To date Microsoft has only been successful because it rode on the coat-tails of the already very successful International Business Machines and their PC platform. Everything you listed was because IBM was the "safe choice" for managers. Away from the PC world Microsoft has experienced few successes. (In fact I can't think of any.)
If it had been Atari-DOS that was sold to IBM in 1981, then we'd be talking about the Atari monopoly and Atari Explorer instead of the MS monopoly or IE. In this alternate reality Microsoft would be no bigger or important than any other programming corporation. (They might even have failed and disappeared.)
Read my thoughts. Amazon's Kindle uses linux. I'll stick with that. I just wish they'd use a faster processor than 500 megahertz, because web surfing is painfully slow (especially facebook).
>>>I am appalled that Microsoft is to blame for the current state of our university.
Wow. You're as gullible as a FOX or NBC news viewer. You bought-into the politicians' propaganda hook, line, and sinker like a fish. The only ones to blame, are not Microsoft who followed the tax laws, but the poltiicians who failed to REWRITE the tax laws such that MS and other corporations would have to pay on all their income (since they reside in washington).
The State of Washington could have closed this loophole loooooong ago by simply passing a law, "If you operate a business here, you must pay taxes on all your income." If Microsoft doesn't like it they can pack-up and move out. I doubt the state would miss the ~1000 job loss out of millions of jobs..... it's certainly less painful that losing 4 billion in taxes last year.
>>>high proportion of left-handed American presidents
Politicians are pretty competitive. They don't like to cooperate with others, which may be why they joined that career (a desire to control other humans' stupid decisions).
>>>>> In a fight, for example, a left-hander would have the advantage in a right-handed world. >> >>Doesn't know much about ancient warfare. Good luck running a phalanx
In a competitive species the phalanx wouldn't even exist, because the humans would not cooperate with one another. Thus there'd be no need disadvantage to being either right or left, and the genes would be split evenly 50-50.
Where would opposite hands lead to greater cooperation among primitive man?
I think the point is that left-handed people would need special left-handed spears, knives, et cetera. If they lost their special tool they couldn't just grab a friend's right-handed version, so they'd be left weapnless and get eaten/killed by the lion before they had a chance to procreate. Thus leftie genes would become rare in homo sapiens.
Why isn't everyone left-handed? That too would be beneficial in a cooperative society (shared tools). Maybe millions of years ago, the left-handed tribes died out. (Maybe they called themselves Neandertals.)
Or Dr. House breaking the rules again! (Damn him... if we wasn't so good, we'd prosecute him in court.);-)
I'm surprised the kidney got better. I guess the disease is located in the man's body, not in the kidney (which recovered once given a healthy environment). I feel sorry for the guy as he'll probably die soon, before he even made 30.
>>> (Apple won't be around for ever). Ownership of digital media is an illusion. You really only have a book keeping entry on an Apple computer.
On the flip side: It would be impossible to own tens of thousands of books in the past. Eventually you would need to throw some of them away, or else run out of room in your house. So even with physical books, nobody kept them forever.
The invention of the e-book now makes it possible to own 10,000+ without any problem. (E-books also make it possible to get books for free; I bought a kindle and have yet to spend a single penny. Too busy reading the free public domain works.)
I can't believe I just defended Apple. That's like saying, "Yeah buying a Honda Acura for $35,000 is a bargain." (shrug)
They can win if they are reasonable in their demands. Example: Movies. Most movies are released for $25 on disc, but five years later after interest has waned, you can find them in the bargain bin for $2.
In twenty years they are so old, they have virtually no value (except for a few rare gems) and they are given away for free views on TV or the net. Ditto songs and books. --- So why not make the copyright term 20 years, and let these works be enriching the lives of everyone everywhere, as part of the public domain (shared culture of humanity). That compromise will let copyright live on, otherwise it is doomed to ultimately fail because nobody will wait 115 years to see a movie, book, or song. They'll just pirate it.
TRIVIA - - One of the reasons "It's A Wonderful Life" became so popular is because it fell into public domain, local stations started running it repeatedly, and soon an old forgotten movie (which had flopped in theaters) became part of our shared culture. The same could happen with other works, if they were simply freed of the shackles of copyright & freely-distributed amongst the people. Instead they are hidden-away in warehouses unseen.
No they don't. Mother Nature has not in any way given us a "right" to hold a monopoly over our creations. The idea, like fire, is only ours so long as we keep it to ourselves. But once we share our idea or our flame with someone else, then it is public domain and can be spread around the world. In fact many of us work w/o any such compensation... I've written tens of thousands of messages over the years and NONE of them is my exclusive monopoly. They are freely-distributed all over the place, as part of the public domain of the Usenet/Internet.
As a writer, I have no more right to a monopoly than does Microsoft or Comcast or the East India Trading Company. When a monopoly is granted by the People to a person, it is a *privilege* and it is revocable at any time the monopoly is no longer beneficial to the People (society).
The grant of the copy monopoly was created in order to jumpstart a culture. Well we have that now. In fact we have too much of it (so many new works are produced for TV, radio, books that it's impossible to keep up). Culture is overflowing. It's the most-productive industry in the U.S. and there is no longer any reason to provide this incentive/subsidy, as it can stand on its own two feet without the artificial support.
Now being the type to compromise, I'd be willing to keep the authors' monopoly but only for a much shorter term. ONE generation, not six generations (115). That's more compensation than most people get (backwages for factory work only goes 3 years into the past). Give an author twenty years, and then the item becomes public domain for the benefit of all 7,000,000,000 humans, rather than just 1.
In a place (sun) where there is free energy (gravity) to force it to happen. And also in a location where it does not matter that massive amounts of atom-destroying radiation make the surrounding ~1,000,000 miles uninhabitable. And explosions occur frequently.
We don't have free energy to force fusion to happen. We have to burn something else (electricity) to jumpstart it. ALSO we can't have radiation leaking all over the place or risk a runaway reaction, so that requires extra safeguards & no room for mistake, because that could wipe-out a state. (Read Asimov's "Blowup" short story.)
I suspect fusion, like the creation of hydrogen for fuel cells, will end-up being an energy sink and not an energy source. Or else so ridiculously costly (due to the extra safeguards/shielding), that it will make solar power look like a bargain.
>>> gift giver had funded what Apple is doing in the world
Your opinion of Apple offends me, especially since I spend $2000 every other year upgrading to a new Mac, and you make me feel foolish. Therefore I will mod it down: -1 Uncomfortable Truth
>>>The PS3, in particular, hurts my eyes with the lack of anti-aliasing that seems to be universal to that system.
Yeah don't give a shit. I'm not a video or audiophile that nitpicks unimportant things (or spends $100 on gold-plated HDMI cables). 'Sides once the PS4 or Xbox 720 is released with the latest hardware, the PC v. console gap will be nonexistent again. It's not like 1987 when I had a 32 bit computer and my friends were still playing with an 8 bit NES or SMS (i.e. a very clear graphical and audible difference).
BTW I didn't know the PS3 only ran at 720p, so I retract my "highest possible resolution". I guess I should have known Sony was lying about HD... it's technically HD, but not maximum HD.
Who cares what happened 10 years ago? Yeah sure in the past computers wre typically a generation ahead of the consoles. An Atari Computer in 1979 ran circles around the consoles of the day. A Commodore Amiga or Atari ST was a generation ahead of the 8 bit NES/Sega Master System.
A Windows 95 PC or Mac was doing high-def while PS1/N64 were still stuck with lo-res and not-so-great sound. BUT that was then. This is now. There's barely any visible or audible gap between PC v. PS3/X360. (They are starting to show their five-year age a little bit, but once PS4/Xbox Next is released, the gap will be nonexistent again.)
On my TV I turned all of the processing off. The "sharpness" is turned down to 0 and ditto any other filtering. Same on my Bluray player. The video is already near-perfection and doesn't need that other crap which was initially included to "clean up" the older DVD and VHS signals.
LCDs don't "draw" anything. It's flashed on the screen instantly. And when watching modern shows, they would display 60 frames per second..... much higher than the Hobbit's 48fps.
I suspect all this complaining is that the Hobbit looks like a high-quality TV show, and people don't want it to look like a high-quality TV show (for some stupid reason). It's kinda like saying, "That damn Frozen Planet documentary at 60fps looks too realistic. I prefer NTSC's 30fps; I prefer more flickering."
>>>BBC 70's shows that use video, but by the time it gets over here in the colonies, it's not 48 frames per sec, but 25. I have no way of knowing what the TV stations played it at.
BBC video is 25 frames per second. Interlaced. So basically it's just like U.S. video (30fps) but slightly slower.
Stop thinking of "movies" and "TV shows" as being separate entities. It's all basically the same (actors on fake sets), and the only distinction that exists is all in your mind.
In fact a lot of 2000-era movies don't even use film anymore..... they're using HD videocams. Same thing TV productions use.
Never mind. I see they are complaining that 48fps looks TOO real and too perfect. Kinda like how people complained the CDs sound too cold, and they prefer records. Or that Star Trek weapons looked like pieces of foam when viewed in HD (or even DVD).
I've never thought inferior quality (with jerky frames, lo-resolution, or static sound) was better than higher quality. That would be like saying I prefer to play PC games at 704x240 instead of the current high-def.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>improbably indeed
Disagree. You're sucking energy out of the system and that will have an impact, just as turbines in a river slow the flow of the water.
To date Microsoft has only been successful because it rode on the coat-tails of the already very successful International Business Machines and their PC platform. Everything you listed was because IBM was the "safe choice" for managers. Away from the PC world Microsoft has experienced few successes. (In fact I can't think of any.)
If it had been Atari-DOS that was sold to IBM in 1981, then we'd be talking about the Atari monopoly and Atari Explorer instead of the MS monopoly or IE. In this alternate reality Microsoft would be no bigger or important than any other programming corporation. (They might even have failed and disappeared.)
Read my thoughts.
Amazon's Kindle uses linux. I'll stick with that. I just wish they'd use a faster processor than 500 megahertz, because web surfing is painfully slow (especially facebook).
>>>I am appalled that Microsoft is to blame for the current state of our university.
Wow.
You're as gullible as a FOX or NBC news viewer. You bought-into the politicians' propaganda hook, line, and sinker like a fish. The only ones to blame, are not Microsoft who followed the tax laws, but the poltiicians who failed to REWRITE the tax laws such that MS and other corporations would have to pay on all their income (since they reside in washington).
The State of Washington could have closed this loophole loooooong ago by simply passing a law, "If you operate a business here, you must pay taxes on all your income." If Microsoft doesn't like it they can pack-up and move out. I doubt the state would miss the ~1000 job loss out of millions of jobs..... it's certainly less painful that losing 4 billion in taxes last year.
nVidia knows exactly what it is are doing.
You pickens what? Strawberries? Cotton? Dates?
>>>high proportion of left-handed American presidents
Politicians are pretty competitive. They don't like to cooperate with others, which may be why they joined that career (a desire to control other humans' stupid decisions).
>>>>> In a fight, for example, a left-hander would have the advantage in a right-handed world.
>>
>>Doesn't know much about ancient warfare. Good luck running a phalanx
In a competitive species the phalanx wouldn't even exist, because the humans would not cooperate with one another. Thus there'd be no need disadvantage to being either right or left, and the genes would be split evenly 50-50.
Where would opposite hands lead to greater cooperation among primitive man?
I think the point is that left-handed people would need special left-handed spears, knives, et cetera. If they lost their special tool they couldn't just grab a friend's right-handed version, so they'd be left weapnless and get eaten/killed by the lion before they had a chance to procreate. Thus leftie genes would become rare in homo sapiens.
Why isn't everyone left-handed? That too would be beneficial in a cooperative society (shared tools). Maybe millions of years ago, the left-handed tribes died out. (Maybe they called themselves Neandertals.)
>>>clinical trial
Or Dr. House breaking the rules again! (Damn him... if we wasn't so good, we'd prosecute him in court.) ;-)
I'm surprised the kidney got better. I guess the disease is located in the man's body, not in the kidney (which recovered once given a healthy environment). I feel sorry for the guy as he'll probably die soon, before he even made 30.
>>> (Apple won't be around for ever). Ownership of digital media is an illusion. You really only have a book keeping entry on an Apple computer.
On the flip side:
It would be impossible to own tens of thousands of books in the past. Eventually you would need to throw some of them away, or else run out of room in your house. So even with physical books, nobody kept them forever.
The invention of the e-book now makes it possible to own 10,000+ without any problem. (E-books also make it possible to get books for free; I bought a kindle and have yet to spend a single penny. Too busy reading the free public domain works.)
I can't believe I just defended Apple.
That's like saying, "Yeah buying a Honda
Acura for $35,000 is a bargain." (shrug)
>>>The pro-copyright people cannot possibly win.
They can win if they are reasonable in their demands. Example: Movies. Most movies are released for $25 on disc, but five years later after interest has waned, you can find them in the bargain bin for $2.
In twenty years they are so old, they have virtually no value (except for a few rare gems) and they are given away for free views on TV or the net. Ditto songs and books. --- So why not make the copyright term 20 years, and let these works be enriching the lives of everyone everywhere, as part of the public domain (shared culture of humanity). That compromise will let copyright live on, otherwise it is doomed to ultimately fail because nobody will wait 115 years to see a movie, book, or song. They'll just pirate it.
TRIVIA -
- One of the reasons "It's A Wonderful Life" became so popular is because it fell into public domain, local stations started running it repeatedly, and soon an old forgotten movie (which had flopped in theaters) became part of our shared culture. The same could happen with other works, if they were simply freed of the shackles of copyright & freely-distributed amongst the people. Instead they are hidden-away in warehouses unseen.
No they don't. Mother Nature has not in any way given us a "right" to hold a monopoly over our creations. The idea, like fire, is only ours so long as we keep it to ourselves. But once we share our idea or our flame with someone else, then it is public domain and can be spread around the world. In fact many of us work w/o any such compensation... I've written tens of thousands of messages over the years and NONE of them is my exclusive monopoly. They are freely-distributed all over the place, as part of the public domain of the Usenet/Internet.
As a writer, I have no more right to a monopoly than does Microsoft or Comcast or the East India Trading Company. When a monopoly is granted by the People to a person, it is a *privilege* and it is revocable at any time the monopoly is no longer beneficial to the People (society).
The grant of the copy monopoly was created in order to jumpstart a culture. Well we have that now. In fact we have too much of it (so many new works are produced for TV, radio, books that it's impossible to keep up). Culture is overflowing. It's the most-productive industry in the U.S. and there is no longer any reason to provide this incentive/subsidy, as it can stand on its own two feet without the artificial support.
Now being the type to compromise, I'd be willing to keep the authors' monopoly but only for a much shorter term. ONE generation, not six generations (115). That's more compensation than most people get (backwages for factory work only goes 3 years into the past). Give an author twenty years, and then the item becomes public domain for the benefit of all 7,000,000,000 humans, rather than just 1.
Fusion exists.
In a place (sun) where there is free energy (gravity) to force it to happen. And also in a location where it does not matter that massive amounts of atom-destroying radiation make the surrounding ~1,000,000 miles uninhabitable. And explosions occur frequently.
We don't have free energy to force fusion to happen. We have to burn something else (electricity) to jumpstart it. ALSO we can't have radiation leaking all over the place or risk a runaway reaction, so that requires extra safeguards & no room for mistake, because that could wipe-out a state. (Read Asimov's "Blowup" short story.)
I suspect fusion, like the creation of hydrogen for fuel cells, will end-up being an energy sink and not an energy source. Or else so ridiculously costly (due to the extra safeguards/shielding), that it will make solar power look like a bargain.
>>> gift giver had funded what Apple is doing in the world
Your opinion of Apple offends me, especially since I spend $2000 every other year upgrading to a new Mac, and you make me feel foolish. Therefore I will mod it down:
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
A lot of the things you list are not provided by the employer, but the government.
And no cubicles? I worked in a place like that, and it sucked due to lack of privacy! Couldn't even sneak a peak at /. without everyone seeing.
>>>The PS3, in particular, hurts my eyes with the lack of anti-aliasing that seems to be universal to that system.
Yeah don't give a shit. I'm not a video or audiophile that nitpicks unimportant things (or spends $100 on gold-plated HDMI cables). 'Sides once the PS4 or Xbox 720 is released with the latest hardware, the PC v. console gap will be nonexistent again. It's not like 1987 when I had a 32 bit computer and my friends were still playing with an 8 bit NES or SMS (i.e. a very clear graphical and audible difference).
BTW I didn't know the PS3 only ran at 720p, so I retract my "highest possible resolution". I guess I should have known Sony was lying about HD... it's technically HD, but not maximum HD.
Who cares what happened 10 years ago? Yeah sure in the past computers wre typically a generation ahead of the consoles. An Atari Computer in 1979 ran circles around the consoles of the day. A Commodore Amiga or Atari ST was a generation ahead of the 8 bit NES/Sega Master System.
A Windows 95 PC or Mac was doing high-def while PS1/N64 were still stuck with lo-res and not-so-great sound. BUT that was then. This is now. There's barely any visible or audible gap between PC v. PS3/X360. (They are starting to show their five-year age a little bit, but once PS4/Xbox Next is released, the gap will be nonexistent again.)
On my TV I turned all of the processing off. The "sharpness" is turned down to 0 and ditto any other filtering. Same on my Bluray player. The video is already near-perfection and doesn't need that other crap which was initially included to "clean up" the older DVD and VHS signals.
LCDs don't "draw" anything. It's flashed on the screen instantly. And when watching modern shows, they would display 60 frames per second..... much higher than the Hobbit's 48fps.
I suspect all this complaining is that the Hobbit looks like a high-quality TV show, and people don't want it to look like a high-quality TV show (for some stupid reason). It's kinda like saying, "That damn Frozen Planet documentary at 60fps looks too realistic. I prefer NTSC's 30fps; I prefer more flickering."
>>>BBC 70's shows that use video, but by the time it gets over here in the colonies, it's not 48 frames per sec, but 25. I have no way of knowing what the TV stations played it at.
BBC video is 25 frames per second. Interlaced.
So basically it's just like U.S. video (30fps) but slightly slower.
Stop thinking of "movies" and "TV shows" as being separate entities. It's all basically the same (actors on fake sets), and the only distinction that exists is all in your mind.
In fact a lot of 2000-era movies don't even use film anymore..... they're using HD videocams. Same thing TV productions use.
Never mind. I see they are complaining that 48fps looks TOO real and too perfect. Kinda like how people complained the CDs sound too cold, and they prefer records. Or that Star Trek weapons looked like pieces of foam when viewed in HD (or even DVD).
I've never thought inferior quality (with jerky frames, lo-resolution, or static sound) was better than higher quality. That would be like saying I prefer to play PC games at 704x240 instead of the current high-def.