Just shows that KDE made the wrong decision. Not technically mind you, just the wrong release decision.
When you have to go back and justify your actions, that means you did something wrong in the eyes of the consumer. If you continually find yourself doing this, you're going to have an uphill battle.
While plasma is nascent technology, I think everyone sees it as cool.
I think starting with a port of KDE to Qt4 would have been the best idea. It would have provided a crucial step between designs and shown off Qt4's improvements over Qt3. Then with everything ported release 4.0. Then in 4.0 deliver a beta of Plasma and/or a release of Plasma in 4.1. There was absolutely no need to ever include plasma. Plasma is based off the QGraphicsView class. At the time Plasma was started and even up until the 1st release, you could not put a widget in the GraphicsView. This should have been a show stopper, or at least a "wait for" feature before Plasma was forced on people. That one feature should have made it clear - port to Qt4 and release as 4.0. But that's not what happened.
Still we have KDE saying "no, we're right" despite the various criticisms. If KDE really listed to their users they'd say "we're changing our release policy to a user-centric one"
Disclaimer: KDE is my favorite desktop, I only have interest in it succeeding, and that is why I am critical of it. But I realize that the user, not the code is the most important factor.
The bolt-on technology should have come second. It is completely optional. It should have been separated out like Aero is from Vista.
I thought as KDE eV president he was the man responsible. I stand corrected. You are to blame.:-)
KDE is my favorite desktop, and I think you're doing great work. I don't take issue with any of that. I just take issue with the release cycle/version numbering. I would not have released a 4.0 without the KDE killer app - KOffice - ported and ready to go. Did MS release Win95 separate from Office? No. What good is a platform release if none of the major apps are ready? Why upgrade?
Even though you might be right - I've heard it was to more or less endorse the libs as stable - the public expectation is that it'll be all of 3.5 and more. It wasn't so you experience this backlash. Customer expectations were not properly managed, and customer expectations were strong in thinking that 4.0 would be all of 3.5 with apps.
I used to run the latest and greatest KDE, but if this continues, I'm not running 4.x until you start work on 5.0. And other than defecting to gnome, that's the worst that could happen. I hope you understand that my interest is just in KDE succeeding.
With the way Aaron is running the show, every one will have to wait for 4.5 for it to be as good as 3.5.
Call be naive, but I and everyone else I know expect feature completeness at a.0 replease, not API completeness. And KDE 4.0 was not even API complete. Plasma continues to be re-worked.
Aaron is a hell of a developer, but he is no project manager. He can't see the forest through the trees. Anyone who is in charge of a project like he is should not be coding. He should be focusing on user experience (regression testing, and making sure the platform is feature complete) and not libraries. It's a typical developer-turned-manager mistake.
Aaron, I do respect you and wish you the best. But you really bumbled 4.0 and it looks like 4.1 is going the same way.
There was no much water on the moon, it had whalers, but no whales. (We're whalers on the moon, We carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales So we tell tall tales And sing our whaling tune.)
Now moon sand worms are choking the water supply off. However these worms, when they die turn into a valued flavoring substance.
We all must write our senators and congressmen (I already have) and call for support of a Constitutional Amendment (Ratified by the States, because Congress won't/can't) where once the approval rating of any elected official (President, vice president, Senator or Representative) falls below 20% that official is immediately nullified. If it is a congress person, they are suspended from voting. If it is a president or vice president they will be replaced as the constitution already dictates.
This two party system is screwing us over. If we can't have a viable 3rd party, then lets at least have the "null" party and be able to deny them a voting position. (This still allows them to do work for their constituents.)
We also need to add an option of "no confidence" to the ballots for when we don't want the candidate to have a voting position from the start.
But there is a point to be made there. When did MS become "Search". Every online initiative has failed. Hotmail failed. Silverlight is failing (olymics 2008 are going to be used to cram silverlight onto every computer)..Net is doing ok, but that's a developer thing, but I think it fails to deliver anything but lock-in technically speaking.
Microsoft in it's hay-day was Windows and Office. Microsoft dismissed the internet from day 1. Then they played catchup. Yahoo, Gmail mail services far surpass "Hotmail Live". Yahoo, Gmail search far surpass "Live Search". You need visitors for "paid search" to work. If MS got this patent, it would be a waste. At least Y! and G have visitors...
Microsoft has yet to be an on-line company. Buying search assures them nothing.
I agree. With business being business, I am considering shorting their stock since I have not seen any new value being created. And customers buy value. Windows 95 was value. Windows 2000 was value. Office 95/97 was value. DirectX was value. Visual Studio 98 was value.
XP was not value. (It was nothing substantial over w2k) Windows Vista was not value. (Negative value).Net/Silverlight was not value. (Attempt to re-lockin developers, with POSIX un-compliance, whole new libs). C# is no value because it is 1/2way between C++ and Python (or Ruby). IE was not value. Office 2003/2007 was not value. Visual Studio after 2008 was not of value (a side effect of.Net) All Microsoft services are not of value. Virtualization is not of value (VMware leads)
So up until about 2001 MS was providing value. Since then it's all been maintenance or catch-up. But during this period, competitors advanced. What MS had provided as value was commoditized. (Linux, OpenOffice) Or people started doing it better (Apple). MS does not have a value proposition anymore.
As you indicate, they are floating on cash. If MS can't re-invent themselves, things rest on the bottom when there is no water left. Its like a ballistic trajectory, and without another rocket stage, it's going to come down. But MS does not operate in a vacuum. Ubuntu and OSX are my main reasons for supporting the short position. The EEE PC is nice anecdotal evidence of Linux providing sufficient value. I also like Qt as a good platform for Win/Lin/OS development.
Further backing the short position is that there is no one or set of technologies that needs to be delivered. In 95-2000, we needed a stable kernel and apps, we needed networking. We got those. In 2001 we needed a safe, stable browser. We got that (in 2007 with FF2).
I buy stock in what I use. This is good for me in the tech sector because I am ahead of the curve. I use FF, Apple, Yahoo, Google, Adobe, Verizon (FIOS). I keep watching Ubuntu. I'm not pining for anything Microsoft has in the pipeline. I am pining for FF and Apple, and Adobe (AIR, though I'd rather a W3C platform).
I'd get behind MS again if they ever brought value back, but they are just focusing on taking it away from others (.Net, SilverLight, Search). That is a sign to me that they don't know what to do next either.
Season 6 has started and Episode 3 aired last week. As you can probably guess they took on NASA. Despite everyone's love for it, they too found NASA floundering. The future is private space flights, with NASA folding the agenda.
While I am aware that implementation doesn't have any real bearing on the task at hand, it does affect the culture. Yahoo makes use of open source technologies (as does Google.) Microsoft only uses Microsoft technologies. When they bought Hotmail (and subsequently turned it into a dump) they replaced the BSD boxes with Windows at a ratio of 1 to 5, (5x many windows boxen) in order to support the load.
Now Microsoft wants to buy search. Given that "search" is basically a text box that returns URLs, and Microsoft already has that capability, one has to look at what is the difference between MS and Yahoo? Why is Yahoo more valuable than Microsoft in paid search? Really, I don't know. But I can guess. Yahoo doesn't care if you're using Microsoft technologies. This has two sides - 1) you get equal support in FF and IE, 2) developers don't have to use Microsoft technologies. The "not invented here" does not apply. It's about getting a job done.
Buying Yahoo won't fix the problem if Yahoo is forced to change to the MS way. Obviously it's not worked for them.
I think MS is just buying time if they think they can do what they've always done. Clearly, the decision to buy yahoo search is the brain child of a business man with no appreciation of why things the way they are. If MS is going to buy Yahoo, then they have to admit defeat and not see it as acquiring static property to be added to a portfolio. They have to buy Yahoo then learn why they failed, or better learn why they failed first.
MS is rife with "not invented here" egoism: IE (Netscape),.Net (Java), SilverLight(Flash), Windows (BSD/Linux), and now Search. I can understand why a company should drink their own cool-aid, but when people start dropping, its time to change the formula.
The problem is not that there is an installer that takes care of the depenencies. It is that *every* *damn* *program* needs its/own/ installer.
What we need is something akin to a torrent program, where the dependencies and actual program are transmitted to one program whose extension is registered with a universal handler. This is no different than apt or those other page management solutions.
The distinction is that grandparent post is complaining about an exe, and I agree that he shouldn't have an exe - they come with security issues. Keeping things to a single universal installer you can trust the universal installer, it provides a consistent interface and can be registered with the system as a "safe" program. Then you're left to download only a data file which will be in a standard format. With that standard format people have a common base from which to innovate.
Read as some wry humor: Thanks for the list of challenge I have to overcome... I probably would have been caught on my first try, photographed, and my identity established and put on a no-entry list. Now I'll be able to plan for each situation.
Thanks to you I also know I have to copy a mac address - a crossover cable and a microcontroller with ethernet for an ARP request is all I need. Then I'll be able to collect the fractional pennies with the virus I upload.
You see sir, the human element is the weakness. Pride, and the seven deadly sins are the tools to exploit it.
(So I don't get black helicopter hovering over my house, I was making a point and have no interest in the IRS other than they get my 1040 processed every year)
I work for a medical records company. We are required under HIPPA to either
encrypt the data files individually; or
encrypt the entire disk
If the disk falls into the wrong hands (due to theft, or someone leaving it at a security check point, or examination by customs/TSA) we have to report the HIPPA violation.
We do doctoring (in terms of standards compliance and facilitating data exchange) of medical images, which contain personally identifiable information and are subject to HIPPA regulations.
I've got to take issue with raising money for senators so they will vote a particular way. Our taxes pay their salaries so they will vote according to the electorate AND the constitution. Since when did obeying the constitution become a la carte? These people took an oath to uphold it. Now it only applies for the highest bidder.
I think a much more cost-effective measure would be to exercise our constitutional freedoms.
I am a huge patriot, even an Eagle scout. In scouts we took oaths and we held them. We were told our leaders were doing the same. We were told to hold the constitution high, and to believe in our government.
I draw the line at a bidding war for votes. If that really is the situation, then we need to clean house. And senate.
Thank you. I thought it was very on-topic because my parent said "And this is why we must reduce CO2 emissions, like, RIGHT NOW, before it destroys the planet."
AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is turning into a religion. I call it a religion because there is no credible evidence, and people believe it anyway. When encountering evidence counter to it, they still refuse to see the truth. And don't even dare to question it. You will be label a heretic. You will be a bad person for looking at the hard evidence, for having a clear perspective. Al Gore won't debate because churches always lose when clashing with actual science.
It is a very confusing topic, but here is what is actually going on:
CO2 has risen a lot, as compared to ice core samples
We've had some really warm weather
If you only consider those two points, it looks like there is a correlation, maybe eve causation until you also realize:
Heating in the atmosphere is completely sun driven
You now have to enter solar activity into the equation. What if we're just seeing increased solar activity while we just happen to be upping the CO2?
Here's a test: Where can we have a model of our sun but a different atmosphere? There is one easy answer: Mars. Does mars follow our heating/cooling trend? Yes!
CO2 is not a dominant gas. It makes up 0.036% (thirty-six thousandths of one percent) of the atmosphere.
With all these questions, one has to doubt the AGW theory. And when you see _ALL_ the evidence that does _NOT_ correlate, or has a much stronger correlation to warming than CO2, one, if there is an open and scientific mind, has to at a minimum conclude that it is indeed _NOT_ confirmed.
So let me get this straight, after celebrating July 4th - the day we declared independence from a tyrannical leader, we're going to have the senate vote that the president has the power to command the courts to avoid the issue of illegal wiretapping?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.â" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.â" Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
And a select few of the reasons for independence
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Europeans have a much more relaxed attitude towards drugs too. Maybe that is a factor? In fact so much of the police power is put into controlling drugs, that a disproportionate amount of our crime statistics comes from that war.
The t hing about being in america and free in America, is you don't get to decide what is best for someone else. So I am glad you're against guns. You'll be the victim instead of me.
While I agree with the ruling, I have to admit, that for the first time "the people" is no longer held to be every man, woman and child.
Scalia allows limits on felons and the mentally ill. He allows them around schools (I live next to a school, do I have less of a "right"?)
For the first time, "the people" (of the constitution) is being distinguished between a first-class citizen, and second-class citizens. Previously, only the ADA (disabled people) act created a 2nd class citizen. Now we have yet another. How long before we're back to white, male and 21?
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
and Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
It is a logical conclusion that faced with an armed populace, even without the most modern weapons, that the numbers of those armed would concern any abusive power, and the first precedent would be to disarm them.
I wonder what the criminal on the street with an unlicensed firearm thinks of the ruling today. The day I got my gun was the day I realized I was now armed like a criminal. I actually felt privileged, not like I was doing a duty or exercising a right as an American. I felt judged by the state. I shouldn't have felt that way.
C02 is a clear, odorless, non-toxic gas. It doesn't leave a residue. It won't kill you so much as it doesn't displace your requisite amount of oxygen from your lungs.
C02 is plant and algae food. Infact NASA has recently reported increased vegetation. The biosphere is thriving as a result of slightly higher C02.
If you look at the rise of C02 it is 20% higher. But what they don't tell you is it is a trace component in the atmosphere. 360 parts per MILLION. How can a 0.002% for the past 200 years increase of carbon dioxide atmospheric component create run-away global warming?
When you look at the absorption profile of CO2 compared to other gasses in the atmosphere, you realize that.00002 * absorption profile of C02 = squat. Water vapor absorbs so much more energy. And yes water vapor has been increasing in the troposphere.
Secondly, solar radiance is a factor, since the theory goes that C02 holds in the sun. What if we had a period of increased solar radiance followed by a period of decreased solar radiance?
No one is for pollution, but to call C02 a pollutant is just wrong. It is a bi-product of industry and respiration. Don't allow yourself to be put into the camp of the brainwashing people who think a clean non-toxic gas is a pollutant.
If you're a AGW believer that is fine. I respect your concern for the environment. But realize that we are at a pivotal time. We are seeing decreased solar output now, and record low temperatures now, and some charts are now showing an 11-year cooling trend. We need 10 more years - just ten to connect the solar radiance with warming on earth. The time for the passage of these CO2 protocols is not now. If we do not establish a solar-radiance correlation, then I would be all for them. But we need more time to test this theory.
At first I heard that "sunscreen increases cancer risk" from an unreliabel source (but it was on the internet, so it had to be true!) but I then did my own searches.
Indeed it seems that there is a/slight/ correlation between sunscreen use. There is no solid explanation as of yet, but there are two basic theories:
Sunscreen users increase sun exposure (in terms of hours) and the sun screen is not able to compensate.(I find this hard as most everyone is using SPF 30+, which would give you 3 days of sun exposure (at 8 hours a day) for every one hour of non-screened exposure.)
Sunscreen prevents the natural tanning reaction in which melanin is produced. Without this melanin, absorption of UV is higher and the skin more sensitive. (This seems more reasonable to me.)
So it seems sunscreen is at best called a "sunburn inhibitor" as that is all it really does. Current recommendations are to limit exposure, wear hats, and develop a tan without sunscreen and without burning.
But there is one thing for sure: use sunglasses. UV light speeds cataract formation. Cataracts are a normal part of the aging process, so if you live long enough you'll get them. But you can slow the development with UV protective glasses.
Well you can't really attest to anything before you were born. As you were born from humans (allegedly, i have it on good authority you mother was a hamster), everything you believe about what came before you is a matter of what you've been told to believe.
In the creation/evolution debate both require faith. One is in divine intent, the other in a process. Both gave rise to you. So what you believe at best is an educated guess. Until it is directly observed, it is alleged. Even then what you observe is subject to your own prejudices.
Ultimately the creation/evolution debate need not be answered. Our educational system need only focus on teaching skills. Creation and evolution are not skills we can directly control. (But genes are another story...)
NASA: An outmoded government agency that will be replaced by private enterprise in 10-25 years. I'd rather see money go to private enterprise, if you are to dish out my tax money at all.
NIH: A bunch of self-serving PhDs that make policies about public health then go on to corporations that benefit from those policies. The NIH has yet to do a scientific study on weight loss. (Note: combining diet/and/ exercise in a study is not scientific, as you can't tell if it was diet or exercise that produced the result.)
NSF: They seem to be doing an ok job. Nothing stands out in my head at 3:17am about them.
New Math: What was wrong with the old math? I remember being exposed to new math in 4th grade. It was pointless. I never needed until college, and only for bit mapping. I don't impress the ladies with knowing DEADBEEFBABE can be a number.
Slashdot Mirror
Just shows that KDE made the wrong decision. Not technically mind you, just the wrong release decision.
When you have to go back and justify your actions, that means you did something wrong in the eyes of the consumer. If you continually find yourself doing this, you're going to have an uphill battle.
While plasma is nascent technology, I think everyone sees it as cool.
I think starting with a port of KDE to Qt4 would have been the best idea. It would have provided a crucial step between designs and shown off Qt4's improvements over Qt3. Then with everything ported release 4.0. Then in 4.0 deliver a beta of Plasma and/or a release of Plasma in 4.1. There was absolutely no need to ever include plasma. Plasma is based off the QGraphicsView class. At the time Plasma was started and even up until the 1st release, you could not put a widget in the GraphicsView. This should have been a show stopper, or at least a "wait for" feature before Plasma was forced on people. That one feature should have made it clear - port to Qt4 and release as 4.0. But that's not what happened.
Still we have KDE saying "no, we're right" despite the various criticisms. If KDE really listed to their users they'd say "we're changing our release policy to a user-centric one"
Disclaimer: KDE is my favorite desktop, I only have interest in it succeeding, and that is why I am critical of it. But I realize that the user, not the code is the most important factor.
The bolt-on technology should have come second. It is completely optional. It should have been separated out like Aero is from Vista.
I thought as KDE eV president he was the man responsible. I stand corrected. You are to blame. :-)
KDE is my favorite desktop, and I think you're doing great work. I don't take issue with any of that. I just take issue with the release cycle/version numbering. I would not have released a 4.0 without the KDE killer app - KOffice - ported and ready to go. Did MS release Win95 separate from Office? No. What good is a platform release if none of the major apps are ready? Why upgrade?
Even though you might be right - I've heard it was to more or less endorse the libs as stable - the public expectation is that it'll be all of 3.5 and more. It wasn't so you experience this backlash. Customer expectations were not properly managed, and customer expectations were strong in thinking that 4.0 would be all of 3.5 with apps.
I used to run the latest and greatest KDE, but if this continues, I'm not running 4.x until you start work on 5.0. And other than defecting to gnome, that's the worst that could happen. I hope you understand that my interest is just in KDE succeeding.
With the way Aaron is running the show, every one will have to wait for 4.5 for it to be as good as 3.5.
Call be naive, but I and everyone else I know expect feature completeness at a .0 replease, not API completeness. And KDE 4.0 was not even API complete. Plasma continues to be re-worked.
Aaron is a hell of a developer, but he is no project manager. He can't see the forest through the trees. Anyone who is in charge of a project like he is should not be coding. He should be focusing on user experience (regression testing, and making sure the platform is feature complete) and not libraries. It's a typical developer-turned-manager mistake.
Aaron, I do respect you and wish you the best. But you really bumbled 4.0 and it looks like 4.1 is going the same way.
Futurama and Dune, together!
We all must write our senators and congressmen (I already have) and call for support of a Constitutional Amendment (Ratified by the States, because Congress won't/can't) where once the approval rating of any elected official (President, vice president, Senator or Representative) falls below 20% that official is immediately nullified. If it is a congress person, they are suspended from voting. If it is a president or vice president they will be replaced as the constitution already dictates.
This two party system is screwing us over. If we can't have a viable 3rd party, then lets at least have the "null" party and be able to deny them a voting position. (This still allows them to do work for their constituents.)
We also need to add an option of "no confidence" to the ballots for when we don't want the candidate to have a voting position from the start.
It is not really retroactive immunity. This is how they work around it - by allowing dismissals by presidential order from here on out.
There is some question if it can apply to ongoing cases. If it does, then it is definitely unconstitutional and "void ab inito".
But even if held that it cannot apply to cases already in progress, the cases of the past are just a drop in the bucket of what is to come.
Ah, you caught me. Here's a cookie.
But there is a point to be made there. When did MS become "Search". Every online initiative has failed. Hotmail failed. Silverlight is failing (olymics 2008 are going to be used to cram silverlight onto every computer). .Net is doing ok, but that's a developer thing, but I think it fails to deliver anything but lock-in technically speaking.
Microsoft in it's hay-day was Windows and Office. Microsoft dismissed the internet from day 1. Then they played catchup. Yahoo, Gmail mail services far surpass "Hotmail Live". Yahoo, Gmail search far surpass "Live Search". You need visitors for "paid search" to work. If MS got this patent, it would be a waste. At least Y! and G have visitors...
Microsoft has yet to be an on-line company. Buying search assures them nothing.
I agree. With business being business, I am considering shorting their stock since I have not seen any new value being created. And customers buy value.
Windows 95 was value.
Windows 2000 was value.
Office 95/97 was value.
DirectX was value.
Visual Studio 98 was value.
XP was not value. (It was nothing substantial over w2k) .Net/Silverlight was not value. (Attempt to re-lockin developers, with POSIX un-compliance, whole new libs). C# is no value because it is 1/2way between C++ and Python (or Ruby). .Net)
Windows Vista was not value. (Negative value)
IE was not value.
Office 2003/2007 was not value.
Visual Studio after 2008 was not of value (a side effect of
All Microsoft services are not of value.
Virtualization is not of value (VMware leads)
So up until about 2001 MS was providing value. Since then it's all been maintenance or catch-up. But during this period, competitors advanced. What MS had provided as value was commoditized. (Linux, OpenOffice) Or people started doing it better (Apple). MS does not have a value proposition anymore.
As you indicate, they are floating on cash. If MS can't re-invent themselves, things rest on the bottom when there is no water left. Its like a ballistic trajectory, and without another rocket stage, it's going to come down. But MS does not operate in a vacuum. Ubuntu and OSX are my main reasons for supporting the short position. The EEE PC is nice anecdotal evidence of Linux providing sufficient value. I also like Qt as a good platform for Win/Lin/OS development.
Further backing the short position is that there is no one or set of technologies that needs to be delivered. In 95-2000, we needed a stable kernel and apps, we needed networking. We got those. In 2001 we needed a safe, stable browser. We got that (in 2007 with FF2).
I buy stock in what I use. This is good for me in the tech sector because I am ahead of the curve. I use FF, Apple, Yahoo, Google, Adobe, Verizon (FIOS). I keep watching Ubuntu. I'm not pining for anything Microsoft has in the pipeline. I am pining for FF and Apple, and Adobe (AIR, though I'd rather a W3C platform).
I'd get behind MS again if they ever brought value back, but they are just focusing on taking it away from others (.Net, SilverLight, Search). That is a sign to me that they don't know what to do next either.
Season 6 has started and Episode 3 aired last week. As you can probably guess they took on NASA. Despite everyone's love for it, they too found NASA floundering. The future is private space flights, with NASA folding the agenda.
While I am aware that implementation doesn't have any real bearing on the task at hand, it does affect the culture. Yahoo makes use of open source technologies (as does Google.) Microsoft only uses Microsoft technologies. When they bought Hotmail (and subsequently turned it into a dump) they replaced the BSD boxes with Windows at a ratio of 1 to 5, (5x many windows boxen) in order to support the load.
Now Microsoft wants to buy search. Given that "search" is basically a text box that returns URLs, and Microsoft already has that capability, one has to look at what is the difference between MS and Yahoo? Why is Yahoo more valuable than Microsoft in paid search? Really, I don't know. But I can guess. Yahoo doesn't care if you're using Microsoft technologies. This has two sides - 1) you get equal support in FF and IE, 2) developers don't have to use Microsoft technologies. The "not invented here" does not apply. It's about getting a job done.
Buying Yahoo won't fix the problem if Yahoo is forced to change to the MS way. Obviously it's not worked for them.
I think MS is just buying time if they think they can do what they've always done. Clearly, the decision to buy yahoo search is the brain child of a business man with no appreciation of why things the way they are. If MS is going to buy Yahoo, then they have to admit defeat and not see it as acquiring static property to be added to a portfolio. They have to buy Yahoo then learn why they failed, or better learn why they failed first.
MS is rife with "not invented here" egoism: IE (Netscape), .Net (Java), SilverLight(Flash), Windows (BSD/Linux), and now Search. I can understand why a company should drink their own cool-aid, but when people start dropping, its time to change the formula.
The problem is not that there is an installer that takes care of the depenencies. It is that *every* *damn* *program* needs its /own/ installer.
What we need is something akin to a torrent program, where the dependencies and actual program are transmitted to one program whose extension is registered with a universal handler. This is no different than apt or those other page management solutions.
The distinction is that grandparent post is complaining about an exe, and I agree that he shouldn't have an exe - they come with security issues. Keeping things to a single universal installer you can trust the universal installer, it provides a consistent interface and can be registered with the system as a "safe" program. Then you're left to download only a data file which will be in a standard format. With that standard format people have a common base from which to innovate.
Read as some wry humor:
Thanks for the list of challenge I have to overcome... I probably would have been caught on my first try, photographed, and my identity established and put on a no-entry list. Now I'll be able to plan for each situation.
Thanks to you I also know I have to copy a mac address - a crossover cable and a microcontroller with ethernet for an ARP request is all I need. Then I'll be able to collect the fractional pennies with the virus I upload.
You see sir, the human element is the weakness. Pride, and the seven deadly sins are the tools to exploit it.
(So I don't get black helicopter hovering over my house, I was making a point and have no interest in the IRS other than they get my 1040 processed every year)
I work for a medical records company. We are required under HIPPA to either
If the disk falls into the wrong hands (due to theft, or someone leaving it at a security check point, or examination by customs/TSA) we have to report the HIPPA violation.
We do doctoring (in terms of standards compliance and facilitating data exchange) of medical images, which contain personally identifiable information and are subject to HIPPA regulations.
I've got to take issue with raising money for senators so they will vote a particular way. Our taxes pay their salaries so they will vote according to the electorate AND the constitution. Since when did obeying the constitution become a la carte? These people took an oath to uphold it. Now it only applies for the highest bidder.
I think a much more cost-effective measure would be to exercise our constitutional freedoms.
I am a huge patriot, even an Eagle scout. In scouts we took oaths and we held them. We were told our leaders were doing the same. We were told to hold the constitution high, and to believe in our government.
I draw the line at a bidding war for votes. If that really is the situation, then we need to clean house. And senate.
I'd love a NAS that supported TrueCrypt drives!
Anyone know of any? The problem I have is the small NAS stuff is portable, and I can leave it somewhere or, on occasion, has grown legs and walked.
Thank you. I thought it was very on-topic because my parent said "And this is why we must reduce CO2 emissions, like, RIGHT NOW, before it destroys the planet."
AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is turning into a religion. I call it a religion because there is no credible evidence, and people believe it anyway. When encountering evidence counter to it, they still refuse to see the truth. And don't even dare to question it. You will be label a heretic. You will be a bad person for looking at the hard evidence, for having a clear perspective. Al Gore won't debate because churches always lose when clashing with actual science.
It is a very confusing topic, but here is what is actually going on:
If you only consider those two points, it looks like there is a correlation, maybe eve causation until you also realize:
You now have to enter solar activity into the equation. What if we're just seeing increased solar activity while we just happen to be upping the CO2?
Here's a test: Where can we have a model of our sun but a different atmosphere? There is one easy answer: Mars. Does mars follow our heating/cooling trend? Yes!
With all these questions, one has to doubt the AGW theory. And when you see _ALL_ the evidence that does _NOT_ correlate, or has a much stronger correlation to warming than CO2, one, if there is an open and scientific mind, has to at a minimum conclude that it is indeed _NOT_ confirmed.
So let me get this straight, after celebrating July 4th - the day we declared independence from a tyrannical leader, we're going to have the senate vote that the president has the power to command the courts to avoid the issue of illegal wiretapping?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.â" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.â" Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
And a select few of the reasons for independence
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Europeans have a much more relaxed attitude towards drugs too. Maybe that is a factor? In fact so much of the police power is put into controlling drugs, that a disproportionate amount of our crime statistics comes from that war.
The t hing about being in america and free in America, is you don't get to decide what is best for someone else. So I am glad you're against guns. You'll be the victim instead of me.
While I agree with the ruling, I have to admit, that for the first time "the people" is no longer held to be every man, woman and child.
Scalia allows limits on felons and the mentally ill. He allows them around schools (I live next to a school, do I have less of a "right"?)
For the first time, "the people" (of the constitution) is being distinguished between a first-class citizen, and second-class citizens. Previously, only the ADA (disabled people) act created a 2nd class citizen. Now we have yet another. How long before we're back to white, male and 21?
Few people know that the citizens of New Orleans had their firearms confiscated right before the hurricane. This is only a few years ago.
Our own government stripped people of the arms they were using to protect themselves.
Federalist #46 has this to say:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
and
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
It is a logical conclusion that faced with an armed populace, even without the most modern weapons, that the numbers of those armed would concern any abusive power, and the first precedent would be to disarm them.
I wonder what the criminal on the street with an unlicensed firearm thinks of the ruling today. The day I got my gun was the day I realized I was now armed like a criminal. I actually felt privileged, not like I was doing a duty or exercising a right as an American. I felt judged by the state. I shouldn't have felt that way.
C02 is a clear, odorless, non-toxic gas. It doesn't leave a residue. It won't kill you so much as it doesn't displace your requisite amount of oxygen from your lungs.
C02 is plant and algae food. Infact NASA has recently reported increased vegetation. The biosphere is thriving as a result of slightly higher C02.
If you look at the rise of C02 it is 20% higher. But what they don't tell you is it is a trace component in the atmosphere. 360 parts per MILLION. How can a 0.002% for the past 200 years increase of carbon dioxide atmospheric component create run-away global warming?
When you look at the absorption profile of CO2 compared to other gasses in the atmosphere, you realize that .00002 * absorption profile of C02 = squat. Water vapor absorbs so much more energy. And yes water vapor has been increasing in the troposphere.
Secondly, solar radiance is a factor, since the theory goes that C02 holds in the sun. What if we had a period of increased solar radiance followed by a period of decreased solar radiance?
No one is for pollution, but to call C02 a pollutant is just wrong. It is a bi-product of industry and respiration. Don't allow yourself to be put into the camp of the brainwashing people who think a clean non-toxic gas is a pollutant.
If you're a AGW believer that is fine. I respect your concern for the environment. But realize that we are at a pivotal time. We are seeing decreased solar output now, and record low temperatures now, and some charts are now showing an 11-year cooling trend. We need 10 more years - just ten to connect the solar radiance with warming on earth. The time for the passage of these CO2 protocols is not now. If we do not establish a solar-radiance correlation, then I would be all for them. But we need more time to test this theory.
At first I heard that "sunscreen increases cancer risk" from an unreliabel source (but it was on the internet, so it had to be true!) but I then did my own searches.
Indeed it seems that there is a /slight/ correlation between sunscreen use. There is no solid explanation as of yet, but there are two basic theories:
So it seems sunscreen is at best called a "sunburn inhibitor" as that is all it really does. Current recommendations are to limit exposure, wear hats, and develop a tan without sunscreen and without burning.
But there is one thing for sure: use sunglasses. UV light speeds cataract formation. Cataracts are a normal part of the aging process, so if you live long enough you'll get them. But you can slow the development with UV protective glasses.
Well you can't really attest to anything before you were born. As you were born from humans (allegedly, i have it on good authority you mother was a hamster), everything you believe about what came before you is a matter of what you've been told to believe.
In the creation/evolution debate both require faith. One is in divine intent, the other in a process. Both gave rise to you. So what you believe at best is an educated guess. Until it is directly observed, it is alleged. Even then what you observe is subject to your own prejudices.
Ultimately the creation/evolution debate need not be answered. Our educational system need only focus on teaching skills. Creation and evolution are not skills we can directly control. (But genes are another story...)
NASA: An outmoded government agency that will be replaced by private enterprise in 10-25 years. I'd rather see money go to private enterprise, if you are to dish out my tax money at all.
NIH: A bunch of self-serving PhDs that make policies about public health then go on to corporations that benefit from those policies. The NIH has yet to do a scientific study on weight loss. (Note: combining diet /and/ exercise in a study is not scientific, as you can't tell if it was diet or exercise that produced the result.)
NSF: They seem to be doing an ok job. Nothing stands out in my head at 3:17am about them.
New Math: What was wrong with the old math? I remember being exposed to new math in 4th grade. It was pointless. I never needed until college, and only for bit mapping. I don't impress the ladies with knowing DEADBEEFBABE can be a number.