It's only tangentially related, but TFA reminds me of a (supposedly true) story I once read about a man who found a plaque bearing the initials "H.W.H." The plaque was in such a prominent position that he assumed it must have been dedicated to a very important person in the town's history. He spent YEARS in the library, poring over records dating back into the 1800's, but wasn't able to find anything. Finally, out of desperation, he placed an ad in the newspaper, requesting assistance in identifying the mysterious "H.W.H." The very next day, he was called upon by a younger gentleman who kindly informed him that his father, in fact, had been one of the people who installed the underground hot water heater.
To clarify... the article says:
The poll revealed that 39% of those intending to move over to Vista planned to upgrade their existing computer so it would meet Vista requirements, 35% planned to buy a new computer with Vista preinstalled, 17% planned to purchase a new "Vista-ready" computer, and 8% said that they would install Vista on their existing computer without any upgrade. But the meaning of these numbers depends a lot on how the questions were asked. If you ask these questions:
1) Do you plan to upgrade to Vista? 2) If so, how do you plan to upgrade?... then you'll get very different answers from the following:
1) Do you plan to buy a new computer? 2) If so, which manufacturer do you plan to buy from?
The phrasing of the article (focusing on "Vista-aware respondents") indicates that the numbers aren't a good indication of how many people will actually be upgrading. Tons of people who don't know about Vista will definitely be upgrading, whether they plan to or not.
Their heads are in the clouds on this one. This project will never fly. I bet it stalls and they never get it off the ground. It simply flies in the face of reason. That said, the sky's the limit when it comes to technological fantasy.
Yes, but the people currently using XP wouldn't ever upgrade. They also couldn't sell all their enterprise applications that will inevitably based on Vista. Microsoft's business is far broader than just Windows, but Windows provides leverage for many of their other products. Sales for one means sales for the other.
I don't think Microsoft has much reason to be chuckling at all...
They're increasing their install base for Vista. Eventually that will translate into forced upgrades for everyone else. They have plenty to be happy about -- it's just not as immediate as they might wish for.
I'm not an expert on OS adoption, but I imagine it working out something like this:
1) Microsoft pushes Vista onto all new machines sold, creating an install base 2) Developers start creating applications targeted at the install base. Some of these applications are Vista-only. Some of these applications are also created by Microsoft themselves, such as new versions of Office, etc. 3) Motivated by a desire to run the Vista-only applications, users upgrade from XP to Vista.
It seems that simply replacing XP with Vista in new PCs will eventually generate demand for upgrades. It hasn't really happened yet, but I'd expect it to go that way before long. Just because people aren't rushing out to buy Vista doesn't mean it won't be successful in the long run.
Consumers don't have to rationalize buying Vista. If they're buying a new computer, they don't have a choice. A telling quote from the article:
Microsoft declined to break out the number of Vista copies sold at retail, though it has said in the past that 80 percent of Windows revenue comes from sales to PC makers.
Eventually we'll all (those of us running Windows) upgrade, but my sense of things right now is that most XP users are waiting until software availability forces the upgrade.
But given that the personal computer market has nearly doubled since XP launched, Vista sales "probably should be more," said Michael Silver, vice president of research at Gartner, a technology research group.
In summary: computer sales up; consumers forced to adopt Vista. Microsoft chuckles gleefully.
What if Coke sued you because you bought a Pepsi? What if AMD sued you because you bought an Intel chip?
That's not quite the right analogy. It's more like if you were deciding between Coke and Pepsi, and told both companies that you'd be selecting on the basis of taste. Suppose now that Pepsi's research shows that people strongly prefer Pepsi over Coke -- but you choose Coke anyway. That's sort of what's going on here.
That said, as I noted in my other post, I don't understand where the actual legal issue is in all this.
Initially, I thought, "Oh, well they must be accusing Mass. of some impropriety, like taking a bribe or something."
But no. From TFA:
"Weisberg said the company is not alleging any improprieties by the secretary of state's office. Instead, it is saying the office acted in good faith but made a mistake in the selection."
If it's not an issue of impropriety, then what's the legal basis for the suit? Any lawyers out there who can shed some light on this?
The alleged "gaming addict" is just a gaming enthusiast who takes his or her gaming enjoyment to an extreme, but that doesn't make it a medical condition unless you are eager to find medical conditions in everything.
Unless you think that the part of us that gets addicted to gaming is somehow dictated by something other than biological processes, gaming addiction clearly is a medical condition. In fact, you'll find many studies to confirm that just about every form of addiction has a similar impact on neurological receptors. Gambling and cocaine stimulate the same reward centers. Therefore, medical solutions for drug addiction may be applicable to addictions to "enjoyment" as you call it.
Your argument implies that drug addictions are somehow more "real" than other forms of addiction, which IMO is a great disservice to people who do suffer with such addictions. If you doubt me, try asking someone with an eating disorder about the impact it's had on their life. I think you'll find that their experience is far from "enjoyable."
That's what every scientific study suggests: "more studies should be done on this topic."
The alternative conclusion, "this is a dead-end field, and I believe our funding should be cut," seems to be strangely unpopular.
No, the alternate conclusion that Slashdot is up in arms about is, "Our study is definitive." Which of course it isn't, nor does it claim to be. 80% of the posts in this topic are based either on poor reading comprehension or lack of reading altogether.
The correct response is "this is interesting, and important. We need to do a more careful study to see if this effect is real and if so, investigate the mechanisms."
Which is, in fact, precisely what the authors themselves suggest. Unfortunately, most people posting on this topic won't ever understand that, because it would require RTFA -- or at least the conclusion, found on p. 40 of the paper.
So basically you are a flunky who makes a living from the patent industry.
Let me get this straight: if somebody writes code for 30 years, that makes them "experienced" and entitled to an opinion. But if I work for a law firm, that makes me a "flunky."
Slashdot Mirror
Straw man -- the URL is completely irrelevant. Either the laws cited on that page are accurate, or they're not. I'm not quoting a position paper.
And yet you can still buy a firearm at a gun show in Florida with no background check, and police must destroy records on gun sales within 48 hours and are prohibited from maintaining gun sale records that could be used for gun tracing and criminal investigations.
What THE HELL is wrong with this country???
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=h.w.h.+%22hot +water+heater%22&btnG=Search
It's only tangentially related, but TFA reminds me of a (supposedly true) story I once read about a man who found a plaque bearing the initials "H.W.H." The plaque was in such a prominent position that he assumed it must have been dedicated to a very important person in the town's history. He spent YEARS in the library, poring over records dating back into the 1800's, but wasn't able to find anything. Finally, out of desperation, he placed an ad in the newspaper, requesting assistance in identifying the mysterious "H.W.H." The very next day, he was called upon by a younger gentleman who kindly informed him that his father, in fact, had been one of the people who installed the underground hot water heater.
1) Do you plan to upgrade to Vista?
2) If so, how do you plan to upgrade?
1) Do you plan to buy a new computer?
2) If so, which manufacturer do you plan to buy from?
The phrasing of the article (focusing on "Vista-aware respondents") indicates that the numbers aren't a good indication of how many people will actually be upgrading. Tons of people who don't know about Vista will definitely be upgrading, whether they plan to or not.
Seriously... probably a more appropriate question would have been "How many of you intend to buy a new computer in the next 12 months?"
I'd hate to see what happens when you get a BSOD.
oops, I meant to say "20 minutes," not "20 miles." Obviously I'd be making a different point in that case. :P
People who stay indoors 20 minutes are no more likely to become recluses.
People who jog 20 miles are no more likely to become marathon runners.
People who write for 20 minutes are no more likely to become stenographers.
[insert any number of similarly pointless conclusions here]
Their heads are in the clouds on this one. This project will never fly. I bet it stalls and they never get it off the ground. It simply flies in the face of reason. That said, the sky's the limit when it comes to technological fantasy.
Yep, it's still on:
i es.jhtml
http://www.cmt.com/shows/dyn/dukes_of_hazzard/ser
There's an evolution joke involving Daisy Duke in here somewhere...
Pretty soon it'll be scratching its ass, chain-smoking, and watching reruns of Dukes of Hazzard on late-night TV. Won't that be impressive!
Yes, but the people currently using XP wouldn't ever upgrade. They also couldn't sell all their enterprise applications that will inevitably based on Vista. Microsoft's business is far broader than just Windows, but Windows provides leverage for many of their other products. Sales for one means sales for the other.
I don't think Microsoft has much reason to be chuckling at all...
They're increasing their install base for Vista. Eventually that will translate into forced upgrades for everyone else. They have plenty to be happy about -- it's just not as immediate as they might wish for.
I'm not an expert on OS adoption, but I imagine it working out something like this:
1) Microsoft pushes Vista onto all new machines sold, creating an install base
2) Developers start creating applications targeted at the install base. Some of these applications are Vista-only. Some of these applications are also created by Microsoft themselves, such as new versions of Office, etc.
3) Motivated by a desire to run the Vista-only applications, users upgrade from XP to Vista.
It seems that simply replacing XP with Vista in new PCs will eventually generate demand for upgrades. It hasn't really happened yet, but I'd expect it to go that way before long. Just because people aren't rushing out to buy Vista doesn't mean it won't be successful in the long run.
Consumers don't have to rationalize buying Vista. If they're buying a new computer, they don't have a choice. A telling quote from the article:
Microsoft declined to break out the number of Vista copies sold at retail, though it has said in the past that 80 percent of Windows revenue comes from sales to PC makers.
Eventually we'll all (those of us running Windows) upgrade, but my sense of things right now is that most XP users are waiting until software availability forces the upgrade.
But given that the personal computer market has nearly doubled since XP launched, Vista sales "probably should be more," said Michael Silver, vice president of research at Gartner, a technology research group.
In summary: computer sales up; consumers forced to adopt Vista. Microsoft chuckles gleefully.
What four-letter word best describes what this technology will be used to access?
"data"
What?
What if Coke sued you because you bought a Pepsi? What if AMD sued you because you bought an Intel chip?
That's not quite the right analogy. It's more like if you were deciding between Coke and Pepsi, and told both companies that you'd be selecting on the basis of taste. Suppose now that Pepsi's research shows that people strongly prefer Pepsi over Coke -- but you choose Coke anyway. That's sort of what's going on here.
That said, as I noted in my other post, I don't understand where the actual legal issue is in all this.
Initially, I thought, "Oh, well they must be accusing Mass. of some impropriety, like taking a bribe or something."
But no. From TFA:
"Weisberg said the company is not alleging any improprieties by the secretary of state's office. Instead, it is saying the office acted in good faith but made a mistake in the selection."
If it's not an issue of impropriety, then what's the legal basis for the suit? Any lawyers out there who can shed some light on this?
The alleged "gaming addict" is just a gaming enthusiast who takes his or her gaming enjoyment to an extreme, but that doesn't make it a medical condition unless you are eager to find medical conditions in everything.
Unless you think that the part of us that gets addicted to gaming is somehow dictated by something other than biological processes, gaming addiction clearly is a medical condition. In fact, you'll find many studies to confirm that just about every form of addiction has a similar impact on neurological receptors. Gambling and cocaine stimulate the same reward centers. Therefore, medical solutions for drug addiction may be applicable to addictions to "enjoyment" as you call it.
Your argument implies that drug addictions are somehow more "real" than other forms of addiction, which IMO is a great disservice to people who do suffer with such addictions. If you doubt me, try asking someone with an eating disorder about the impact it's had on their life. I think you'll find that their experience is far from "enjoyable."
More proof that alcohol is bad, kids: if you drink, you don't get a Wii.
To the contrary, I find that the more I drink, the more I Wii.
That's what every scientific study suggests: "more studies should be done on this topic."
The alternative conclusion, "this is a dead-end field, and I believe our funding should be cut," seems to be strangely unpopular.
No, the alternate conclusion that Slashdot is up in arms about is, "Our study is definitive." Which of course it isn't, nor does it claim to be. 80% of the posts in this topic are based either on poor reading comprehension or lack of reading altogether.
The correct response is "this is interesting, and important. We need to do a more careful study to see if this effect is real and if so, investigate the mechanisms."
Which is, in fact, precisely what the authors themselves suggest. Unfortunately, most people posting on this topic won't ever understand that, because it would require RTFA -- or at least the conclusion, found on p. 40 of the paper.
So basically you are a flunky who makes a living from the patent industry.
Let me get this straight: if somebody writes code for 30 years, that makes them "experienced" and entitled to an opinion. But if I work for a law firm, that makes me a "flunky."
That's not only insulting, it's also absurd.