. Please keep that in mind before replying.
Yes, you should.
Linux has a well-designed GUI? When did this happen?
You should be more concerned with the question of whether Microsoft is ever going to have a well designed GUI.
What the fuck homepage are you looking at? I worked at a hospital in 2002.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesschend
Also: Microsoft took a completely hands-off approach to running our division
Yeah, but do you have any qualifications or any experience in anything other than Microsoft Windows? Obviously not.
In many ways whether they are 'rip-offs' doesn't matter in this context
Well, yes, it kind of does: if an idea is unsuccessful and you rip it off, chances are you're going to fail with it as well.
Actually subpixel rendering has been successful: everybody is using it. But it wasn't a big business because it was effectively public domain.
Tablets failed back then because of cost, battery life, and weight. Microsoft would have failed with tablets even if their software didn't suck (which it did). Tablets may succeed now not because of Apple, but because finally the cost and weight work out.
If Balmer really wanted to change this culture of infighting,
The infighting at Microsoft simply doesn't matter. Microsoft makes its money like toilet paper and toothpaste companies: they provide mediocre commodity products. They don't need to innovate as long as they don't screw up too badly and market things right.
Microsoft has plenty of potential, but it needs to put these smart minds in place
Who are you kidding? Nobody with a money-making idea and half a brain is going to hand it over to corporate management; they are going to leave and found a startup. Microsoft should just deal with it, just like other tech companies.
(Microsoft Research still has a purpose, but it's not to create new technologies for products.)
I agree; so take your case to Stormwatch, because he made the unfounded blanket statement.
I simply made a sarcastic reply on it, which apparently went over your head. And what makes this place so tiring is people like you: you're both stupid and have an ax to grind.
I guess my question then is, did Linux distros have this feature in the GUI before Windows XP came out? Or is it in the GUI now as a response to Windows XP?
Linux (and UNIX before it) has multiple users, they can log in, and each of them can run whatever graphical environment they want to on whatever graphics devices they have access to. It's been that way since even before Windows 1.0. It wasn't a "feature" that needed to be added, it was the logical consequence of having a well-designed multi-user system together with a well-designed GUI. And as soon as the hardware supported it, people created virtual graphics devices and you essentially got fast user switching. Later, people started adding some GUI elements to make this kind of switching easier.
Look, you have been working for Microsoft since 2002 (I'm going by your home page), pretty much since you finished college. For the last few years, you've been working for Microsoft marketing. In your work, you have had no exposure to either research or non-Microsoft technologies. Much of the technology you comment on has existed since before you were born. Why do you feel compelled to make definitive-sounding statements on things you apparently know nothing about? Sounds to me like you're a victim of Dunning-Kruger.
All that aside, fine: tell me what you consider an innovative product? Give me an example.
"Innovative" just means new in some sense. If you don't floss, dental floss may be an innovation for you, but that doesn't mean it's a new technology. Marketers like to confuse "new to the mass market" (innovative product) with "newly invented technology" (innovative technology).
Making an "innovative product" often just requires a good business sense and some ruthlessness. Apple makes "innovative products" (because Jobs is ruthless and drives products to market quickly), but they don't create innovative technologies.
Microsoft Research creates innovative technologies, but Microsoft as a company rarely creates innovative products.
[ribbon interface] No, it's not. Try actually using it.
It is, however, pretty close to badly designed early user interfaces.
Fair enough; though I've never seen a Linux distro with that option enabled.
Every Linux distro since day 1 has had multiple virtual terminals. And almost since day 1, Linux has had screen. Almost as soon as graphics hardware allowed it, you could have multiple graphical login sessions. And for more than a decade, Linux had had VNC, which lets you create an unlimited number of simultaneous graphical sessions.
The fact that it folds is the innovative part.
Except that collapsible mice were invented before (e.g., patent 6304249, including the arc form). Microsoft Arc is at best a minor variation.
Do you have any familiarity with these products at all? So far you've been wrong on pretty much every detail... [...] and your poor track record, I'm inclined to call BS on that as well.
So far, you have gotten every single example of Microsoft innovation wrong.
Tell us: do you work for Microsoft marketing and are you making deliberate misrepresentations, or are have you simply been living in Bill Gates's basement for the past 20 years and just have no clue of what's going on in industry?
Translation: Mundie wants people to get on the Internet only if (1) they are trained in using Microsoft Windows or Apple Macintosh (the token "competitor"), and (2) if they are using a licensed Windows or Macintosh machine.
The people on this patent should be ashamed; there is no innovation contained in it, only an attempt at a patent land-grab.
ClearType had plenty of prior art, so I don't think it counts as significant innovation.
TabletPC wasn't just a "me too" project, Microsoft actually actively sabotaged their competitors to drive them out of the market and then tried to grab the market for themselves (and failed).
So, if these are the kinds of "promising innovative technologies" that fail at Microsoft, let's just all say "good riddance".
Android has limited multitasking that isn't terribly intuitive to use
You don't "use" multitasking on Android at all; it's completely transparent to the user, since all activities can be fully stopped and resumed.
Yet all I hear on /. is "iPhone, Android, iPhone, Android" ALL FRACKING DAY LONG. It's like WebOS isn't even on your radar,
I tried WebOS and I like neither the hardware, nor the software, nor the programming model. In addition, it looks to me like the company is going to die. Why would I care about WebOS?
What a magical wonderland you live in, where everyone else takes care of you, instead of you taking care of yourself. You have no responsibility for anything, right?
What kind of nitwit are you that you keep confusing issues of educational policy and criminal justice with my personal life?
The problem is that assholes exist. You CANNOT CHANGE THIS.
You can be an asshole as much as you want; people will just avoid you.
But if you cross the line to bullying, that is if you actually become violent towards others, then government can and must intervene. And there are plenty of effective interventions: sending you to special schools, sending you to boot camp, or locking you up, for example.
Violence towards others is not acceptable in this society, and that lesson needs to be taught in school from day one.