I haven't tried the new one, but I've been running the consumer preview since it was released on an Acer netbook. It seems to run better than the previous Windows 7 home that was on it. I've also used Win8 on a Samsung Series 7 tablet. On the netbook, I don't really see a difference between it and previous versions of Windows. The Start screen works with the mouse and the Metro apps work like I would expect and the desktop apps are the same as Windows 7. On the tablet the touch interface takes some time to get used to. The swiping to switch between apps "feels" different. The Start screen works well and the metro apps are good for touch interface. The desktop interface works reasonably well with touch, but a stylus improves the experience.
Is it the Ford MyTouch which is royally screwed up or the Sync? I have the Sync in my Ford Fusion and it works great. I haven't had any problems with it since I bought it in 2010. If you look around they hired someone else to wrap a new UI on top of the system and it turned into a big cluster.
If only individual people are allowed these rights then newspaper editorial boards cannot endorse a candidate. Political parties as we know them are now defunct as well. Who gave them the power to speak in endorsement for the people? Does the DNC or RNC only get to speak if their chosen person won 100% of the primary vote?
Or do you mean to say that some corporations are special while others are not?
Although with that last statement I must somewhat agree with your point for unions. Some people who have their money taken have no say in the matter due to the work rules in some places, so that is unfair.
To say that an assemblage of people cannot pool their resources for speech borders on the absurd. To say that by filing the papers they have created an extra person is distorting the matter. A group of people assembled in common cause has the right to speak otherwise the very notion of assemblage is meaningless. One voice can be powerful, but a group with the same goal is much more powerful. Look at the Tea Party or OWS. What is the difference between these groups and the corporations? All have a vested interest in the politics and governance of the nation. All are collections of people, that may or may not agree with every single issue, but yet the larger bodies have the ability to speak, to spread their ideas, their goals. If someone does not like what the collective is saying they can leave it and disavow membership and then go about their business.
As far as speech backed by dollars, all speech is backed by dollars. As in everything the time I can take to rail on about an issue depends on my ability to pay for the needs to do so. Whether that is the food and drink to survive, the cardboard to write my message on, the computer and internet access to spread my message across the world, the printing press to make pamphlets, or the access to the radio spectrum to get my voice and image out to the people.
The question you seem to be asking is should groups who pool their resources and create much deeper pockets than any one person can be allowed to use that money for political speech. The answer has to be yes, because to deny that to one group creates an environment where some assemblies of people are more deserving of rights than others. What walks on four legs cannot be better than walks on two legs just because we say it is so.
Again, does the First Amendment apply to a group of people? I would have to say yes, otherwise what good is a peaceful assembly. Therefor it follows that corporations have the rights enshrined such as speech, press, and petition of government. The other rights enshrined speak to the people who make up such an assemblage.
BeOS was more or less dead by the time it even came near Microsoft. I dual booted it along with Win98, and it was a great OS, but Apple both before and after Jobs' return put a bullet it in its brain. They ported to x86 where it eventually died.
My wife and I went to a group that discussed successful marriages and the main theme was the difference between men and women. Women love, men respect; so when the woman wants love it can be hard for the man to provide that and vice versa.
It boils down to that when an argument happens the man feels disrectped by the woman's tone or actions and the man reciprocates by being colder and more distant; which further feeds the cycle. One of the example that was given was to take a diet book for example. If the woman gives a man a diet book he doesn't really care, because he doesn't see that as a slight. But that might not be the case if the man gave it to the woman; should could see that as an attack on her appearance, or a rejection of her for who she is right now. But if the woman were to keep pushing the book as opposed to leting the man do what he wanted with it, then that starts to come across as demanding and disrespectful of the man's decisions.
The solution was presented as being the bigger person and realizing whats happening. Saying "I'm sorry. Was what I said unloving/disrepectful?" and then trying to work on those issues. Trying to untie yourself from the cycle and try to discuss it in a calm and loving/respectful way.
The course also talked about the needs of men and women. I found that to be accurate as well. Women need face to face time. If you aren't looking at her, she thinks you aren't paying attention. Men need sholder to sholder time, he may not be talking but he appreciates the company.
The group was a church affiliated group, and the class was based off of http://www.loveandrespect.com/ There are Christian overtones but the basic message was men and women are different, here are ways they are different, and how to handle those differences.
So the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, but the 2nd is a collective right given to a group?
You claim the first clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", overrides the second which states "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So People references militia in this situtaion but when the same clause is used in the 4th amendment it refers to actual individuals?
I'm going to disagree with the notion that the people who enjoyed the right to bear personal arms, who saw such arms used in the defense of libery, would then limit their distribution to a subset of people deemed "the militia"
Its probably number two. They might care about politics, but lets face it, whether or not someone is politically outspoken has no effect on how to perform finite element analysis, Laplace transforms, or whether or not Newton's methods were good enough compared to Hamilton.
I grock, but that doesn't mean your wrong. The lectures they give are based on a contract work. That means that the copywrite belongs to the school. But the school is publicly funded. Meaning the copywrite should belong to the taxpayers. Grock?
Yeah, Gov. Blagovich and Lisa Madigan are wasting my dollars. With any luck he won't be in the Govenor's Mansion after the next election. Well he doesn't spend much time there anyway, I mean why live in the Govenor's Mansion when the state will pay for housing in Chicago.
But in Microsoft's anti-trust case, their monopoly was only defined to be on x86 based computers. So according to that precedent, Apple does indeed have a monopoly on PowerPC personal computers.
Well if Mitch Kapor doesn't remember Microsoft sabotaging Lotus, chances are they didn't. This is the guy who started Lotus, if Microsoft was trying to tank his company, I'm sure he'd remember.
As far as the other stuff, can't really comment, but apparently there was nothing actively going on against Lotus. It could have just been a fluke.
Not accept the jobs available - please tell me where all these jobs are????
This is easy to explain, not everyone would accept a job at the local McDonald's. The job is available, but to the person looking it might not be acceptable. The person could have had such a job in the past and not want to take it again. They might have a degree that they want use rather than flipping burgers for the time being. So it happens quite a bit.
The only monopoly that was brought into question was in the realm of desktop computing. Of the different architectures available, the two big ones are x86, and PowerPC. Microsoft controls the x86 market by a huge margin, and Apple controls the PowerPC market by a huge margin. So I think its a fair comparison. The ruling against Microsoft was just about x86 based personal computers, so doing the same against Apple on PowerPC is possible.
You mean when Gasse wanted millions upon millions to make BeOS the next version of Mac OS? If he hadn't tried to play hardball, Apple may have bought Be. They decided to buy NeXT instead.
No, I'm talking about the fact that Be was selling their OS to individuals to use on their Mac computers, both Apple Macs and clones. Apple yanked the clone contracts, changed the hardware specs and wouldn't release some of the information. Thats a pretty big bullet in the head if you ask me. The pulling the clones happened after Jobs came back, so not a direct affront to Be, but still a kick in the ass to someone who was trying to sell software for those machines. The other tactic, is a horrible abuse of their platform monopoly. They use the dominance in hardware to squeeze out the other software developer. These are the good guys?
I did read your post, I'm not considering jumping off a bridge. Sorry.
Hate to burst your bubble but Apple is a monopoly if you use the definition used against Microsoft. Microsoft was accused of a monopoly on x86 hardware. Apple is a monopoly on PPC hardware. Of course this doesn't count the big iron pushed by IBM for its servers.
Microsoft got sued by Be Inc. for using its monopoly to force it out of business. I always looked at it as this. The first BeBox ran on the same hardware as Macs. They then started selling the OS to put on your Mac. Apple said fuck you, and Be switched to the x86 platform, where it died. So Apple shot it in the head, it stumbled near Microsoft and died, now Microsoft gets the blame. I don't buy it. Where is the huge cry to get Apple crucified for its monopoly.
At least on Win2k and XP if you just type the name of the file, and its a registered type, it will open in the default application. So its actually easier than on OSX apparently.
Excellent, I've had a movie idea for the Star Trek Universe for awhile. Its simple basic galactic war.
The basic idea was that the Borg were tired of getting beaten by the Federation and everybody else in the Alpha and Beta quadrants. So they send fleets of cubes and everything else they've got. They start first with the Romulans and Klingons, moving towards the heart of the Alpha quadrant. Giant ship battles, ground warfare, the whole works.
In my mind this has always been a Section 31 movie. Unknown to the rest of Starfleet, Section 31 has its own fleet of ships, cloaking technology, everything that the Federation is supposed to not have.
But damnit I think this would make a great movie. It lets you kill some characters, redefine the polotical map of the galaxy, segues into a nice possibility for another show in a few years. I think it would work.
What part of his argument did you miss. He says its due to the fact that there are no large predators around to keep the population in check. Thats why humans have to step in and cull the herd.
One of the more addicting games I have played on the GC was Animal Crossing. My friends and I were talking about how cool it would be to have a Zelda game based on the Animal Crossing engine.
I pictured it like a Link to the Past, but with the new engine (which kinda reminded me of a 2.5D LTTP anyway with the land setup and stuff). My friends thought it would be a good game. The engine had the basics for a decent Zelda game; a good inventory system, character interaction with NPCs. The only thing needed would be a combat system incorporating magic and it'd be set.
I'd wait in line for days to buy it, but then again I loved playing a LTTP.
Don Herbert is his name, I believe. And yes he was an entertainer and not a true scientist. However he had bachelor degrees in English, and General Science. I'm guessing the General Science degree means like a high school science teacher level of science.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't tried the new one, but I've been running the consumer preview since it was released on an Acer netbook. It seems to run better than the previous Windows 7 home that was on it. I've also used Win8 on a Samsung Series 7 tablet. On the netbook, I don't really see a difference between it and previous versions of Windows. The Start screen works with the mouse and the Metro apps work like I would expect and the desktop apps are the same as Windows 7. On the tablet the touch interface takes some time to get used to. The swiping to switch between apps "feels" different. The Start screen works well and the metro apps are good for touch interface. The desktop interface works reasonably well with touch, but a stylus improves the experience.
Is it the Ford MyTouch which is royally screwed up or the Sync? I have the Sync in my Ford Fusion and it works great. I haven't had any problems with it since I bought it in 2010. If you look around they hired someone else to wrap a new UI on top of the system and it turned into a big cluster.
Ah, so there it is.
If only individual people are allowed these rights then newspaper editorial boards cannot endorse a candidate. Political parties as we know them are now defunct as well. Who gave them the power to speak in endorsement for the people? Does the DNC or RNC only get to speak if their chosen person won 100% of the primary vote?
Or do you mean to say that some corporations are special while others are not?
Although with that last statement I must somewhat agree with your point for unions. Some people who have their money taken have no say in the matter due to the work rules in some places, so that is unfair.
To say that an assemblage of people cannot pool their resources for speech borders on the absurd. To say that by filing the papers they have created an extra person is distorting the matter. A group of people assembled in common cause has the right to speak otherwise the very notion of assemblage is meaningless. One voice can be powerful, but a group with the same goal is much more powerful. Look at the Tea Party or OWS. What is the difference between these groups and the corporations? All have a vested interest in the politics and governance of the nation. All are collections of people, that may or may not agree with every single issue, but yet the larger bodies have the ability to speak, to spread their ideas, their goals. If someone does not like what the collective is saying they can leave it and disavow membership and then go about their business.
As far as speech backed by dollars, all speech is backed by dollars. As in everything the time I can take to rail on about an issue depends on my ability to pay for the needs to do so. Whether that is the food and drink to survive, the cardboard to write my message on, the computer and internet access to spread my message across the world, the printing press to make pamphlets, or the access to the radio spectrum to get my voice and image out to the people.
The question you seem to be asking is should groups who pool their resources and create much deeper pockets than any one person can be allowed to use that money for political speech. The answer has to be yes, because to deny that to one group creates an environment where some assemblies of people are more deserving of rights than others. What walks on four legs cannot be better than walks on two legs just because we say it is so.
Again, does the First Amendment apply to a group of people? I would have to say yes, otherwise what good is a peaceful assembly. Therefor it follows that corporations have the rights enshrined such as speech, press, and petition of government. The other rights enshrined speak to the people who make up such an assemblage.
BeOS was more or less dead by the time it even came near Microsoft. I dual booted it along with Win98, and it was a great OS, but Apple both before and after Jobs' return put a bullet it in its brain. They ported to x86 where it eventually died.
So blaming only Microsoft is a little slanted.
Love and Respect.
My wife and I went to a group that discussed successful marriages and the main theme was the difference between men and women. Women love, men respect; so when the woman wants love it can be hard for the man to provide that and vice versa.
It boils down to that when an argument happens the man feels disrectped by the woman's tone or actions and the man reciprocates by being colder and more distant; which further feeds the cycle. One of the example that was given was to take a diet book for example. If the woman gives a man a diet book he doesn't really care, because he doesn't see that as a slight. But that might not be the case if the man gave it to the woman; should could see that as an attack on her appearance, or a rejection of her for who she is right now. But if the woman were to keep pushing the book as opposed to leting the man do what he wanted with it, then that starts to come across as demanding and disrespectful of the man's decisions.
The solution was presented as being the bigger person and realizing whats happening. Saying "I'm sorry. Was what I said unloving/disrepectful?" and then trying to work on those issues. Trying to untie yourself from the cycle and try to discuss it in a calm and loving/respectful way.
The course also talked about the needs of men and women. I found that to be accurate as well. Women need face to face time. If you aren't looking at her, she thinks you aren't paying attention. Men need sholder to sholder time, he may not be talking but he appreciates the company.
The group was a church affiliated group, and the class was based off of http://www.loveandrespect.com/ There are Christian overtones but the basic message was men and women are different, here are ways they are different, and how to handle those differences.
Well Kahless was generated as Kirk thought he should look like. Since Kirk new smooth head klingons, Kahless was a smooth headed klingon.
So the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, but the 2nd is a collective right given to a group?
You claim the first clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", overrides the second which states "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So People references militia in this situtaion but when the same clause is used in the 4th amendment it refers to actual individuals?
I'm going to disagree with the notion that the people who enjoyed the right to bear personal arms, who saw such arms used in the defense of libery, would then limit their distribution to a subset of people deemed "the militia"
Its probably number two. They might care about politics, but lets face it, whether or not someone is politically outspoken has no effect on how to perform finite element analysis, Laplace transforms, or whether or not Newton's methods were good enough compared to Hamilton.
I grock, but that doesn't mean your wrong. The lectures they give are based on a contract work. That means that the copywrite belongs to the school. But the school is publicly funded. Meaning the copywrite should belong to the taxpayers. Grock?
Yeah, Gov. Blagovich and Lisa Madigan are wasting my dollars. With any luck he won't be in the Govenor's Mansion after the next election. Well he doesn't spend much time there anyway, I mean why live in the Govenor's Mansion when the state will pay for housing in Chicago.
I've applied for my share of engineering jobs, and the preferred format seems to be plain text, with .doc and then pdf. Take that however you want.
But in Microsoft's anti-trust case, their monopoly was only defined to be on x86 based computers. So according to that precedent, Apple does indeed have a monopoly on PowerPC personal computers.
Well if Mitch Kapor doesn't remember Microsoft sabotaging Lotus, chances are they didn't. This is the guy who started Lotus, if Microsoft was trying to tank his company, I'm sure he'd remember.
As far as the other stuff, can't really comment, but apparently there was nothing actively going on against Lotus. It could have just been a fluke.
Not accept the jobs available - please tell me where all these jobs are????
This is easy to explain, not everyone would accept a job at the local McDonald's. The job is available, but to the person looking it might not be acceptable. The person could have had such a job in the past and not want to take it again. They might have a degree that they want use rather than flipping burgers for the time being. So it happens quite a bit.
The only monopoly that was brought into question was in the realm of desktop computing. Of the different architectures available, the two big ones are x86, and PowerPC. Microsoft controls the x86 market by a huge margin, and Apple controls the PowerPC market by a huge margin. So I think its a fair comparison. The ruling against Microsoft was just about x86 based personal computers, so doing the same against Apple on PowerPC is possible.
You mean when Gasse wanted millions upon millions to make BeOS the next version of Mac OS? If he hadn't tried to play hardball, Apple may have bought Be. They decided to buy NeXT instead.
No, I'm talking about the fact that Be was selling their OS to individuals to use on their Mac computers, both Apple Macs and clones. Apple yanked the clone contracts, changed the hardware specs and wouldn't release some of the information. Thats a pretty big bullet in the head if you ask me. The pulling the clones happened after Jobs came back, so not a direct affront to Be, but still a kick in the ass to someone who was trying to sell software for those machines. The other tactic, is a horrible abuse of their platform monopoly. They use the dominance in hardware to squeeze out the other software developer. These are the good guys?
I did read your post, I'm not considering jumping off a bridge. Sorry.
Hate to burst your bubble but Apple is a monopoly if you use the definition used against Microsoft. Microsoft was accused of a monopoly on x86 hardware. Apple is a monopoly on PPC hardware. Of course this doesn't count the big iron pushed by IBM for its servers.
Microsoft got sued by Be Inc. for using its monopoly to force it out of business. I always looked at it as this. The first BeBox ran on the same hardware as Macs. They then started selling the OS to put on your Mac. Apple said fuck you, and Be switched to the x86 platform, where it died. So Apple shot it in the head, it stumbled near Microsoft and died, now Microsoft gets the blame. I don't buy it. Where is the huge cry to get Apple crucified for its monopoly.
At least on Win2k and XP if you just type the name of the file, and its a registered type, it will open in the default application. So its actually easier than on OSX apparently.
Excellent, I've had a movie idea for the Star Trek Universe for awhile. Its simple basic galactic war.
The basic idea was that the Borg were tired of getting beaten by the Federation and everybody else in the Alpha and Beta quadrants. So they send fleets of cubes and everything else they've got. They start first with the Romulans and Klingons, moving towards the heart of the Alpha quadrant. Giant ship battles, ground warfare, the whole works.
In my mind this has always been a Section 31 movie. Unknown to the rest of Starfleet, Section 31 has its own fleet of ships, cloaking technology, everything that the Federation is supposed to not have.
But damnit I think this would make a great movie. It lets you kill some characters, redefine the polotical map of the galaxy, segues into a nice possibility for another show in a few years. I think it would work.
What part of his argument did you miss. He says its due to the fact that there are no large predators around to keep the population in check. Thats why humans have to step in and cull the herd.
One of the more addicting games I have played on the GC was Animal Crossing. My friends and I were talking about how cool it would be to have a Zelda game based on the Animal Crossing engine.
I pictured it like a Link to the Past, but with the new engine (which kinda reminded me of a 2.5D LTTP anyway with the land setup and stuff). My friends thought it would be a good game. The engine had the basics for a decent Zelda game; a good inventory system, character interaction with NPCs. The only thing needed would be a combat system incorporating magic and it'd be set.
I'd wait in line for days to buy it, but then again I loved playing a LTTP.
Don Herbert is his name, I believe. And yes he was an entertainer and not a true scientist. However he had bachelor degrees in English, and General Science. I'm guessing the General Science degree means like a high school science teacher level of science.
Forgot the link http://msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/understanding/p illars/avalon/avnov04ctp/default.aspx
That link says nothing about OpenGL. In fact if you look around you find it say that Avalon is based on DirectX. Nice try but I read links like that.
And you have to be in administrator mode. Oh no, you mean if I log in as administrator the programs can do bad things.
If I logged on to linux as root and ran a program it could cause the same sort of problems