Something McAfee, Symantec and all other anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall/spam-filter companies should bear in mind,
if operating systems, applications and other software had been properly designed in the beginning these companies wouldn't exist. These aftermarket
companies are effectively parasites. Once the host changes significantly the parasites advantage is gone. Who can say Microsoft
is now to blame for not keeping them on the gravy train? It's would be true, however, to say that these aftermarket companies are in effect
and after the effect Q/A arm of Microsoft, which has doubtless helped fuel Microsoft's growth. If you're a corporate IT officer, would you
be comforted to know you only have one place to go for help now, and it's the company which releases extreme high priority bug fixes frequently?
Microsoft was overly optimistic about the true nature of people (they shouldn't as they've proven to be devils themselves), expecting
nobody would take advantage of flaws, like giving everyone effectively root on their computers, thus every application, including
malicious code. Further, they've been wonderful about hiding the true nature of what's running on your PC. I can see executables, but DLL's, why the
hell shouldn't I see those easily? Anything running on my computer should be visible, how else can I tell if there's something there which shouldn't be?
So, once again Microsoft attempts to get it right. Maybe they'll be closer to the mark this time. I don't care. XP was the last
operating system I'm ever buying from them and I don't pirate stuff. With Vista promising to be larger than ever, I don't think
it's the direction I want to go. As Michael Crichton implied in Jurassic Park, the more complex a system the more likely it
is to break down. I don't find the every growing Windows OS/Environment comforting. I'm also tired of the technology tax, I just want something to work, to be able to do mundane things
and play a few simple games when time affords. Good luck McAfee, Symantec and all the rest, it was overdue. Don't forget to send
your stockholders a "Thank You" for all the money they gave you.
Of course, if it all goes tits-up for Vista, Microsoft have nobody else to blame. Doesn't that at least warrant a warm, cozy feeling?
Think of it as a portable, wireless, hardware version of MySpace. With the Zune, Microsoft is trying to launch a consumer media 'perfect storm.'"
Start believing this and they won't see it coming, the day they discontinue some of these "features" because they just aren't that good and there's not enough demand for them. Like that ESPN Mobile thing that began it's death throes yesterday. Just give the people a portable music player that's easy to use and they'll be happy.
I don't see how the idea "had to be tried". If I had been sitting in a room full of people and they asked me if I thought it would score big numbers, I'd have laughed my ass off.
Undoubtably lots of people throughout history laughed their asses off before eventually saying, "well, damn, who'd a thunk it?!?" I think it had to be tried to see if people really would go for it. I remember a lot of skeptics about bottled water, but it sells and sells well. I think energy drinks are all marketing and bullshit, but they sell, too. Sometimes you simply have to put your money down and roll the dice.
You have to wonder what other mobile content is going to have to be rethought." "Ahead of its time" might be one take on this as well.
Honestly, when I first saw the option to watch a sporting event on a cellphone I had two thoughts:
1. Batter Life, my phone keeps shutting off the display after about 15 seconds of me not hitting a key. How much time on my battery
would I sacrifice to watch hours of baseball? Maybe highlights, but not 3-4 bloody hours.
2. What's happening? I can kinda make out the players, but I can't see the ball. Sports don't do much on close-up, but wide views, where detail
would be lost on a miniscule display
In the end, the idea had to be tried, but until people start opting for bigger phones, which is the opposite of the current trend, it just ain't gonna fly.
Radio, with decent announcers is still your best mobile bet, get an AM radio.
all those features kick ass. I shouldn't have bought my ipod yet. Nothing like an easy to use turnip twaddler made by apple.
Just remember to hide behind the door and have Milo or Binkley answer it, when Fed Ex tries to deliver 90 of them, claiming you're dead, sat on by a walrus or died from severe nose hemorroids.
It seems the alien invasion of the Earth has just started!
No.. it's really Richard Branson's newest Eco-Friendly transportation mode. See, we'll strap seats to
the backs of these giant
genetically modified insects and they'll run us or fly us anywhere we want to go. What could possibly go wrong?
microsoft europe strenuously denied it was a bug from their code, "ours are a few metres smaller."
So at around the same time for $250 you can either get an also-ran music player or a brand-new game console. Zounds to me like they are going to lose a lot of tech geek sales.
Zounds... now why didn't they use that name?
Yeah, the money thing. You've also got new games and videos all coming shortly, in time for the holiday debt encumbering season.
As an Apple user, I'm all for this. A REAL competitor in the mp3 player market means that Apple has to "innovate" something cooler in order to stay on the top. I'd like to see a wide-screen iPod by the end of the year.:D
Yeah, that's what we'll likely see, pointless innovation for the sake of innovation, the next gen will probably have
a color LED projector so we can watch videos on a sheet of paper, wall, etc.
Next MP3 player won't be one of these, I'll get something cheep, like that little jobby that works with a USB drive, which i can then plug into the new generation of car stereos with USB. Hoo Hah!
From TFA
"If you're going to build a spaceship, you've got to build a green spaceship," Branson said, adding that the carbon dioxide output from a single spaceflight is on par with those of a business class seat aboard commercial aircraft.
So we're now in the business of believing everything he says rather than doing the simple math ourselves? No wonder he's a billionaire and we're just pottering around until our pensions.
Flying up to 60,000 ft then riding a rocket spewing nitrogen oxides and carbon/sulfur soot-laced exhaust is not going to pollute more than a ride in a Gulfstream IV?
Maybe his private jet runs on old car tyres, thus disposing of them and fueling his craft at the same time.
The way I see it Fuel_take_off_from_land(Launch_Vehicle,Rocket) + Fuel_lauch_flight_and_land(Rocket) + Fuel_return_and_land(Launch_Vehicle) must be very efficient or his personal jet really is in desperate need of a refit.
More like they latch this bugger onto a jet, take off with it and then launch the space ship from it. Can't say that sounds as efficient an ordinary old business class jet.
Tell me this thing doesn't put you in mind of a big cartoon dog.
Space ships for a few high-flying thrill seeking, rich tourists, from the man who just pledged 3 Billion $ to reduce jet emissions and
fight global warming? How much more junk will these rockets put in the atmosphere? Maybe he's just following up his good karma with the
balancing karma?
Not that I RTFA, but I'm guessing the "Group Fighting Politicizing Science and Engineering" is all for pushing as much gloabal warming legislation thru as possible.
And that's a bad thing? How about actually evaluating the merits of each as they come? One thing the US is a long way from is building out communities along the lines of minimising long term dependence on petroleum. Fly over rural farming communities and notice how many houses are way the heck out there by themselves, thus requiring roads (and eventual road maintenance) and all that travel. We truly enjoy our space, but it can be a burden...
Hotter atmosphere == Holds more humidity. In case you never were educated on the subject, the majority of precipitation occurs where warm, moisture laden air encounters cooler air and cannot maintain that content of moisture, hence rain or snow. Changing air temperatures are already causing droughts, not just in sub-saharan Africa.
Sea levels may rise, but it will take 100+ years for it to have a major impact.
That was the old estimate, now they are saying 50 or less. Keep in mind, it's not linear, but a curve with an increasing slope.
Mass extinction could happen, but making it a major topic for debate would be a waste of time.
Sadly the extinction of species won't be considered a problem until it's too late to do anything about it. People may adopt the stance, "eh, we'll just preserve the DNA and clone these things later." The real problem is in lack of understanding in how the extinction of some species of frog may increase the population of mosquitoes, or a certain fungus keeping another in check is suddenly on the back foot and the one kept in check all these millenia is now killing crops because they can't adapt fast enough.
Famine doesn't seem to be a problem for US voters anytime soon either. While there are people in the world experiencing famine, voters in the US and elsewhere typically give priority to domestic problems.
Famine is beginning. Already parts of the US are suffering disruptions in normal weather patterns upon which agriculture depends. This land, suitable for corn, wheat, soy, etc. for hundreds of years, may suddenly be less suitable. Then what?
The facts have a well known liberal bias. We can't have bias in science, therefore we should ignore the facts (and also disregard reality, since we know reality to have a liberal bias as well)
When waters rise, lands dry up and people start screaming about who is going to pay for this, the facts, liberal or conservative, will be irrelevant. I do believe the majority of cities (which tend to be more liberal) which are at risk to flooding from rising seas will assert a new reality on Washington DC (what parts of it remain above the Potomac and Atlantic.)
Slashdot Mirror
Something McAfee, Symantec and all other anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall/spam-filter companies should bear in mind, if operating systems, applications and other software had been properly designed in the beginning these companies wouldn't exist. These aftermarket companies are effectively parasites. Once the host changes significantly the parasites advantage is gone. Who can say Microsoft is now to blame for not keeping them on the gravy train? It's would be true, however, to say that these aftermarket companies are in effect and after the effect Q/A arm of Microsoft, which has doubtless helped fuel Microsoft's growth. If you're a corporate IT officer, would you be comforted to know you only have one place to go for help now, and it's the company which releases extreme high priority bug fixes frequently?
Microsoft was overly optimistic about the true nature of people (they shouldn't as they've proven to be devils themselves), expecting nobody would take advantage of flaws, like giving everyone effectively root on their computers, thus every application, including malicious code. Further, they've been wonderful about hiding the true nature of what's running on your PC. I can see executables, but DLL's, why the hell shouldn't I see those easily? Anything running on my computer should be visible, how else can I tell if there's something there which shouldn't be?
So, once again Microsoft attempts to get it right. Maybe they'll be closer to the mark this time. I don't care. XP was the last operating system I'm ever buying from them and I don't pirate stuff. With Vista promising to be larger than ever, I don't think it's the direction I want to go. As Michael Crichton implied in Jurassic Park, the more complex a system the more likely it is to break down. I don't find the every growing Windows OS/Environment comforting. I'm also tired of the technology tax, I just want something to work, to be able to do mundane things and play a few simple games when time affords. Good luck McAfee, Symantec and all the rest, it was overdue. Don't forget to send your stockholders a "Thank You" for all the money they gave you.
Of course, if it all goes tits-up for Vista, Microsoft have nobody else to blame. Doesn't that at least warrant a warm, cozy feeling?
That would be... um... oh yeah, an iPod.
I'm just waiting for the news story to break, how someone hacked into Paris Hilton's Zune and copied all her favourite songs.
Like, I fell so totally violated, you know?
Think of it as a portable, wireless, hardware version of MySpace. With the Zune, Microsoft is trying to launch a consumer media 'perfect storm.'"
Start believing this and they won't see it coming, the day they discontinue some of these "features" because they just aren't that good and there's not enough demand for them. Like that ESPN Mobile thing that began it's death throes yesterday. Just give the people a portable music player that's easy to use and they'll be happy.
I don't see how the idea "had to be tried". If I had been sitting in a room full of people and they asked me if I thought it would score big numbers, I'd have laughed my ass off.
Undoubtably lots of people throughout history laughed their asses off before eventually saying, "well, damn, who'd a thunk it?!?" I think it had to be tried to see if people really would go for it. I remember a lot of skeptics about bottled water, but it sells and sells well. I think energy drinks are all marketing and bullshit, but they sell, too. Sometimes you simply have to put your money down and roll the dice.
Soviet Russia... East Germany... same difference.
Well, comrade, in Soviet Russia it was a Cagey Bee, which is an insect and therefore a Bug.
Someone was hit by a blimp?
And here's the wreckage./p
You have to wonder what other mobile content is going to have to be rethought." "Ahead of its time" might be one take on this as well.
Honestly, when I first saw the option to watch a sporting event on a cellphone I had two thoughts:
In the end, the idea had to be tried, but until people start opting for bigger phones, which is the opposite of the current trend, it just ain't gonna fly. Radio, with decent announcers is still your best mobile bet, get an AM radio.
Or we can plant a thumper (they are attracted to rythmic vibrations), and use hooks and ropes to climb to the tops of their backs.
I heard that was one of the possible scenarios for after privatising the tube*
* London underground
all those features kick ass. I shouldn't have bought my ipod yet. Nothing like an easy to use turnip twaddler made by apple.
Just remember to hide behind the door and have Milo or Binkley answer it, when Fed Ex tries to deliver 90 of them, claiming you're dead, sat on by a walrus or died from severe nose hemorroids.
Re:Ich fur ein...... Willkommen unsere neuen Insekt overlords
In Soviet Russia Google Maps bug YOU!
It seems the alien invasion of the Earth has just started!
No.. it's really Richard Branson's newest Eco-Friendly transportation mode. See, we'll strap seats to the backs of these giant genetically modified insects and they'll run us or fly us anywhere we want to go. What could possibly go wrong?
microsoft europe strenuously denied it was a bug from their code, "ours are a few metres smaller."
So at around the same time for $250 you can either get an also-ran music player or a brand-new game console. Zounds to me like they are going to lose a lot of tech geek sales.
Zounds... now why didn't they use that name?
Yeah, the money thing. You've also got new games and videos all coming shortly, in time for the holiday debt encumbering season.
As an Apple user, I'm all for this. A REAL competitor in the mp3 player market means that Apple has to "innovate" something cooler in order to stay on the top. I'd like to see a wide-screen iPod by the end of the year. :D
Yeah, that's what we'll likely see, pointless innovation for the sake of innovation, the next gen will probably have
Actaully... naw... well, maybe...
Next MP3 player won't be one of these, I'll get something cheep, like that little jobby that works with a USB drive, which i can then plug into the new generation of car stereos with USB. Hoo Hah!
100 million degrees Celsius for nearly three seconds.
I think someone needs a CoolerMaster for that one!
bad news, the coolermaster consumed all the net energy
For those with more money than common sense.
200K for "several minutes" in space? Sorry, I'll wait until 2010 for Bigelow's space hotel.Yes, but imagine the fun you will have watching other rich people having space sickness, nausea and vomiting in 0 G!!!
someone doesn't chew their food properly...
From TFA
"If you're going to build a spaceship, you've got to build a green spaceship," Branson said, adding that the carbon dioxide output from a single spaceflight is on par with those of a business class seat aboard commercial aircraft.
So we're now in the business of believing everything he says rather than doing the simple math ourselves? No wonder he's a billionaire and we're just pottering around until our pensions.
And along with them goes all strongly progressive coastal areas. No wonder the Republicans don't care about global warming.
Ah, but it's a way to lose Florida. In more ways than one.
Quite a lot of Texas, too, IIRC.
You've got to admit, though, that Rove did such a good job of fool people that he got the ball rolling, where people now go on fooling themselves.
Flying up to 60,000 ft then riding a rocket spewing nitrogen oxides and carbon/sulfur soot-laced exhaust is not going to pollute more than a ride in a Gulfstream IV?
Maybe his private jet runs on old car tyres, thus disposing of them and fueling his craft at the same time.
The way I see it Fuel_take_off_from_land(Launch_Vehicle,Rocket) + Fuel_lauch_flight_and_land(Rocket) + Fuel_return_and_land(Launch_Vehicle) must be very efficient or his personal jet really is in desperate need of a refit.
So, they aren't going to pollute much at all.
FTA: Launched from 60,000 feet.
I don't suppose they're lauching these ships by these energy friendly means.
More like they latch this bugger onto a jet, take off with it and then launch the space ship from it. Can't say that sounds as efficient an ordinary old business class jet.
Tell me this thing doesn't put you in mind of a big cartoon dog.
Space ships for a few high-flying thrill seeking, rich tourists, from the man who just pledged 3 Billion $ to reduce jet emissions and fight global warming? How much more junk will these rockets put in the atmosphere? Maybe he's just following up his good karma with the balancing karma?
Not that I RTFA, but I'm guessing the "Group Fighting Politicizing Science and Engineering" is all for pushing as much gloabal warming legislation thru as possible.
And that's a bad thing? How about actually evaluating the merits of each as they come? One thing the US is a long way from is building out communities along the lines of minimising long term dependence on petroleum. Fly over rural farming communities and notice how many houses are way the heck out there by themselves, thus requiring roads (and eventual road maintenance) and all that travel. We truly enjoy our space, but it can be a burden...
Hotter atmosphere == Holds more humidity. In case you never were educated on the subject, the majority of precipitation occurs where warm, moisture laden air encounters cooler air and cannot maintain that content of moisture, hence rain or snow. Changing air temperatures are already causing droughts, not just in sub-saharan Africa.
Sea levels may rise, but it will take 100+ years for it to have a major impact.
That was the old estimate, now they are saying 50 or less. Keep in mind, it's not linear, but a curve with an increasing slope.
Mass extinction could happen, but making it a major topic for debate would be a waste of time.
Sadly the extinction of species won't be considered a problem until it's too late to do anything about it. People may adopt the stance, "eh, we'll just preserve the DNA and clone these things later." The real problem is in lack of understanding in how the extinction of some species of frog may increase the population of mosquitoes, or a certain fungus keeping another in check is suddenly on the back foot and the one kept in check all these millenia is now killing crops because they can't adapt fast enough.
Famine doesn't seem to be a problem for US voters anytime soon either. While there are people in the world experiencing famine, voters in the US and elsewhere typically give priority to domestic problems.
Famine is beginning. Already parts of the US are suffering disruptions in normal weather patterns upon which agriculture depends. This land, suitable for corn, wheat, soy, etc. for hundreds of years, may suddenly be less suitable. Then what?
The facts have a well known liberal bias. We can't have bias in science, therefore we should ignore the facts (and also disregard reality, since we know reality to have a liberal bias as well)
When waters rise, lands dry up and people start screaming about who is going to pay for this, the facts, liberal or conservative, will be irrelevant. I do believe the majority of cities (which tend to be more liberal) which are at risk to flooding from rising seas will assert a new reality on Washington DC (what parts of it remain above the Potomac and Atlantic.)