The PC isn't dead. The age of "one-size fits all" is dead.
We used to have desktops. Then we had servers, and laptops. Then we had notebooks, eReaders and smart phones. Then netbooks and tablets. Now there are nettops and HTPCs.
The PC isn't dying- it is evolving and splitting into multiple species. The original desktop is still around and will be for some time. At home we have two ancient desktops, an ancient laptop and a modern laptop. Is my next computer going to be a smart phone or a tablet? No- those are luxuries- I need to upgrage and get a decent desktop... after that I want an HTPC. Quite bluntly- smart phones and tablets are cool- but I don't really have a need for one. I do have a need for a decent new desktop. There are lots of people like me. You can live without tablets and smartphones- but few people would want to lose their home PC.
Red Delicious are one of the worst. Braeburn is where it is at- sweet and tart at the same time- firmer than a "delicious".
It's also more fun to say "Braeburn, braeburn, braeburn." If you don't like saying the word Braeburn you're not really living.
Excuse me for being lazy and not looking up the link- but google it yourself.
Statistically you are much more likely to be shot during a break-in if you own a gun than if you don't. Home-owners who are not pumped up on adrenaline from breaking into a house are much less likely to actually shoot than the one breaking in.
If you break into a house and see someone with a gun- you'll shoot.
If you put candy in a bowl in a room full of children- they will eat it.
If you put whiskey in a room full of frat-boys- they will drink it.
If you put technology in a room full of hackers- they will hack it.
If you put Michael Jackson in a room full of children- he will behave admirably.
I don't see much surprise here.
Surely statistically, given the number of experiments done with lab-rats we're much more likely to produce a race of super-intelligent lab rats.
Rats would also have more of a desire to wipe out humanity... after all we keep giving them cancer. I'm holding onto my movie-fund budget until Hollywood releases "Planet of the lab rats"
Good for them for staying balanced! They should be able to manage the defecit for us then if we seceed!:)
Out of curiosity (I don't know the answer to that I am asking) - are they solvent prior to Federal redistribution between the states- or only after. I know California claims they would be solvent if it wern't for the flow of money out ot the federal level that is not returned.
As the widom of Facebook and Google+ will tell you people are more likely to do good when they reveal their real names.
Therefore, I theorise hactivists would be more likely to do good in their hacking if they used their real names!
Political risk has increased! We are more risky. Not sure the reason both over the last decade or so the US politically has become increasingly polar. It isn't dems or GOP- it's both of them!
In the last three elections the more centric of the major presidential candidates has lost every time. It is not just the presidential race either but at all steps on the ladder. The centre matters less and less. The party system is failing us at the moment.
In order to succeed you have to be backed by your party. In order to be backed by the party you have to follow the party line. More than ever independant thought and political ideas are being surpressed- you have to be one extreme or the other.
The tea-party is an obvious example because they named themselves. But the dems that succeed largely equally extreme on the other side.
As long as we elect politicians who are not balanced and extreme in one way or another we're going to remain a risk of doing something stupid... such as default on our debts- or continue getting into silly debt.
There is one answer to our problem. Secession. 49 of the US states (all except West Virginia) - secretly meet and agree to withdraw from the union. Form a new country: New American Democratic States.
We'll be free from debt and get to start over again, fresh and hopefully keep a low debt profile this time.
What about West Virginia- the only state left in the USA? Oh they'll probably default on the USA national debt. When this happens we can consider letting them join the NADS.
" There's I'm sure some truth to this, but let's not accept whole the idea that what's good for McAfee is good for the nation."
Why must there necessarily be truth to this? Our govenment could have asked them to make this announcement?
Why?
* Help justify our own future initiatives whatever they may be.
* To politically get the SE Asian nations to look less favourably on China and turn to the US instead.
* To heighten security awareness.
Of course McA would play along- it is publicity. (unlikely to lie without gov't backup as I'm sure the feds would ask for evidence).
I'm not saying there is some conspiracy theory/hoax here- I suspect chances are low. BUT there is plausible motivation for the government to ask McA to do this without it actually being true. Dangerous to assume everything you read is true.
My main fear is, what if they hacked the super computer at the centre of our government that tells cogress and the president what to say and what to argue about.
C'mon- you don't think they were really arguing about the debt deal all that time- they were trying to get the computer to reboot to tell them what to do!
I still am not convinced that life would need water- seems a very geocentric view.
Yes, I know water is neutal- disolves base and acid equally, there are hydrophobic and hydrophillic molecules... blah blah blah- but I'm not convinced that there could not be life forces formed based on gases- etc... I would have thought gas giants could be the idea place to look for non-human life.
So I don't hold much stock in finding (non-earth originating life) on mars just because water is there.
HOWEVER, water there would be good because it would mean less water would need to be taken by any colonists.
Wasn't there an abundant supply found by Japan near Hawaii recently. Even if the cost is more and there are ecological questions that need to be answered (and we better answer them) - these two recent discoveries shouldn't be ignored. We need to build up a local industry through tax breaks if necessary so that we don't remain dependant on China for this.
There may come a day when we and China arn't the best of friends... like if we default on the debt we owe them... or something like that!
Probably not in the short-term, the more (quantity) of popular competative networks there are the fewer TOTAL users to go between them- there may be. Part of facebook's draw was it's near-monopoly on "that type" of social network.
Right now, "everyone" is on facebook- so the "pressure" to join facebook and be like the rest of the unwashed masses for some may be higher. The more people migrate and move to Google- the less pressure for those same people to join facebook. Since not "everyone" is on google- even if a lot of people are- the non uniformity of it means less pressure to join there.
If half the people I know are on G and the other half are on FB- I'd be less inclined to join either- too much hassle for an anti-social nitwit with too little time to post on both- and the reward to post to just half my friends is... well half?
The more major networking sites- the fewer the people they have which means the lesser the drive for non-inducted members to join. It may seem counter-intuitive but the best model Google and Facebook could have is to make their platforms open to each other- so posting in one posts to the other (if you have an account)- otherwise the total pool of available users will be less because there would be less incentive to join either one. As long as they block each other they are will be limiting their client base.
If another major player enters the market it would fragment social networking completely. (and I'm not counting Twitter because it is a different niche).
Full disclosure: I am not on any social network - I'm waiting for the invent of the anti-social network.
Slashdot Mirror
So HIV cures cancer? That's nothing- Crabs cure hunger.
I'm not really the rioting kind- but if I knew that's all it took to get rid of facebook et al. I would have taken up rioting years ago.
The PC isn't dead. The age of "one-size fits all" is dead. We used to have desktops. Then we had servers, and laptops. Then we had notebooks, eReaders and smart phones. Then netbooks and tablets. Now there are nettops and HTPCs. The PC isn't dying- it is evolving and splitting into multiple species. The original desktop is still around and will be for some time. At home we have two ancient desktops, an ancient laptop and a modern laptop. Is my next computer going to be a smart phone or a tablet? No- those are luxuries- I need to upgrage and get a decent desktop... after that I want an HTPC. Quite bluntly- smart phones and tablets are cool- but I don't really have a need for one. I do have a need for a decent new desktop. There are lots of people like me. You can live without tablets and smartphones- but few people would want to lose their home PC.
Keep America Beautiful - send your trash to China.
Red Delicious are one of the worst. Braeburn is where it is at- sweet and tart at the same time- firmer than a "delicious". It's also more fun to say "Braeburn, braeburn, braeburn." If you don't like saying the word Braeburn you're not really living.
Unless it can play angry birds consumers will not react favourably to it.
I'm thinking of attaching my friggin' laser mouse onto a sharks head when USB3 comes out.
Decomposing plastic has no odor.
Excuse me for being lazy and not looking up the link- but google it yourself. Statistically you are much more likely to be shot during a break-in if you own a gun than if you don't. Home-owners who are not pumped up on adrenaline from breaking into a house are much less likely to actually shoot than the one breaking in. If you break into a house and see someone with a gun- you'll shoot.
Thank God the rioters didn't have guns or this would have been much worse!
If you put candy in a bowl in a room full of children- they will eat it. If you put whiskey in a room full of frat-boys- they will drink it. If you put technology in a room full of hackers- they will hack it. If you put Michael Jackson in a room full of children- he will behave admirably. I don't see much surprise here.
Surely statistically, given the number of experiments done with lab-rats we're much more likely to produce a race of super-intelligent lab rats. Rats would also have more of a desire to wipe out humanity... after all we keep giving them cancer. I'm holding onto my movie-fund budget until Hollywood releases "Planet of the lab rats"
Good for them for staying balanced! They should be able to manage the defecit for us then if we seceed! :)
Out of curiosity (I don't know the answer to that I am asking) - are they solvent prior to Federal redistribution between the states- or only after. I know California claims they would be solvent if it wern't for the flow of money out ot the federal level that is not returned.
As the widom of Facebook and Google+ will tell you people are more likely to do good when they reveal their real names. Therefore, I theorise hactivists would be more likely to do good in their hacking if they used their real names!
Political risk has increased! We are more risky. Not sure the reason both over the last decade or so the US politically has become increasingly polar. It isn't dems or GOP- it's both of them! In the last three elections the more centric of the major presidential candidates has lost every time. It is not just the presidential race either but at all steps on the ladder. The centre matters less and less. The party system is failing us at the moment. In order to succeed you have to be backed by your party. In order to be backed by the party you have to follow the party line. More than ever independant thought and political ideas are being surpressed- you have to be one extreme or the other. The tea-party is an obvious example because they named themselves. But the dems that succeed largely equally extreme on the other side. As long as we elect politicians who are not balanced and extreme in one way or another we're going to remain a risk of doing something stupid... such as default on our debts- or continue getting into silly debt.
There is one answer to our problem. Secession. 49 of the US states (all except West Virginia) - secretly meet and agree to withdraw from the union. Form a new country: New American Democratic States. We'll be free from debt and get to start over again, fresh and hopefully keep a low debt profile this time. What about West Virginia- the only state left in the USA? Oh they'll probably default on the USA national debt. When this happens we can consider letting them join the NADS.
" There's I'm sure some truth to this, but let's not accept whole the idea that what's good for McAfee is good for the nation." Why must there necessarily be truth to this? Our govenment could have asked them to make this announcement? Why? * Help justify our own future initiatives whatever they may be. * To politically get the SE Asian nations to look less favourably on China and turn to the US instead. * To heighten security awareness. Of course McA would play along- it is publicity. (unlikely to lie without gov't backup as I'm sure the feds would ask for evidence). I'm not saying there is some conspiracy theory/hoax here- I suspect chances are low. BUT there is plausible motivation for the government to ask McA to do this without it actually being true. Dangerous to assume everything you read is true.
My main fear is, what if they hacked the super computer at the centre of our government that tells cogress and the president what to say and what to argue about. C'mon- you don't think they were really arguing about the debt deal all that time- they were trying to get the computer to reboot to tell them what to do!
I still am not convinced that life would need water- seems a very geocentric view. Yes, I know water is neutal- disolves base and acid equally, there are hydrophobic and hydrophillic molecules... blah blah blah- but I'm not convinced that there could not be life forces formed based on gases- etc... I would have thought gas giants could be the idea place to look for non-human life. So I don't hold much stock in finding (non-earth originating life) on mars just because water is there. HOWEVER, water there would be good because it would mean less water would need to be taken by any colonists.
Surely the lego going to Jupiter should be Lego Star Wars.
Wasn't there an abundant supply found by Japan near Hawaii recently. Even if the cost is more and there are ecological questions that need to be answered (and we better answer them) - these two recent discoveries shouldn't be ignored. We need to build up a local industry through tax breaks if necessary so that we don't remain dependant on China for this. There may come a day when we and China arn't the best of friends... like if we default on the debt we owe them... or something like that!
Probably not in the short-term, the more (quantity) of popular competative networks there are the fewer TOTAL users to go between them- there may be. Part of facebook's draw was it's near-monopoly on "that type" of social network. Right now, "everyone" is on facebook- so the "pressure" to join facebook and be like the rest of the unwashed masses for some may be higher. The more people migrate and move to Google- the less pressure for those same people to join facebook. Since not "everyone" is on google- even if a lot of people are- the non uniformity of it means less pressure to join there. If half the people I know are on G and the other half are on FB- I'd be less inclined to join either- too much hassle for an anti-social nitwit with too little time to post on both- and the reward to post to just half my friends is... well half? The more major networking sites- the fewer the people they have which means the lesser the drive for non-inducted members to join. It may seem counter-intuitive but the best model Google and Facebook could have is to make their platforms open to each other- so posting in one posts to the other (if you have an account)- otherwise the total pool of available users will be less because there would be less incentive to join either one. As long as they block each other they are will be limiting their client base. If another major player enters the market it would fragment social networking completely. (and I'm not counting Twitter because it is a different niche). Full disclosure: I am not on any social network - I'm waiting for the invent of the anti-social network.