That is why Kinect isn't a mass market device. It isn't a mass market device because Microsoft wants it to drive sales of Xbox360's and games for the Xbox. Period.
IF they opened it up, and Nintendo could then use it on the Wii, which won't help Microsoft. IT CANNOT HAPPEN!!! (chair flying)
The problem with Microsoft is that they are a "Windows" company (Xbox is an extension of windows platform development). They only look at things through the "Windows".
And people like you have no real idea how much government regulations cost business.
People like us are not complaining about regulations, we're complaining about regulations that do NOTHING to prevent or mitigate the problems they supposedly are addressing.
Take for instance, "Contractor License" requirement. There is nothing a contractor's license proves, yet it is required to do business in that field. It doesn't solve the "scam" artists, it doesn't prevent shoddy craftmenship. ALL it does is serve as barrier to entry into the field. PERIOD.
OR how about this. There is a fire hazard law that says you cannot daisy chain Extension cords. Okay so the solution is to buy a extension cord long enough. No problem. How about those Power strips? Well good luck finding one that has 25' cord on it. You have to make it yourself or get an electrician to do it. Well, I've seen more fires(Computer Power Supply pooof) due to faulty re-wire job on those than I have due to daisy chaining them together. IT does NOTHING to solve the problem, and actually creates new problems and... if you're following along... new regulations! Yay!
Congress. Signed by a President. Not yet overruled by the SCOTUS
THIS is different. It is an Executive Order. Do you really not know the difference? Or are you so blinded by (D) good (R) bad ideology that you will simply make any excuse for this?
The Patriot Act was bad, but both parties voted pretty much lockstep with each other to do it. Blame the (D) and the (R) for that one. (313 yea in the house 98 yea in the senate). So quit blaming GWB for that, it was practically EVERYONE;)
Well, Specifically I spent about three hours trying to "function" in Win 8 Preview before I just gave up. It seemed to me that almost NOTHING was where I expected it to be. Having things "hidden" is not a feature, it is bad design. "Just put your mouse near ______" is really awful UI, especially for people like my mother, who can barely hit a standard scrollbar item and drag it.
The amount of retraining needed for Win 8 is going to be huge, especially for my organization (K12 District) where some of the customers are having a hard time transitioning to Win7 from XP.
I have yet to see the tools for AD to setup the Metro Interface in a standard way, which means that I will need additional training or time to figure it out on my own.
The one area where Metro might actually work better for us, is if we could lock it down in a KIOSK mode for certain applications.
Children have rights. Children don't have all the rights of adults because adults are supposed to be more responsible than children.
The problem is, nobody wants to be responsible anymore, and pawn that off on the big tit of government. "It is not fair" is the cry of those that don't want to be responsible for the choices they've made, or their station in life. Equal outcome based "fairness" is just as "unfair" as the alternative, only more tyrannical in nature.
Windows 8 may be "faster" than Windows 7, but using Metro makes it "slower" for me. I don't know where anything is, and I'm just now figuring out where all the things in Win 7 are. There are too many things that are now hidden where it used to take one click to get to, now takes three or four. So, while Windows 8 is "faster" than 7, it isn't if it slows me down and gets in my way, which it does. Metro is crap interface of AOL circa 95.
Because Microsoft keeps treating us like we're idiots, only idiots will keep using Microsoft. I bet Apple has Ads already for side by side comparison of average users. OR perhaps bring back the old Mac vs PC guys with the PC guy with a frontal lobotomy
"Riiiiiiight.... no bigotry at all..... People *love* being referred to as "it"."
This is from the same group of people that want a THIRD option for gender. We have one, called "it". "It" is gender neutral. Language has meaning. Why is "it" not appropriate as a gender neutral term for people who want a third option besides Male and Female? Come on, give me a good reason.
Or are you supporting the "I want to define my sexuality the way I want, because I'm 'special'" rules? You know, the ones that come up with new terms every time a negative connotation gets applied to their old term they used to like.
Kind of like how "Retarded" (perfectly acceptable term) was changed to "mentally challenged" (more complex, but perfectly acceptable) was changed to whatever the current PC term is, because we don't want to hurt feelings.
Or like "Negro" became "black" became "African American" to whatever is acceptable now.
It is freaking moronic because it just shifts to the next term.
There is XYY and XXX, and I've met both kinds. XYY tend to be violent and most are in prisons. XXX are similar to Down's in physical size and appearances but are very bright people, at least the ones I've met. All of these chromosome defects lead to much shorter life spans. Truly sad.
Hormones play a role in development, and because of this, I believe genetic modifications of foods via Hormone is playing havoc on our species in ways we can only begin to fathom. What if being gay could be "prevented" or dare I say it cured? What would you say then?
As for bigotry, I've expressed none. I've simply stated that gender is based on chromosomes. One can take all sorts of hormones to affect one's appearances, just look at Chaz Bono, but Chaz was born with XY combo, making her a girl. Surgery and hormones have changed her/his/its appearance. And I don't care what you say, those are boobs (not moobs).
1 and 3 are the same thing. Repeating it doesn't mean a thing.
2 is a broken link
I'm closer to some friends than I am to some of my "family". In fact, some of my "family" isn't worth the trouble they are, and I don't support them just because they are "family". But hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself.
And my position is (being libertarian) that government should not have any say in what defines "marriage" or heck, even "family". Besides, the Liberals have done a great job in destroying marriage already.
Normal people will come up with a new word to describe a relationship between a man and a woman for the purposes of raising a family (genetic offspring)... perhaps they'll start calling gay people "married" while straight people are in Holy Matrimony;)
And just so you know, I had a brother (real family) that was gay. He was still family. He had a lot of boyfriends though. And yes, I would have done anything for him, not because he was my family, but because he was a good man.
Now, put me into whatever small minded box you think I belong in, okay?
OR to put it a different way, if you believe that Governments can define marriage, then you're okay with governments defining marriage as "one man, one woman" then right? Or you just want government to define marriage your way, an not some other "right wing nut job's" way?
You can't have it both ways, though I'm sure you'd love to. AND I bet you can't fathom the hypocrisy of your position.
I'm a Libertarian, so I don't think you can even imagine what I'm talking about. Government has no business in defining marriage, one way or another. So, it is about rights and having more of them by getting special treatment. OR why would Gays even care about marriage.
In otherwords, what "rights" do married people have that gay people do not? I can't think of any, but then again, I believe "Rights" are natural, and are not given by governments based on class status. So, what exactly do gay people not have that everyone else does have (aside from bigots think)?
NAMBLA. If you're consistent, you'd oppose Gay marriage on that grounds alone, or ignore the "religious cults". The reason why "religious cults" do things like this, is because they are already breaking the law (plural marriages) so what is another "crime" on top of the one they've already committed.
In other words, if you WANT to limit underage polygamy, make polygamy legal so that people can practice in the open. It won't prevent the weirdo's from being weirdos, but it will help limit them.
"Minority Status" is "more" rights, and a political bargaining chip. It is like being "black" is. We have a freaking black president for crying out loud, can we get rid of the preferential treatment already? Oh right because a hispanic shot a black guy in Florida that proves white people are prejudice.
But but but, this is for LIBERAL cause, we only meant that Corporations aren't people when it is for Republican Causes. We like one, we don't like the other. No, we aren't hypocrites. / sarcasm
Lets keep this in Biology and then we can have a conversation. Gender is DNA, X and Y Chromosomes. Anything else is not scientific and is religious in nature (ie Belief system). Yes, I'm aware of Chromosomal Defects that create an extra X or Y Chromosome, but those are genetic deformities (like Down's Syndrome), and are easily mapped via DNA sequencing.
The "surgical" part. Gender Reassignment isn't changing gender, it is changing appearances. The gender (male/female) doesn't really change, as they don't yet have a DNA swap from X to Y or visa versa.
Gender should be based on Chromosome counts(X,Y) and not physical appearances. If anybody should be listed as anything else it is those rare people with a third X or a second Y. Surgery doesn't change gender, only appearances. Anything else is just idiocy. Should I get surgery to look like a cat, it doesn't make me one.
Seriously why should we be having this conversation? How about a third option... "Surgically Altered Gender Assignment". Fuck her/him/it if they want anything other than what she/he/it is.
All the regulations in the world didn't stop the crooks, and never will. That is why idiots like you don't and will never understand. Nobody could have regulations on something that never existed prior (derivative loan securities). The reason why this failed, is because (hindsight being 20/20) it was nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme among banks.
It wasn't lack of regulation or lowered regulations that created Derivatives, it was creative crooks that created them, and nobody was smart enough to NOT bite, except perhaps some credit unions. The real crime was caused by people not doing their homework, and betting the farm on a gamble. Those people got a bailout by Obama and Bush, and are STILL making crappy decisions.
You want to fix the problem? Make CEO's take their pay in cash. Period. If they take anything in Stock or other securities as compensation, put it into a trust, which they cannot touch for 15 years or 10 years after their last day on the job. They will look out for the long term and stop betting on short term thinking. No CEO worth their salt is gonna risk short term profits so they can sell their options and get out before the bottom drops out.
Two Wars are bad, but three wars are worse. And we are probably going to be involved in Syria and or Iran (or both) by the end of this summer. Call it the Obama Re Election wars. And what will be your excuse for another one or two unfunded wars and Obama? Seriously, I'm asking.
The whole idea the (D) good (R) bad is just a load of crap. Both are bad, and not doing anyone any favors. And the crises in thee world are not going away because Obama is the Messiah. Oh, and if Obama is not responsible for what is going on right now, then Clinton is responsible for 9/11 and the economic crisis that Bush inherited. But that doesn't sit will with the idiots. (and Visa Versa, btw).
Slashdot Mirror
That is why Kinect isn't a mass market device. It isn't a mass market device because Microsoft wants it to drive sales of Xbox360's and games for the Xbox. Period.
IF they opened it up, and Nintendo could then use it on the Wii, which won't help Microsoft. IT CANNOT HAPPEN!!! (chair flying)
The problem with Microsoft is that they are a "Windows" company (Xbox is an extension of windows platform development). They only look at things through the "Windows".
And people like you have no real idea how much government regulations cost business.
People like us are not complaining about regulations, we're complaining about regulations that do NOTHING to prevent or mitigate the problems they supposedly are addressing.
Take for instance, "Contractor License" requirement. There is nothing a contractor's license proves, yet it is required to do business in that field. It doesn't solve the "scam" artists, it doesn't prevent shoddy craftmenship. ALL it does is serve as barrier to entry into the field. PERIOD.
OR how about this. There is a fire hazard law that says you cannot daisy chain Extension cords. Okay so the solution is to buy a extension cord long enough. No problem. How about those Power strips? Well good luck finding one that has 25' cord on it. You have to make it yourself or get an electrician to do it. Well, I've seen more fires(Computer Power Supply pooof) due to faulty re-wire job on those than I have due to daisy chaining them together. IT does NOTHING to solve the problem, and actually creates new problems and ... if you're following along ... new regulations! Yay!
Congress. Signed by a President. Not yet overruled by the SCOTUS
THIS is different. It is an Executive Order. Do you really not know the difference? Or are you so blinded by (D) good (R) bad ideology that you will simply make any excuse for this?
The Patriot Act was bad, but both parties voted pretty much lockstep with each other to do it. Blame the (D) and the (R) for that one. (313 yea in the house 98 yea in the senate). So quit blaming GWB for that, it was practically EVERYONE ;)
Can you see the difference now?
Well, Specifically I spent about three hours trying to "function" in Win 8 Preview before I just gave up. It seemed to me that almost NOTHING was where I expected it to be. Having things "hidden" is not a feature, it is bad design. "Just put your mouse near ______" is really awful UI, especially for people like my mother, who can barely hit a standard scrollbar item and drag it.
The amount of retraining needed for Win 8 is going to be huge, especially for my organization (K12 District) where some of the customers are having a hard time transitioning to Win7 from XP.
I have yet to see the tools for AD to setup the Metro Interface in a standard way, which means that I will need additional training or time to figure it out on my own.
The one area where Metro might actually work better for us, is if we could lock it down in a KIOSK mode for certain applications.
Children have rights. Children don't have all the rights of adults because adults are supposed to be more responsible than children.
The problem is, nobody wants to be responsible anymore, and pawn that off on the big tit of government. "It is not fair" is the cry of those that don't want to be responsible for the choices they've made, or their station in life. Equal outcome based "fairness" is just as "unfair" as the alternative, only more tyrannical in nature.
No no no. Her problem was she learned from ReiserFS to NEVER GO DOWN ...
Windows 8 may be "faster" than Windows 7, but using Metro makes it "slower" for me. I don't know where anything is, and I'm just now figuring out where all the things in Win 7 are. There are too many things that are now hidden where it used to take one click to get to, now takes three or four. So, while Windows 8 is "faster" than 7, it isn't if it slows me down and gets in my way, which it does. Metro is crap interface of AOL circa 95.
Because Microsoft keeps treating us like we're idiots, only idiots will keep using Microsoft. I bet Apple has Ads already for side by side comparison of average users. OR perhaps bring back the old Mac vs PC guys with the PC guy with a frontal lobotomy
"Riiiiiiight.... no bigotry at all..... People *love* being referred to as "it"."
This is from the same group of people that want a THIRD option for gender. We have one, called "it". "It" is gender neutral. Language has meaning. Why is "it" not appropriate as a gender neutral term for people who want a third option besides Male and Female? Come on, give me a good reason.
Or are you supporting the "I want to define my sexuality the way I want, because I'm 'special'" rules? You know, the ones that come up with new terms every time a negative connotation gets applied to their old term they used to like.
Kind of like how "Retarded" (perfectly acceptable term) was changed to "mentally challenged" (more complex, but perfectly acceptable) was changed to whatever the current PC term is, because we don't want to hurt feelings.
Or like "Negro" became "black" became "African American" to whatever is acceptable now.
It is freaking moronic because it just shifts to the next term.
You gonna call this guy a "cat" because he was altered to look like one? http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/35853834_dba9b1ed67.jpg
Or Lizard Man ? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hrv8sw33RWc/TdKLWjZSBCI/AAAAAAAAOIQ/xmDfa7xyMrc/s1600/The+Lizard+Man+3.jpg
I read that series in the voice of William Shatner ... is that what you were going for?
There is XYY and XXX, and I've met both kinds. XYY tend to be violent and most are in prisons. XXX are similar to Down's in physical size and appearances but are very bright people, at least the ones I've met. All of these chromosome defects lead to much shorter life spans. Truly sad.
Hormones play a role in development, and because of this, I believe genetic modifications of foods via Hormone is playing havoc on our species in ways we can only begin to fathom. What if being gay could be "prevented" or dare I say it cured? What would you say then?
As for bigotry, I've expressed none. I've simply stated that gender is based on chromosomes. One can take all sorts of hormones to affect one's appearances, just look at Chaz Bono, but Chaz was born with XY combo, making her a girl. Surgery and hormones have changed her/his/its appearance. And I don't care what you say, those are boobs (not moobs).
1 and 3 are the same thing. Repeating it doesn't mean a thing.
2 is a broken link
I'm closer to some friends than I am to some of my "family". In fact, some of my "family" isn't worth the trouble they are, and I don't support them just because they are "family". But hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself.
And my position is (being libertarian) that government should not have any say in what defines "marriage" or heck, even "family". Besides, the Liberals have done a great job in destroying marriage already.
Normal people will come up with a new word to describe a relationship between a man and a woman for the purposes of raising a family (genetic offspring) ... perhaps they'll start calling gay people "married" while straight people are in Holy Matrimony ;)
And just so you know, I had a brother (real family) that was gay. He was still family. He had a lot of boyfriends though. And yes, I would have done anything for him, not because he was my family, but because he was a good man.
Now, put me into whatever small minded box you think I belong in, okay?
Nobody has a "right" to beat me up and take my stuff. See 2nd Amendment for details
So says the AC. "I can't argue with logic, so I'll stick to name calling" ... BRILLIANT Retort though, shows your outstanding reasoning skills.
OR to put it a different way, if you believe that Governments can define marriage, then you're okay with governments defining marriage as "one man, one woman" then right? Or you just want government to define marriage your way, an not some other "right wing nut job's" way?
You can't have it both ways, though I'm sure you'd love to. AND I bet you can't fathom the hypocrisy of your position.
I'm a Libertarian, so I don't think you can even imagine what I'm talking about. Government has no business in defining marriage, one way or another. So, it is about rights and having more of them by getting special treatment. OR why would Gays even care about marriage.
In otherwords, what "rights" do married people have that gay people do not? I can't think of any, but then again, I believe "Rights" are natural, and are not given by governments based on class status. So, what exactly do gay people not have that everyone else does have (aside from bigots think)?
"Two" is just part of the IFF statement, when properly formed. It is just as arbitrary as gender ... if you are going to go down that road.
NAMBLA. If you're consistent, you'd oppose Gay marriage on that grounds alone, or ignore the "religious cults". The reason why "religious cults" do things like this, is because they are already breaking the law (plural marriages) so what is another "crime" on top of the one they've already committed.
In other words, if you WANT to limit underage polygamy, make polygamy legal so that people can practice in the open. It won't prevent the weirdo's from being weirdos, but it will help limit them.
I know plenty of them. They don't want Ted, Steve and BIll all being married together. Although that really isn't polygamy ;)
"Minority Status" is "more" rights, and a political bargaining chip. It is like being "black" is. We have a freaking black president for crying out loud, can we get rid of the preferential treatment already? Oh right because a hispanic shot a black guy in Florida that proves white people are prejudice.
How do you feel about polygamy?
But but but, this is for LIBERAL cause, we only meant that Corporations aren't people when it is for Republican Causes. We like one, we don't like the other. No, we aren't hypocrites. / sarcasm
Lets keep this in Biology and then we can have a conversation. Gender is DNA, X and Y Chromosomes. Anything else is not scientific and is religious in nature (ie Belief system). Yes, I'm aware of Chromosomal Defects that create an extra X or Y Chromosome, but those are genetic deformities (like Down's Syndrome), and are easily mapped via DNA sequencing.
The "surgical" part. Gender Reassignment isn't changing gender, it is changing appearances. The gender (male/female) doesn't really change, as they don't yet have a DNA swap from X to Y or visa versa.
Gender should be based on Chromosome counts(X,Y) and not physical appearances. If anybody should be listed as anything else it is those rare people with a third X or a second Y. Surgery doesn't change gender, only appearances. Anything else is just idiocy. Should I get surgery to look like a cat, it doesn't make me one.
http://classymishmash.blogspot.com/2008/09/cat-man-man-who-underwent-surgery-to.html
Seriously why should we be having this conversation? How about a third option ... "Surgically Altered Gender Assignment". Fuck her/him/it if they want anything other than what she/he/it is.
All the regulations in the world didn't stop the crooks, and never will. That is why idiots like you don't and will never understand. Nobody could have regulations on something that never existed prior (derivative loan securities). The reason why this failed, is because (hindsight being 20/20) it was nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme among banks.
It wasn't lack of regulation or lowered regulations that created Derivatives, it was creative crooks that created them, and nobody was smart enough to NOT bite, except perhaps some credit unions. The real crime was caused by people not doing their homework, and betting the farm on a gamble. Those people got a bailout by Obama and Bush, and are STILL making crappy decisions.
You want to fix the problem? Make CEO's take their pay in cash. Period. If they take anything in Stock or other securities as compensation, put it into a trust, which they cannot touch for 15 years or 10 years after their last day on the job. They will look out for the long term and stop betting on short term thinking. No CEO worth their salt is gonna risk short term profits so they can sell their options and get out before the bottom drops out.
Two Wars are bad, but three wars are worse. And we are probably going to be involved in Syria and or Iran (or both) by the end of this summer. Call it the Obama Re Election wars. And what will be your excuse for another one or two unfunded wars and Obama? Seriously, I'm asking.
The whole idea the (D) good (R) bad is just a load of crap. Both are bad, and not doing anyone any favors. And the crises in thee world are not going away because Obama is the Messiah. Oh, and if Obama is not responsible for what is going on right now, then Clinton is responsible for 9/11 and the economic crisis that Bush inherited. But that doesn't sit will with the idiots. (and Visa Versa, btw).