Not really. They could do something like help WINE project and get it out of "beta" and leave the pieces for the "community" to support. A form of "Embrace (wine), Extend (wine), Extinguish (win32).
They had a great opportunity to do something awesome with Windows recently. They blew it... twice.
They could have made Windows Vista/7 64bit only. Leave XP on 32 bit only. They could have killed the cruft of backwards compatibility once and for all.
But that would have required forward thinking AND risk taking.
Linux on Arm isn't so bad, because Linux is just a kernel. The rest of the OS could be anything, as Android is.
Re:Okay, here's a question ...
on
New IE Zero Day
·
· Score: 1
Start charging.
Re:Before we all start the bashing..
on
New IE Zero Day
·
· Score: 1
A few things of note here.
1) If there is a Zero Day for those other browsers, one can usually switch to another browser because I use all four. Average mom and dad users, may not be possible.
2) Because IE is tied so closely to the OS called Windows, it is much easier to exploit, because it requires less guessing of the OS. And with IE 9, it requires no guessing. That, by itself makes the exploit that much more difficult to block.
3) When Firefox or Chrome get zero days, the time for the fix is usually a day or three at the most. With MS, we have to wait till patch Tuesday and hope we don't get infected between now and then.
Suffice it to say, the IE Zero Day's are more dangerous even if they are more rare, because they take longer to patch, it comes installed by default, most casual users use it by default. It is getting better though with users becoming aware of the other options out there.
Worse than fragmentation is proves what I've been saying (and getting modded "troll" for it) that Microsoft is a Windows company, not a technology company. Everything they do is trying to leverage Windows. Windows on ARM may just be the stupidest thing they've done. It is as if to say "Me Too On Arm" just to say it.
Someone needs to fire the board, the top managers and start making some real gutsy calls on direction of the company, or else Apple will eat them for lunch as they keep chasing what Apple and Google have already done.
I'm kind of feeling sorry for the once great giant these days. They just can't seem to get things right.
Net Neutrality is not about corporate control or government control. Net Neutrality is about no control at all.
The PROBLEM is that some people fear corporate control more than government control, and visa versa. These two are warring and in the end, we'll end up with government/corporate partnership sharing control, and we're just as screwed, perhaps worse.
Which is why we should be able to dissolve both quickly when needed.
Pretty much the same tactic left wing uses when they toss out "racist" and "Hitler/Nazi" comments.
I wish I had a dollar every time some left winger tossed out those terms.
And Obama has shredded the Constitution, as did his predecessors (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson...)
The whole "left vs right" thing gets old. Both sides are evil, and both sides shred the parts of the Constitution they don't like, to the point now where almost none of the Constitution is enforce, except the shell concept.
You see, if enough people didn't buy broken or crippled devices then companies like Microsoft wouldn't be able to make money selling their products and would either go out of business or change how they do things.
However, enough people like you, buy an Xbox even as they don't like all the restrictions, and buy certified games to keep Microsoft from stopping production of the Xbox. Let me ask you a question, do you own an Xbox? If you do, then you have no right to complain, because you are part of the problem you're protesting (stupid users).
I don't own an Xbox. Won't either. I don't watch TV either because I don't want to pay for crap cable channels I don't want to watch, and have to pay extra for the channels I want to watch. I've circumvented the Cable industry and watch what I want on NetFlix and Hulu. And the best part, I don't have to pay money to watch commercials inserted into the programming.
Your basic assumption is that EVOLUTION is the sole explanation why we're "smarter" than those of 5000 years ago. If that were so, then evolution is much more rapid than evolution theory supports. How would you explain that?
You see, this is the fundamental flaw of evolutionism today, is that it is overly prescribed to conditions it shouldn't even be ascribed to and mostly by people who think that evolution is the only explanation for progress.
The fact is, we're probably not smarter than humans of 5000 years ago, we're just able to pass along collected wisdom and knowledge better, which is entirely cultural, not biological in nature.
Or put it this way, think of how stupid the average person is today, and realize that 1/2 the people are more stupid than this. Do you really thing we're evolving as a species or is it just the "smart" people that are evolving? On the other hand, if the ratio of smart to dumb people isn't really changing then are we really evolving? Perhaps we should start killing off all the stupid people, leaving a few behind to do all the work all of us smart people won't do.
The real problem with your line of logic is inevitably it results in elitism of the evil kind, of genocide and eugenics. I realize that you probably didn't even mean it that way, but that just means, you're not as smart as you think you are, nor nearly as evolved as you think you are.
What is needed is an arbiter that reads a patent, then tries to build what the patent describes, and if it doesn't resemble the item being sued for, then the patent is invalidated. The purpose of a patent is to secure for a limited time, the working knowledge of the item being patented. If it is not possible to build a working prototype from a patent, then the patent should be invalidated.
I'm not sure that the idea of a "process" is sufficient for a patent. Especially if all it takes to get a patent is adding "on the internet" or "using a browser" or similar. That would be obvious to people skilled in the art... would it not? Programming a process is also not sufficient because if it is a process, then the goal of programming would be to automate the process, and anyone skilled in programming should be able to code a process given enough information about the process.
I believe that is included in 501.c.3 corps for the sole purpose of limiting religious interference into politics under that logic. It is just that the other things included ended up getting covered by the same rule.
Crime is linked to poverty, but you fail to make the case for cause and effect. Are criminals more likely to be poor than rich, and is that because they are criminals in the first place or poor in the first place? How about having one verses two parents in the house being more likely a causation effect? How about those who go to church verses those who don't? Addicted Parents?
Focusing on poverty is not a solution, because we've spent TRILLIONS of dollars fighting poverty and whatnot, and yet we sill have it (like war on drugs) and still have crimes associated with it (not causality).
Crimes are behavior issues, and that is something a GOVERNMENT probably shouldn't try to solve for what should be obvious reasons (ie re-education camps).
The Constitution is clear. The state is not to regulate Religion. However, well meaning people have made it also reciprocal which is clearly not what the Constitution says, or even indicates.
Here is the relevant bits...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Not separation of church and state, just the state is prohibited from meddling in religious affairs. As it should be.
However the current laws says that religions (required by law to be 501.c.3 Corporations) cannot speak on political terms, and that is CLEARLY prohibited in the Constitution. How it stays that way is beyond me.
I don't have to have a password manager. I have all my passwords in my head. That is not the problem. The problem is assuming something is secure, when it is not, and using secure passwords when that is purely security theater.
Being Secure online is impossible. I don't trust anyone. People I trust less, get less info, and weaker passwords just reminds me I don't trust them.
Is that Better or Worse than the morons watching the morons on MSNBC??
And because more people watch FOX news, there are probably more morons that watch Fox news. However I would suggest the density of morons watching MSNBC is much higher (ratio). It is just that MSNBC viewership is in the tank comparatively.
But doing as story that is clearly false only is a good thing? If you give BOTH sides of the story, and one side clearly wrong, then it wouldn't matter. However if you only give one side of a story, and are clearly wrong (Dan Rather I'm looking at you) you end up with more people misinformed than if you gave both sides, and one side was clearly wrong (which Dan Rather clearly was)
Don't be afraid of lies. Be afraid you won't hear the truth in the first place.
The questions and assumptions of the questions are clearly designed to get the result they were looking for. Given equal opportunity to design questions with the right kind of assumptions, I'm sure I can make liberals look silly. This is nothing more than a Gotcha Poll.
Or perhaps there was bias in the questions to start with. Given the opportunity to formulate questions for a general questionnaire such as this, I can probably ask enough questions to make liberals look silly.
How many liberals believe "separation between church and state" is in the Constitution?
You give me the questions to ask, and I can make just about any general poll questionnaire reflect the views I'm trying to represent. I just have to know which outcome you'd like it to have.
Misinformation is found everywhere, all the time. Selective editing is "misinformation", and is found in all sorts of places (and I've mentioned before). When a news report on an bombing plot describes everything but the person involve, until the last paragraph where we find out he's another "Muslim bomber", that is MISINFORMATION, because the way it is presented. And we're lucky to have such a thing mentioned at times, even though I would consider it a crucial piece of the narrative.
Or when a headline mentions race "white man attacks" some minority person, but there is hardly ever a corresponding minority "attacks white guy".
Bias is not just what is reported, it is HOW it is reported and what facts are emphasized and what facts are de-emphasized. When tea party marches on DC, and it is reported "several thousand", and when Colbert and Company have their march it is "40,000", both are "technically accurate" but who had the bigger crowd?
THIS is what left wingers don't get. There is a bias in reporting on MSM. It is obvious, and almost comical at times. And I classify such bias as Misinformation as much as I do OReally (sic) and Hannity on Fox.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. They could do something like help WINE project and get it out of "beta" and leave the pieces for the "community" to support. A form of "Embrace (wine), Extend (wine), Extinguish (win32).
I smell a "In Soviet Russia" joke coming ....
Then why are all the users that use IE on my network getting infected with crapware, while Chrome and FF users don't?
No.
They had a great opportunity to do something awesome with Windows recently. They blew it... twice.
They could have made Windows Vista/7 64bit only. Leave XP on 32 bit only. They could have killed the cruft of backwards compatibility once and for all.
But that would have required forward thinking AND risk taking.
Linux on Arm isn't so bad, because Linux is just a kernel. The rest of the OS could be anything, as Android is.
Start charging.
A few things of note here.
1) If there is a Zero Day for those other browsers, one can usually switch to another browser because I use all four. Average mom and dad users, may not be possible.
2) Because IE is tied so closely to the OS called Windows, it is much easier to exploit, because it requires less guessing of the OS. And with IE 9, it requires no guessing. That, by itself makes the exploit that much more difficult to block.
3) When Firefox or Chrome get zero days, the time for the fix is usually a day or three at the most. With MS, we have to wait till patch Tuesday and hope we don't get infected between now and then.
Suffice it to say, the IE Zero Day's are more dangerous even if they are more rare, because they take longer to patch, it comes installed by default, most casual users use it by default. It is getting better though with users becoming aware of the other options out there.
Worse than fragmentation is proves what I've been saying (and getting modded "troll" for it) that Microsoft is a Windows company, not a technology company. Everything they do is trying to leverage Windows. Windows on ARM may just be the stupidest thing they've done. It is as if to say "Me Too On Arm" just to say it.
Someone needs to fire the board, the top managers and start making some real gutsy calls on direction of the company, or else Apple will eat them for lunch as they keep chasing what Apple and Google have already done.
I'm kind of feeling sorry for the once great giant these days. They just can't seem to get things right.
Net Neutrality is not about corporate control or government control. Net Neutrality is about no control at all.
The PROBLEM is that some people fear corporate control more than government control, and visa versa. These two are warring and in the end, we'll end up with government/corporate partnership sharing control, and we're just as screwed, perhaps worse.
Which is why we should be able to dissolve both quickly when needed.
Pretty much the same tactic left wing uses when they toss out "racist" and "Hitler/Nazi" comments.
I wish I had a dollar every time some left winger tossed out those terms.
And Obama has shredded the Constitution, as did his predecessors (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson ...)
The whole "left vs right" thing gets old. Both sides are evil, and both sides shred the parts of the Constitution they don't like, to the point now where almost none of the Constitution is enforce, except the shell concept.
Or don't buy one.
Or keep your expectations inline with reality.
Life isn't fair. Sucks doesn't it?
You see, if enough people didn't buy broken or crippled devices then companies like Microsoft wouldn't be able to make money selling their products and would either go out of business or change how they do things.
However, enough people like you, buy an Xbox even as they don't like all the restrictions, and buy certified games to keep Microsoft from stopping production of the Xbox. Let me ask you a question, do you own an Xbox? If you do, then you have no right to complain, because you are part of the problem you're protesting (stupid users).
I don't own an Xbox. Won't either. I don't watch TV either because I don't want to pay for crap cable channels I don't want to watch, and have to pay extra for the channels I want to watch. I've circumvented the Cable industry and watch what I want on NetFlix and Hulu. And the best part, I don't have to pay money to watch commercials inserted into the programming.
Your basic assumption is that EVOLUTION is the sole explanation why we're "smarter" than those of 5000 years ago. If that were so, then evolution is much more rapid than evolution theory supports. How would you explain that?
You see, this is the fundamental flaw of evolutionism today, is that it is overly prescribed to conditions it shouldn't even be ascribed to and mostly by people who think that evolution is the only explanation for progress.
The fact is, we're probably not smarter than humans of 5000 years ago, we're just able to pass along collected wisdom and knowledge better, which is entirely cultural, not biological in nature.
Or put it this way, think of how stupid the average person is today, and realize that 1/2 the people are more stupid than this. Do you really thing we're evolving as a species or is it just the "smart" people that are evolving? On the other hand, if the ratio of smart to dumb people isn't really changing then are we really evolving? Perhaps we should start killing off all the stupid people, leaving a few behind to do all the work all of us smart people won't do.
The real problem with your line of logic is inevitably it results in elitism of the evil kind, of genocide and eugenics. I realize that you probably didn't even mean it that way, but that just means, you're not as smart as you think you are, nor nearly as evolved as you think you are.
Actually, it was considered stealing a man's life. You steal from someone, and you take part of his life.
Look, I'm personally against the death penalty, but I'm just saying that somewhere between hanging and 'meh' is a place we need to get back to.
and why Darwin should be invoked.
Stealing used to be a hanging offense, now it is "meh". And people wonder why society has gone to hell.
What is needed is an arbiter that reads a patent, then tries to build what the patent describes, and if it doesn't resemble the item being sued for, then the patent is invalidated. The purpose of a patent is to secure for a limited time, the working knowledge of the item being patented. If it is not possible to build a working prototype from a patent, then the patent should be invalidated.
I'm not sure that the idea of a "process" is sufficient for a patent. Especially if all it takes to get a patent is adding "on the internet" or "using a browser" or similar. That would be obvious to people skilled in the art ... would it not? Programming a process is also not sufficient because if it is a process, then the goal of programming would be to automate the process, and anyone skilled in programming should be able to code a process given enough information about the process.
I believe that is included in 501.c.3 corps for the sole purpose of limiting religious interference into politics under that logic. It is just that the other things included ended up getting covered by the same rule.
Crime is linked to poverty, but you fail to make the case for cause and effect. Are criminals more likely to be poor than rich, and is that because they are criminals in the first place or poor in the first place? How about having one verses two parents in the house being more likely a causation effect? How about those who go to church verses those who don't? Addicted Parents?
Focusing on poverty is not a solution, because we've spent TRILLIONS of dollars fighting poverty and whatnot, and yet we sill have it (like war on drugs) and still have crimes associated with it (not causality).
Crimes are behavior issues, and that is something a GOVERNMENT probably shouldn't try to solve for what should be obvious reasons (ie re-education camps).
The Constitution is clear. The state is not to regulate Religion. However, well meaning people have made it also reciprocal which is clearly not what the Constitution says, or even indicates.
Here is the relevant bits ...
Not separation of church and state, just the state is prohibited from meddling in religious affairs. As it should be.
However the current laws says that religions (required by law to be 501.c.3 Corporations) cannot speak on political terms, and that is CLEARLY prohibited in the Constitution. How it stays that way is beyond me.
I don't have to have a password manager. I have all my passwords in my head. That is not the problem. The problem is assuming something is secure, when it is not, and using secure passwords when that is purely security theater.
Being Secure online is impossible. I don't trust anyone. People I trust less, get less info, and weaker passwords just reminds me I don't trust them.
Is that Better or Worse than the morons watching the morons on MSNBC??
And because more people watch FOX news, there are probably more morons that watch Fox news. However I would suggest the density of morons watching MSNBC is much higher (ratio). It is just that MSNBC viewership is in the tank comparatively.
But doing as story that is clearly false only is a good thing? If you give BOTH sides of the story, and one side clearly wrong, then it wouldn't matter. However if you only give one side of a story, and are clearly wrong (Dan Rather I'm looking at you) you end up with more people misinformed than if you gave both sides, and one side was clearly wrong (which Dan Rather clearly was)
Don't be afraid of lies. Be afraid you won't hear the truth in the first place.
BINGO
The questions and assumptions of the questions are clearly designed to get the result they were looking for. Given equal opportunity to design questions with the right kind of assumptions, I'm sure I can make liberals look silly. This is nothing more than a Gotcha Poll.
Or perhaps there was bias in the questions to start with. Given the opportunity to formulate questions for a general questionnaire such as this, I can probably ask enough questions to make liberals look silly.
How many liberals believe "separation between church and state" is in the Constitution?
You give me the questions to ask, and I can make just about any general poll questionnaire reflect the views I'm trying to represent. I just have to know which outcome you'd like it to have.
Misinformation is found everywhere, all the time. Selective editing is "misinformation", and is found in all sorts of places (and I've mentioned before). When a news report on an bombing plot describes everything but the person involve, until the last paragraph where we find out he's another "Muslim bomber", that is MISINFORMATION, because the way it is presented. And we're lucky to have such a thing mentioned at times, even though I would consider it a crucial piece of the narrative.
Or when a headline mentions race "white man attacks" some minority person, but there is hardly ever a corresponding minority "attacks white guy".
Bias is not just what is reported, it is HOW it is reported and what facts are emphasized and what facts are de-emphasized. When tea party marches on DC, and it is reported "several thousand", and when Colbert and Company have their march it is "40,000", both are "technically accurate" but who had the bigger crowd?
THIS is what left wingers don't get. There is a bias in reporting on MSM. It is obvious, and almost comical at times. And I classify such bias as Misinformation as much as I do OReally (sic) and Hannity on Fox.