Would someone mind explaining why one is more evil than the other (apart from the massive corn lobby subsidies?)
It's actually pretty simple: your body can't digest sucrose as-is. It's too large a molecule. So it uses an enzyme called "sucrase" to break it up into sucrose and glucose. The catch is, your body can only manufacture and secrete sucrase so fast, so it limits how quickly your glucose and fructose blood levels spike. When you drink HFCS, you don't have this limitation.
So what? If you're some IT worker who knows "the fine details", then why would you give a shit about how much the licensing costs or that the company is getting screwed? It's not your money. Just do your job and collect your paycheck. If the company goes under because the decision-makers are idiots, go find another job.
Everyone has choice in the matter. The decision makers choose the vendor and agree to the contracts. The company owners choose the decision-makers. The IT workers have a choice whether to work there or not, or whether to go look for another job elsewhere.
Licensing per core is stupid, and frankly it should be illegal. What's next, different cost based on the amount of RAM installed? Higher cost if you haver a SATA 6 capable drive rather than SATA 3?
No, it shouldn't be illegal at all. What a stupid thing to say. Why should it be illegal? If you don't like it, then don't buy from that vendor.
Yes, I'd be happy to see them charge based on RAM, or SATA6 or whatever. I'd also like to see vendors like Microsoft and Oracle require customers to submit to surprise audits, which can happen at any time, no matter how disruptive to customer operations, and pay huge sums of money on the spot for any licensing violations found.
Again, if you don't like this, it's really simple: don't become customers of these companies.
Companies should have every right to treat their customers worse than dog shit. If customers continue to buy from these companies, then these customers deserve that treatment.
Of the four present members of The Rolling Stones, three (Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and Charlie Watts) were with the band since the beginning.
Yes, but at least one of them, Keith Richards, is dead. The others might be too, but Keith definitely is. He's still able to tour and perform just fine despite this.
Hopefully, it'll go really, really, really far. They should make their licensing as ridiculously and byzantinely complicated as possible, and then have draconian penalties for customers found to be out of compliance. They should also have routine, highly disruptive audits of customers to ensure compliance and assess ridiculous penalties for breaches.
What the bots (read: the people running the bots) do is not much different than a schoolyard bully elbowing his way into the lunch line ahead of you to grab the last couple of desserts that you wanted, and then offering to sell them to you at an inflated price.
I disagree, that's a bad analogy. It's more like the schoolyard bully getting to the line before you (without any elbowing or bad behavior at all, but maybe he can run faster), grabbing up all the desserts, and selling them to you at an inflated price. You should have gotten to the line faster.
The only argument I've found against this practice that really holds water is the idea that the performers want to keep tickets affordable so all their fans have a fair chance to attend, instead of jacking up the prices so only the wealthy fans can.
You can't prove the Quran wrong; that's completely ridiculous. It's not a scientific text, it's a history book along with some mystical mumbo-jumbo and a bunch of philosophy. The mystical crap can't be disproven unless you can build a time machine, and you can't "disprove" a philosophy. The only thing you can do is try to convince people it's a bad philosophy. But philosophies basically are by-products of cultures and their ethoses, and you can't just force change on a culture. The only thing you can do is separate yourself from a culture you find distasteful.
God help us all should that moron get into office.
But when compared against Trump. It's like what options are we left with.
Idiots to the left. Idiots to the right. And no one supporting America's true interest in sight.
We do have a great candidate available who isn't an idiot and supports America's true interests. His name is Bernie. Of course, all the morons on the right don't like him because he believes in "socialism" (though it's really the democratic socialism that Scandinavian and other European countries have, basically what we already have with Social Security and Medicare but on steroids), and many morons on the left don't like him because he's male, not a minority, or not rabidly anti-gun (Gore was rabidly anti-gun: look how that turned out for us).
Not necessarily. If you need to get the minerals to a refinery on the Moon, then it's easier to get them right there instead of chasing around asteroids. Now that's of course assuming the refinery is on the Moon instead of floating in space at the L1 or L2 point or something, but it seems like with our current technology it'd be a lot easier to build a smelter on the Moon instead of a free-floating one. A lot of industrial processes may not even be easily converted to zero-g operation, though I guess if you build a giant rotating station you might be able to get around that.
Ok, that doesn't help much when developers don't bother going through this process to make WP apps. Just look at the number of iOS apps versus WP apps.
Are you another one of these idiots who thinks that immortality means never dying? Here's a clue: this isn't like being a vampire. Heck even vampires die when people stake them. Ending aging just means no more age-related diseases or limited lifespans. You'll still die just as easily from car wrecks, plane crashes, and terrorist bullets. The other thing that'll go way up is suicides (people getting tired of living), along with accidents from recklessness: after 100-200 years, people won't be that afraid about pursuing dangerous sports like rock climbing.
Yeah, Blackberry tried all that. Supposedly Android apps actually work quite well on the latest BB phones. It isn't saving them, their company is dying.
WINE isn't a panacea for the migration of all those Windows gamers to Linux, why would running android apps on a windows phone be any different?
It won't. That's the problem with that approach. OS/2 did something kinda similar and it didn't exactly work out for them either.
The problem is more mindshare. There's just no incentive to go with a Windows phone. Android integrates with windows (kinda), though I don' t think many people do much other than copy pictures, movies or music back and forth. Apple has their own one-click ecosystem. Why should I go with a WinPhone? What does it give me that any other phone doesn't?
Live tiles!!! A horrible, ugly UI. Why wouldn't you want to buy one?
Face it, Windows Phone is doomed. They screwed up and missed the boat, so they might as well throw in the towel.
Blackberry is trying the "make Android apps work on our phone" strategy too; it's not working.
It is sheer desperation on part of people who need a reason to go to the moon. There really isn't one outside tourism.
Sure there is: manufacturing and mining. There probably isn't a lot of really valuable ore there, but there should be some not-very-valuable stuff that can be useful for constructing things that would be used either on the Moon, or in space (spaceship components). It'd be cheaper than lifting all that mass from the Earth, if you're doing a lot of construction for things destined for use offworld. Manufacturing can also be done there, for similar reasons: it has some gravity, which is helpful because most of our manufacturing processes require it, and it's a lot cheaper to lift mass off the Moon than the Earth since the gravity is so low and there's no annoying atmosphere.
Now obviously, this all depends on actually having a need for building a lot of stuff to be used offworld to begin with. But once that exists, there will be a reason to go to the Moon besides tourism.
In the meantime, tourism itself should be a pretty good driver for Moon transport. How many people would pay, say, $10k to take a week-long trip to the Moon? I sure would. If they could get the costs down to that, and build a nice hotel on the Moon for tourists to stay at, it'd be a profitable business I think. But of course it depends on getting costs way down and building up volume. Not many people can afford $10M to travel to the Moon as a tourist, but get it down to 5 figures and there's a lot more takers; get it down to 4 figures and countless middle-class people will be doing it.
iOS apps are written for a very tiny number of devices. Aren't they even written for specific screen resolutions? They're nothing like Android apps, where they need to be able to run on all kinds of different devices and screen sizes.
And finally, how exactly do you propose for WinPhone devices to connect to the Apple app store to download these apps? Apple sure as hell isn't going to allow that; they're more of a monopolist than Google is by far.
Exactly. I'm not even a Millenial, but actually *talking* on the phone is one of my lesser-used functions for the device. I spend more time using it for: 1) texting, 2) Tinder, 3) mapping (both Google Maps and OsmAnd), 4) taking photos, 5) internet browsing, 6) games, 7) calculator (RealCalc in RPN mode), 8) random apps (like a Gauss meter, compass, etc.), and 9) visual voicemail (I'm never going back to the shitty old voicemail where I have to press numbers to navigate and listen to audio prompts) than I do with actually talking on the thing.
No, they need to just throw in the towel. They were too late and missed the boat, and nothing's going to change that. The other two ecosystems have all the developer interest and consumer mindshare already, so it's like Linux vs. Windows on the desktop: no one wants to bother changing unless the incumbent gets SO bad that they're basically forced to. "Free stuff"? What are they going to do, give away the phones for free? Android is already dirt cheap and apps are largely free, so there really isn't anything the MS can do better here. Finally, the big differentiator like you said is the UX, and on Windows Phone, it's the pits. It's butt-ugly and weird with those stupid live tiles. There's a few weirdos who love it, but most people don't. The other platforms aren't that great either (since the whole flat-UI thing has taken over everywhere it seems), but MS's is the worst of the bunch easily, so they're definitely not going to get anyone to switch based on that. But even if they fixed that and came out with a UI/UX that everyone loved (haha, I have a hard time imagining that, MS UIs have never been very pretty), there's really no way for them to overcome all the inertia that Android and iOS have built up, and get all the app developers to switch.
Regular updates is a good feature, it's true, however you're seriously overestimating the wisdom of the masses. People just aren't that smart about things like that; they'll go for the cheap phone which seems to work well enough, and when the lack of updates shows itself to be a problem, they'll just get a new phone. You can get Android phones for $50 or less these days, and you can even get very nice models a year or two old on the used market for not much money. People don't see these things as an investment like you're thinking of. iPhone users probably do, because they frequently buy them new for absurd prices, but Android stuff is usually much cheaper, and involves a lot more churn. Go check out the prices of the small, cheap prepaid phones at Walmart.
Your plan is likely to only have appeal to the high-end buyers: the ones who buy iPhones and flagship Androids. But those people are already happy with and tied to those ecosystems. The low-end Android users don't think about this stuff and/or don't care, they just want cheap-but-works, and MS isn't likely to make much money in that market segment. In a nutshell, Microsoft missed the boat.
and they'll chew CPU because system calls won't be native
I disagree. WINE does basically the same thing: it translates Win32 system and library calls to Linux equivalents, and programs running under WINE, when they work correctly (meaning all the calls they do are fully implemented and done correctly) reportedly run at full speed, sometimes even faster than on Windows itself. Remember, you're not talking about emulation here, you're talking about ABI translation. And since Android apps are (usually) Java-based, they have to be decoded from bytecode anyway, no matter the platform.
because they'll use extra RAM hosting Windows plus an emulated Android environment
Yes, that could be a problem; it's not emulated as I said before, but you do need a translation layer there (since WinPhone apps don't use Java AFAIK) which will take up more RAM. WinPhones I think are usually lacking RAM too, compared to Android phones, so this could be a problem.
and probably the GUI will be slightly off
This will probably be a big problem; they just won't integrate well with WinPhone. People have complained about PC-based Java applications this way for ages, that they look out-of-place no matter what platform they're running on. The same happens with WINE applications: they don't normally look or work like the regular Linux applications. The same will probably happen with any Android apps, unless MS does a really good job figuring out how to mitigate this.
That will make Windows phones appear inferior. Windows phones would have to offer something else that users really wanted (like AD integration) to make people put up with poorer app performance.
Well, they are inferior. Even if you're of the opinion that the OS is better (which I disagree with: I think it's butt-ugly and I absolutely hate the whole live tile thing, though I'll admit that their devices do seem speedier than Android phones which seem to need a lot of horsepower to have a responsive UI, but I'd rather have a laggy UI than suffer with the ugly abomination that is Microsoft's latest UI), no computing platform is of much use unless it has the applications you want or need. No one should know this better than Microsoft themselves: it's the whole reason Windows has been so dominant for so long. It's not because of their crappy OS, it's the availability of applications which keeps people tied to the platform. Well this whole dynamic is what's biting them in the ass now: they missed out on being early enough to the party (unlike with Win95) and building dominance, so other platforms have become the popular ones, and they're left out. If people can't easily install and run their favorite popular apps, the platform is simply a non-starter. Everyone has their own favorite apps; for me, if a phone won't run Tinder, for instance, there's no way I'm going to waste my time with it.
There's no such thing as people not dying, so yes, it really is stupid. Stopping the aging process isn't going to stop people from getting killed in myriad ways: murder, car wrecks, skydiving accidents, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, airplane crashes, wars, etc.
My gear is perfectly fine: hiking boots. There's no way in hell I'm going to run around on rocks and branches barefoot; it's just idiotic. Nor would I hike in anything without proper ankle support; I'm already flatfooted and prone to sprained ankles. This barefoot craze is just plain stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Would someone mind explaining why one is more evil than the other (apart from the massive corn lobby subsidies?)
It's actually pretty simple: your body can't digest sucrose as-is. It's too large a molecule. So it uses an enzyme called "sucrase" to break it up into sucrose and glucose. The catch is, your body can only manufacture and secrete sucrase so fast, so it limits how quickly your glucose and fructose blood levels spike. When you drink HFCS, you don't have this limitation.
So what? If you're some IT worker who knows "the fine details", then why would you give a shit about how much the licensing costs or that the company is getting screwed? It's not your money. Just do your job and collect your paycheck. If the company goes under because the decision-makers are idiots, go find another job.
Everyone has choice in the matter. The decision makers choose the vendor and agree to the contracts. The company owners choose the decision-makers. The IT workers have a choice whether to work there or not, or whether to go look for another job elsewhere.
Licensing per core is stupid, and frankly it should be illegal. What's next, different cost based on the amount of RAM installed? Higher cost if you haver a SATA 6 capable drive rather than SATA 3?
No, it shouldn't be illegal at all. What a stupid thing to say. Why should it be illegal? If you don't like it, then don't buy from that vendor.
Yes, I'd be happy to see them charge based on RAM, or SATA6 or whatever. I'd also like to see vendors like Microsoft and Oracle require customers to submit to surprise audits, which can happen at any time, no matter how disruptive to customer operations, and pay huge sums of money on the spot for any licensing violations found.
Again, if you don't like this, it's really simple: don't become customers of these companies.
Companies should have every right to treat their customers worse than dog shit. If customers continue to buy from these companies, then these customers deserve that treatment.
Of the four present members of The Rolling Stones, three (Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and Charlie Watts) were with the band since the beginning.
Yes, but at least one of them, Keith Richards, is dead. The others might be too, but Keith definitely is. He's still able to tour and perform just fine despite this.
Hopefully, it'll go really, really, really far. They should make their licensing as ridiculously and byzantinely complicated as possible, and then have draconian penalties for customers found to be out of compliance. They should also have routine, highly disruptive audits of customers to ensure compliance and assess ridiculous penalties for breaches.
What the bots (read: the people running the bots) do is not much different than a schoolyard bully elbowing his way into the lunch line ahead of you to grab the last couple of desserts that you wanted, and then offering to sell them to you at an inflated price.
I disagree, that's a bad analogy. It's more like the schoolyard bully getting to the line before you (without any elbowing or bad behavior at all, but maybe he can run faster), grabbing up all the desserts, and selling them to you at an inflated price. You should have gotten to the line faster.
The only argument I've found against this practice that really holds water is the idea that the performers want to keep tickets affordable so all their fans have a fair chance to attend, instead of jacking up the prices so only the wealthy fans can.
You can't prove the Quran wrong; that's completely ridiculous. It's not a scientific text, it's a history book along with some mystical mumbo-jumbo and a bunch of philosophy. The mystical crap can't be disproven unless you can build a time machine, and you can't "disprove" a philosophy. The only thing you can do is try to convince people it's a bad philosophy. But philosophies basically are by-products of cultures and their ethoses, and you can't just force change on a culture. The only thing you can do is separate yourself from a culture you find distasteful.
God help us all should that moron get into office.
But when compared against Trump. It's like what options are we left with.
Idiots to the left. Idiots to the right. And no one supporting America's true interest in sight.
We do have a great candidate available who isn't an idiot and supports America's true interests. His name is Bernie. Of course, all the morons on the right don't like him because he believes in "socialism" (though it's really the democratic socialism that Scandinavian and other European countries have, basically what we already have with Social Security and Medicare but on steroids), and many morons on the left don't like him because he's male, not a minority, or not rabidly anti-gun (Gore was rabidly anti-gun: look how that turned out for us).
Not necessarily. If you need to get the minerals to a refinery on the Moon, then it's easier to get them right there instead of chasing around asteroids. Now that's of course assuming the refinery is on the Moon instead of floating in space at the L1 or L2 point or something, but it seems like with our current technology it'd be a lot easier to build a smelter on the Moon instead of a free-floating one. A lot of industrial processes may not even be easily converted to zero-g operation, though I guess if you build a giant rotating station you might be able to get around that.
I understand perfectly well. I've seen enough history to know that "me too!!" is rarely a successful business strategy.
I'm sure IBM thought this strategy would work just great with OS/2 as well.
Ok, that doesn't help much when developers don't bother going through this process to make WP apps. Just look at the number of iOS apps versus WP apps.
Are you another one of these idiots who thinks that immortality means never dying? Here's a clue: this isn't like being a vampire. Heck even vampires die when people stake them. Ending aging just means no more age-related diseases or limited lifespans. You'll still die just as easily from car wrecks, plane crashes, and terrorist bullets. The other thing that'll go way up is suicides (people getting tired of living), along with accidents from recklessness: after 100-200 years, people won't be that afraid about pursuing dangerous sports like rock climbing.
Not any more. "Extinguish" is what happens when this strategy works.
Now, it's "EEF": Embrace, Extend, Fail.
Yeah, Blackberry tried all that. Supposedly Android apps actually work quite well on the latest BB phones. It isn't saving them, their company is dying.
WINE isn't a panacea for the migration of all those Windows gamers to Linux, why would running android apps on a windows phone be any different?
It won't. That's the problem with that approach. OS/2 did something kinda similar and it didn't exactly work out for them either.
The problem is more mindshare. There's just no incentive to go with a Windows phone. Android integrates with windows (kinda), though I don' t think many people do much other than copy pictures, movies or music back and forth. Apple has their own one-click ecosystem. Why should I go with a WinPhone? What does it give me that any other phone doesn't?
Live tiles!!! A horrible, ugly UI. Why wouldn't you want to buy one?
Face it, Windows Phone is doomed. They screwed up and missed the boat, so they might as well throw in the towel.
Blackberry is trying the "make Android apps work on our phone" strategy too; it's not working.
It is sheer desperation on part of people who need a reason to go to the moon. There really isn't one outside tourism.
Sure there is: manufacturing and mining. There probably isn't a lot of really valuable ore there, but there should be some not-very-valuable stuff that can be useful for constructing things that would be used either on the Moon, or in space (spaceship components). It'd be cheaper than lifting all that mass from the Earth, if you're doing a lot of construction for things destined for use offworld. Manufacturing can also be done there, for similar reasons: it has some gravity, which is helpful because most of our manufacturing processes require it, and it's a lot cheaper to lift mass off the Moon than the Earth since the gravity is so low and there's no annoying atmosphere.
Now obviously, this all depends on actually having a need for building a lot of stuff to be used offworld to begin with. But once that exists, there will be a reason to go to the Moon besides tourism.
In the meantime, tourism itself should be a pretty good driver for Moon transport. How many people would pay, say, $10k to take a week-long trip to the Moon? I sure would. If they could get the costs down to that, and build a nice hotel on the Moon for tourists to stay at, it'd be a profitable business I think. But of course it depends on getting costs way down and building up volume. Not many people can afford $10M to travel to the Moon as a tourist, but get it down to 5 figures and there's a lot more takers; get it down to 4 figures and countless middle-class people will be doing it.
iOS apps are written for a very tiny number of devices. Aren't they even written for specific screen resolutions? They're nothing like Android apps, where they need to be able to run on all kinds of different devices and screen sizes.
And finally, how exactly do you propose for WinPhone devices to connect to the Apple app store to download these apps? Apple sure as hell isn't going to allow that; they're more of a monopolist than Google is by far.
Exactly. I'm not even a Millenial, but actually *talking* on the phone is one of my lesser-used functions for the device. I spend more time using it for: 1) texting, 2) Tinder, 3) mapping (both Google Maps and OsmAnd), 4) taking photos, 5) internet browsing, 6) games, 7) calculator (RealCalc in RPN mode), 8) random apps (like a Gauss meter, compass, etc.), and 9) visual voicemail (I'm never going back to the shitty old voicemail where I have to press numbers to navigate and listen to audio prompts) than I do with actually talking on the thing.
No, they need to just throw in the towel. They were too late and missed the boat, and nothing's going to change that. The other two ecosystems have all the developer interest and consumer mindshare already, so it's like Linux vs. Windows on the desktop: no one wants to bother changing unless the incumbent gets SO bad that they're basically forced to. "Free stuff"? What are they going to do, give away the phones for free? Android is already dirt cheap and apps are largely free, so there really isn't anything the MS can do better here. Finally, the big differentiator like you said is the UX, and on Windows Phone, it's the pits. It's butt-ugly and weird with those stupid live tiles. There's a few weirdos who love it, but most people don't. The other platforms aren't that great either (since the whole flat-UI thing has taken over everywhere it seems), but MS's is the worst of the bunch easily, so they're definitely not going to get anyone to switch based on that. But even if they fixed that and came out with a UI/UX that everyone loved (haha, I have a hard time imagining that, MS UIs have never been very pretty), there's really no way for them to overcome all the inertia that Android and iOS have built up, and get all the app developers to switch.
Regular updates is a good feature, it's true, however you're seriously overestimating the wisdom of the masses. People just aren't that smart about things like that; they'll go for the cheap phone which seems to work well enough, and when the lack of updates shows itself to be a problem, they'll just get a new phone. You can get Android phones for $50 or less these days, and you can even get very nice models a year or two old on the used market for not much money. People don't see these things as an investment like you're thinking of. iPhone users probably do, because they frequently buy them new for absurd prices, but Android stuff is usually much cheaper, and involves a lot more churn. Go check out the prices of the small, cheap prepaid phones at Walmart.
Your plan is likely to only have appeal to the high-end buyers: the ones who buy iPhones and flagship Androids. But those people are already happy with and tied to those ecosystems. The low-end Android users don't think about this stuff and/or don't care, they just want cheap-but-works, and MS isn't likely to make much money in that market segment. In a nutshell, Microsoft missed the boat.
and they'll chew CPU because system calls won't be native
I disagree. WINE does basically the same thing: it translates Win32 system and library calls to Linux equivalents, and programs running under WINE, when they work correctly (meaning all the calls they do are fully implemented and done correctly) reportedly run at full speed, sometimes even faster than on Windows itself. Remember, you're not talking about emulation here, you're talking about ABI translation. And since Android apps are (usually) Java-based, they have to be decoded from bytecode anyway, no matter the platform.
because they'll use extra RAM hosting Windows plus an emulated Android environment
Yes, that could be a problem; it's not emulated as I said before, but you do need a translation layer there (since WinPhone apps don't use Java AFAIK) which will take up more RAM. WinPhones I think are usually lacking RAM too, compared to Android phones, so this could be a problem.
and probably the GUI will be slightly off
This will probably be a big problem; they just won't integrate well with WinPhone. People have complained about PC-based Java applications this way for ages, that they look out-of-place no matter what platform they're running on. The same happens with WINE applications: they don't normally look or work like the regular Linux applications. The same will probably happen with any Android apps, unless MS does a really good job figuring out how to mitigate this.
That will make Windows phones appear inferior. Windows phones would have to offer something else that users really wanted (like AD integration) to make people put up with poorer app performance.
Well, they are inferior. Even if you're of the opinion that the OS is better (which I disagree with: I think it's butt-ugly and I absolutely hate the whole live tile thing, though I'll admit that their devices do seem speedier than Android phones which seem to need a lot of horsepower to have a responsive UI, but I'd rather have a laggy UI than suffer with the ugly abomination that is Microsoft's latest UI), no computing platform is of much use unless it has the applications you want or need. No one should know this better than Microsoft themselves: it's the whole reason Windows has been so dominant for so long. It's not because of their crappy OS, it's the availability of applications which keeps people tied to the platform. Well this whole dynamic is what's biting them in the ass now: they missed out on being early enough to the party (unlike with Win95) and building dominance, so other platforms have become the popular ones, and they're left out. If people can't easily install and run their favorite popular apps, the platform is simply a non-starter. Everyone has their own favorite apps; for me, if a phone won't run Tinder, for instance, there's no way I'm going to waste my time with it.
There's no such thing as people not dying, so yes, it really is stupid. Stopping the aging process isn't going to stop people from getting killed in myriad ways: murder, car wrecks, skydiving accidents, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, airplane crashes, wars, etc.
My gear is perfectly fine: hiking boots. There's no way in hell I'm going to run around on rocks and branches barefoot; it's just idiotic. Nor would I hike in anything without proper ankle support; I'm already flatfooted and prone to sprained ankles. This barefoot craze is just plain stupid.
The conservatives are the ones that usually have a lot more kids.