I would argue that Apple is a hardware company. That is where they make their money. The software exists to make the hardware more useful and appealing.
I can agree with that but the software doesn't just magically appear.
Definitely. I had a feeling someone was going to say that when I wrote the post. I was going to add it in () but it wasn't so relevant to the comparison I was making. If I may add my own pedantry, while software is useless without hardware, you don't have to make it to write software or be a successful software company as is Microsoft. Touche.
Nonetheless, you are not wrong, and thanks for reading.
I wouldn't say fill the gap, but if MS happens to fall down I can see Apple buying them out.
They are both software companies, but that still would be like Apple buying oranges.;) Their main customer bases are totally different. It's easy for Microsoft to adapt their business first minded OS's to consumers. It would be alot harder for Apple to service MS's business customers, nor do they want to. That's why Microsoft ain't going nowhere.
Personally, I hate that MS is allowed to get it's OS bundled with computers. I shouldn't have to buy a Mac or over pay for a poor quality bit of hardware to avoid having to give them money.
Why does this bother you so much? Consumers have options. If you buy a computer with Windows bundled from an OEM, the savings you get on the components, as opposed to building a PC yourself and either running GNU/Linux, or purchasing another OS would make up for the cost of the OS bundled with the system. The OEM most likely absorbs most of the cost of the OS anyway.
You can buy a pre-built system with no OS if you don't want Redmond to have your money, or you can build one yourself. The latter would end up costing you more than buying a pre-built system with OS bundled.
As far as MS being "allowed to have their OS's bundled, on what authority would anyone have the ability to prevent this? Who has the authority to tell Dell for instance, to not partner with MS? Why should anyone have this authority? Do you hate that you can only buy a Coke a McDonalds?
Wanted to repost logged in. I am not a coward;)
"Is there any way to make emails to an improperly formatted gmail address bounce or do something else obvious? Is there a technical solution I am overlooking"
No, because its porperly formatted, just improperly addressed. As for how to handle it, it's the email equivalent of a wrong number. I'll let you decide that.
we find a way to survive long enough for us (science to come to that understanding). I think we would also find that though we understand how it is that we are able to know; and that we know that we know; but also know, we can never know how to create that link that spark that give something life, as opposed to making something be; exist.
We could understand this engine; we could never know how to start it.
"Imperial's Centre for Cold Matter aims to explain this lack of antimatter by searching for tiny differences between the behaviour of matter and antimatter that no-one has yet observed. Had the researchers found that electrons are not round it would have provided proof that the behaviour of antimatter and matter differ more than physicists previously thought. This, they say, could explain how all the antimatter disappeared from the universe, leaving only ordinary matter.
Professor Edward Hinds, research co-author and head of the Centre for Cold Matter at Imperial College London, said: "The whole world is made almost entirely of normal matter, with only tiny traces of antimatter. Astronomers have looked right to the edge of the visible universe and even then they see just matter, no great stashes of antimatter. Physicists just do not know what happened to all the antimatter, but this research can help us to confirm or rule out some of the possible explanations."
Is it possible that we can't find anti-matter because it's all in one place?
If a software application is a tool used to help users do one or more related tasks, then even a browser tab could be considered in app running inside the browser. More so if you were to be running a web app like google docs or online banking as opposed to reading an article somewhere.
These added app tabs in Firefox and app shortcuts in Chrome just go one step further in treating the tab as its own app environment, giving the look and feel of a stand a lone program.
Isn't the web itself an app? The web technically isn't the internet (the hardware and connection mediums) but the suite of software that runs on top of it that enables the communication. The web is what allows us to appify the net.
Pushing users to the simplest experience I would think is their goal, with the simplest experience being with their browser. Stripping the browser away and leaving the website or webapp front and center for a specific task doesn't get more simple to me.
I initially posted to this story because people were claiming that Fox's right wing leanings were precisely what made them a bad news org. So yes, people obviously do feel that way. I didn't make that up.
Bias can affect objectivity but being bias is not the proof.
I am willing to accept evidence that Fox IS criminally or morally speaking distorting facts to suit their bias. I am willing to accept evidence that FOX is totally open and honest about its will and its right to lie to people about news.
People using this case as concrete proof of these allegations, is not only wrong, they are doing exactly what they are accusing Fox of doing. Distorting a story to fit their beliefs. The article I link to not only makes claims, it points to court documents and rulings to substantiate them. Evidence. If Fox in fact stated on the record that it used its 1st amendment right to distort facts to coerce these reporters, her wrongful termination would have never been overturned.
You claim I lied. I admit I lied. Judge throws out your claim that hinged upon whether or not I lied. Doesn't make any sense.
I would be interested to know if Fox was in fact distorting facts, and I will keep my eyes open as I always do, but can you link to an example of bias for me. Outright lie.
You will find far more democratic viewpoints on Fox than you will find Republican viewpoints on MSBNC, CNN, ABC. I can watch Fox and see Dems debating Republicans. Left debating the right. Other news orgs its the left talking to the left about the right. The pot and the kettle can't debate over their color, right ?
The case never questions whether Fox News attempted to coerce Jane Akre to report false information. The case deals with whether or not she and her husband were wrongfully terminating for threatening to file suit and alert the FCC that they had been coerced to lie, and falsify facts by Fox producers.
The article I link to states the 1st amendment right to lie argument was never used because it was not needed. It's a defense to a complaint that wasn't made. (like Net Neutrality policy?) and the actual court papers support these claims.
I'm not saying Fox News employees are guilty or innocent, but the fact this case was brought does not make Fox guilty of anything, secondly, the plaintiff's award being overturned on appeal doesn't substantiate the plaintiffs initial claims to begin with. The Spin stops here! Hehehe
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth
Let's be fair. That case dealt with whether on not Jane Akre and her husband Steven Wilson were terminated wrongfully for threatening to go to the FCC with claims they were being pressured to distort the news, not with whether or not they were actually asked to distort the news. Fox represents they never asked them to distort anything, and Fox felt that the report submitted was biased on behalf of Jane Akre and her husband. Court documents support this.
I hope you can be fair: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth
Just one example I've come across.
Even if I were to concede that these producers were actually trying to coerce these reporters into distorting the news,(No hard evidence I've seen points there. Circumstantial evidence might say that their claim hint of it), a few producers actions could hardly constitute policy of a major corporation. You would have to go alot further to establish a culture of this.
Although I am defending Fox news in this instance, my initial post was not to defend Fox News but to say that bias and fairness are two different metrics. While related. 100% Bias does not equal 100% unfairness or vice versa. I saw alot of comments asserting that Fox is right wing therefore can't be subjective.
I can love the Giants and hate Eagles and still officiate that game fairly.
Everyone is biased in one way or another. One can be totally biased and be totally fair at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Fox is certainly an organization run and staffed primarily by conservatives. This doesn't inherently discredit them as a news organization. They, as everyone chooses whether to allow their bias to influence the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that Apple is a hardware company. That is where they make their money. The software exists to make the hardware more useful and appealing.
I can agree with that but the software doesn't just magically appear.
Nonetheless, you are not wrong, and thanks for reading.
I wouldn't say fill the gap, but if MS happens to fall down I can see Apple buying them out.
They are both software companies, but that still would be like Apple buying oranges. ;) Their main customer bases are totally different. It's easy for Microsoft to adapt their business first minded OS's to consumers. It would be alot harder for Apple to service MS's business customers, nor do they want to. That's why Microsoft ain't going nowhere.
Personally, I hate that MS is allowed to get it's OS bundled with computers. I shouldn't have to buy a Mac or over pay for a poor quality bit of hardware to avoid having to give them money.
Why does this bother you so much? Consumers have options. If you buy a computer with Windows bundled from an OEM, the savings you get on the components, as opposed to building a PC yourself and either running GNU/Linux, or purchasing another OS would make up for the cost of the OS bundled with the system. The OEM most likely absorbs most of the cost of the OS anyway. You can buy a pre-built system with no OS if you don't want Redmond to have your money, or you can build one yourself. The latter would end up costing you more than buying a pre-built system with OS bundled. As far as MS being "allowed to have their OS's bundled, on what authority would anyone have the ability to prevent this? Who has the authority to tell Dell for instance, to not partner with MS? Why should anyone have this authority? Do you hate that you can only buy a Coke a McDonalds? Wanted to repost logged in. I am not a coward ;)
Beat me to it.
Try asking Google that question. ;)
what is false in the article ?
"Is there any way to make emails to an improperly formatted gmail address bounce or do something else obvious? Is there a technical solution I am overlooking" No, because its porperly formatted, just improperly addressed. As for how to handle it, it's the email equivalent of a wrong number. I'll let you decide that.
and the laughs are all in good fun Randy. That video is nostalgia, plus there was no Red Bull in '95 ;)
Who needs ambien when you got this video.
we find a way to survive long enough for us (science to come to that understanding). I think we would also find that though we understand how it is that we are able to know; and that we know that we know; but also know, we can never know how to create that link that spark that give something life, as opposed to making something be; exist. We could understand this engine; we could never know how to start it.
It's relevant to the post in that it's part of Microsoft's history at the very least, at the most it's not that serious, is it?
"Imperial's Centre for Cold Matter aims to explain this lack of antimatter by searching for tiny differences between the behaviour of matter and antimatter that no-one has yet observed. Had the researchers found that electrons are not round it would have provided proof that the behaviour of antimatter and matter differ more than physicists previously thought. This, they say, could explain how all the antimatter disappeared from the universe, leaving only ordinary matter. Professor Edward Hinds, research co-author and head of the Centre for Cold Matter at Imperial College London, said: "The whole world is made almost entirely of normal matter, with only tiny traces of antimatter. Astronomers have looked right to the edge of the visible universe and even then they see just matter, no great stashes of antimatter. Physicists just do not know what happened to all the antimatter, but this research can help us to confirm or rule out some of the possible explanations."
Is it possible that we can't find anti-matter because it's all in one place?
This is about reconciling their stories. Evidence of lying is a good place to start.
What will we do with all the computers we used to run the algorithms that intentionally complicated the tax code. Someone's not going to like this!
If a software application is a tool used to help users do one or more related tasks, then even a browser tab could be considered in app running inside the browser. More so if you were to be running a web app like google docs or online banking as opposed to reading an article somewhere. These added app tabs in Firefox and app shortcuts in Chrome just go one step further in treating the tab as its own app environment, giving the look and feel of a stand a lone program. Isn't the web itself an app? The web technically isn't the internet (the hardware and connection mediums) but the suite of software that runs on top of it that enables the communication. The web is what allows us to appify the net. Pushing users to the simplest experience I would think is their goal, with the simplest experience being with their browser. Stripping the browser away and leaving the website or webapp front and center for a specific task doesn't get more simple to me.
tbc...Happy New Year.
I initially posted to this story because people were claiming that Fox's right wing leanings were precisely what made them a bad news org. So yes, people obviously do feel that way. I didn't make that up. Bias can affect objectivity but being bias is not the proof. I am willing to accept evidence that Fox IS criminally or morally speaking distorting facts to suit their bias. I am willing to accept evidence that FOX is totally open and honest about its will and its right to lie to people about news. People using this case as concrete proof of these allegations, is not only wrong, they are doing exactly what they are accusing Fox of doing. Distorting a story to fit their beliefs. The article I link to not only makes claims, it points to court documents and rulings to substantiate them. Evidence. If Fox in fact stated on the record that it used its 1st amendment right to distort facts to coerce these reporters, her wrongful termination would have never been overturned. You claim I lied. I admit I lied. Judge throws out your claim that hinged upon whether or not I lied. Doesn't make any sense. I would be interested to know if Fox was in fact distorting facts, and I will keep my eyes open as I always do, but can you link to an example of bias for me. Outright lie.
Darkness said to the light, I can exists in spite of you. Light turned around and said to darkness, where did you go?
You will find far more democratic viewpoints on Fox than you will find Republican viewpoints on MSBNC, CNN, ABC. I can watch Fox and see Dems debating Republicans. Left debating the right. Other news orgs its the left talking to the left about the right. The pot and the kettle can't debate over their color, right ?
A precedent that doesn't exist. http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth
The case never questions whether Fox News attempted to coerce Jane Akre to report false information. The case deals with whether or not she and her husband were wrongfully terminating for threatening to file suit and alert the FCC that they had been coerced to lie, and falsify facts by Fox producers. The article I link to states the 1st amendment right to lie argument was never used because it was not needed. It's a defense to a complaint that wasn't made. (like Net Neutrality policy?) and the actual court papers support these claims. I'm not saying Fox News employees are guilty or innocent, but the fact this case was brought does not make Fox guilty of anything, secondly, the plaintiff's award being overturned on appeal doesn't substantiate the plaintiffs initial claims to begin with. The Spin stops here! Hehehe http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth
I hear prominent democrats refer to themselves and their colleagues as liberal and progressives all of the time. We get meaning from the context.
Let's be fair. That case dealt with whether on not Jane Akre and her husband Steven Wilson were terminated wrongfully for threatening to go to the FCC with claims they were being pressured to distort the news, not with whether or not they were actually asked to distort the news. Fox represents they never asked them to distort anything, and Fox felt that the report submitted was biased on behalf of Jane Akre and her husband. Court documents support this. I hope you can be fair: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth Just one example I've come across. Even if I were to concede that these producers were actually trying to coerce these reporters into distorting the news,(No hard evidence I've seen points there. Circumstantial evidence might say that their claim hint of it), a few producers actions could hardly constitute policy of a major corporation. You would have to go alot further to establish a culture of this. Although I am defending Fox news in this instance, my initial post was not to defend Fox News but to say that bias and fairness are two different metrics. While related. 100% Bias does not equal 100% unfairness or vice versa. I saw alot of comments asserting that Fox is right wing therefore can't be subjective. I can love the Giants and hate Eagles and still officiate that game fairly.
Everyone is biased in one way or another. One can be totally biased and be totally fair at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Fox is certainly an organization run and staffed primarily by conservatives. This doesn't inherently discredit them as a news organization. They, as everyone chooses whether to allow their bias to influence the truth.