Though I think for business the XP -> Windows 7 migration continues for several more years.
Very true. I'm planning on keeping a row of machines, whether virtual or physical, with XP, 7 and 8 running.
I know a lot of industries and scattered companies who have zero intention of upgrading. Their software works on XP, and they've bought both, so why upgrade at all? I'm hard-pressed to tell them they should fix what ain't broke.
It leads to a question of ownership: when we bought Windows, did we buy it "as is" without upgrades? Or buy into a stream of upgrades, possibly for a limited time? Or was it really a subscription for a number of years? If it isn't, maybe it is wholly legitimate for people to expect that Microsoft keep patching it for as long as people use it, which could be to 2042 and beyond.
Windows 8 is going to have some hiccups, but above all else, it's going to be a huge success.
There will be a little bit of delay as Microsoft gets Windows 7 out of the way.
The reasons Windows 8 will be a huge success:
1. It unifies the desktop and mobile under a single OS and, more importantly, development environment. 2. It has many under-the-hood fixes which allow Windows to slip past the aging win32 model, which is so successful it has become crippled. But since MSFT owns WinXP, it can always sell you virtualization to emulate your old apps within the new OS. This is inevitable; it's how Apple handled its transition to OS X and now it's an industry standard. 3. They've gotten over the moron factor. Apple used to be able to claim its GUI was so simple a child could use it, in contrast to Windows which was "complicated" and Linux which was "hard." Windows 8 is braindead simple as a GUI and has let wizards take over many of the less intuitive tasks of computer maintenance. 4. Microsoft has revamped its pricing scheme to (a) compete in the mobile market and (b) try to fix the unholy mess of crapware installed on new PCs by vendors. 5. Building on that point, Microsoft has basically squashed rampant security problems, although there will surely be hiccups, and by using its app store model has reined in the chaotic array of software people run on its OSes.
Sinofsky is leaving at a point of triumph, after which there will mostly be fixes and adjustments, and he will now be able to go on to a new, bigger gig somewhere as a big shot. Next step is for him to try for CEO at his own tech company.
Thanks to the Iraq war, Canadian oil sands, and now the vast reserves of the USA, gas is more expensive but still affordable.
If it suddenly doubled in price, our economy might collapse.
Is it time for us to admit that petrochemical energy is a strategic objective worth considering? I don't like the idea of "wars for oil" any more than you probably do, but if we don't, a lot of people will suffer and have their livelihoods destroyed.
With these wars, the world can have a consistent oil supply at a reasonable-ish price.
Moral uncertainty has arrived. It feels bad. And yet, for now, it makes sense.
* - I don't believe Iraq was about oil per se. It was about keeping the middle east under open market control in order to counter the Russian oil supply, which otherwise would control Europe financially, putting it in the hands of the US's and Europe's traditional opposition. In addition, Iraq was about the principle that if someone hits you hard and hides behind any nation, hit the biggest bad guy who might support them and destroy his ability to protect them, which will make others think twice about supporting them.
This is the government that the majority of UK voters chose. Most people here aren't part of that group.
Doesn't matter; under democracy, they speak for you. But even more, I think the point was unclear or you missed it. If censorship is bad because it opposes ideas, then we should consider whether down-voting a post because it threatens our popular notions is the exact same psychological impulse that "free speech" was created to protect against.
On the off-chance that this is a serious question: start by looking at the whole speech.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
There's rhetoric in there, but he clearly outlines policy goals and targets specific practices.
Every product, website, and idea should be tested against its opposition. If you own it, it helps you to test it against the opposition using fake opposition before you release it to the public.
This is why the military has war games and big buildings have fire drills.
However, one thing you find is that penetration testing from outside is not enough. Some of the worst enemies turn out to be within: either helpful employees who aid the bad guys, or people who panic and respond badly. Even worse are the malicious employees or people creating "job security" through logic bombs.
It's great that people run these minimum-level tests. Any website should face them. But there can be a false sense of security created when other threats are forgotten.
You're using a standard for what is speech, not for what you can disqualify as speech. Insisting on standards does not create a slippery slope; however, insisting on no standards certainly can.
There's no difference between a group of angry people on Slashdot, and a group of voters. This is the government you chose. Assigning it a will of its own, beyond a certain recognition that it perpetuates itself, is to disclaim responsibility for your acts.
There is no such thing as conditional free speech. Any conditional free speech is no free speech at all, because there is always someone else who will be deciding what can be said and what cannot based on his own interpretations of abstract things like "emotional acts", as you so clearly showed.
The standard wasn't "emotional acts," but speech that would fit into political analysis versus speech that does not.
This isn't a negative standard, such as "His speech is emotional, ban it!"
It's a positive standard: the free speech we want to protect comes in the form of political speech that is analytical, informative and discursive, thus is useful to making policy decisions.
Hollywood has introduced typical Hollywood people which will take Star Wars, a film loved by many in part because it departed from the Hollywood norm, and turn it into the same old Hollywood dreck.
That's bad, but what's worse is that Lucasfilm will not do any better. After sitting through at least one of the "new" Star Wars movies, I concluded that Lucas has no idea why people loved the original film. Flat dialogue, gratuitous action, and lots of special effects does not make up for lack of a compelling plot or characters, and actors who in no way matched the quality of those in the originals.
Now there's rumor they want to bring back the original cast, who are now in their 60s, and have them re-live their former roles. Unless we CGI them, too, they're going to play older characters, which will either be unbelievable as they take on action scenes, or involve a lot less action.
All of the signs regarding this movie show that Lucasfilm and now Disney have missed the point. People don't want to see "all the familiar things" again. They want a movie that's as good as the original Star Wars, and has the same elements: adventuresome space rogues, conflict between good and evil, cool technology and racing around space at light speed.
What made Star Wars good was related to these elements and a compelling script. Disney is trying to make a new one by imitating the surface traits of that past movie, and will as a result not explore what made the movie great, and therefore will be flogging a dead horse instead of coming up with a new success story.
And certainly your idea of what is useful and what is not is the correct one and should be enforced by law, right?
This isn't subjective. It's not a question of what one person considers useful speech and another doesn't, at least unless you're trying to defend the flower-burners.
Useful speech is the kind of stuff we see on the floor of Congress, in policy discussions, in think tanks, in political essays and so on.
Non-useful speech is karma-whoring, drama queening, and other forms of non-productive activity. It's not difficult to see the difference, which was clearly anticipated by the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution.
The point of free speech is to protect informative discussion and analysis of policy.
Emotional gestures don't actually do that.
Burning flags, burning poppies, etc. express discontent but not much else. In fact, it seems to me that these events get in the way of actually having a discussion on the issue and getting closer to resolution.
It's more like karma-whoring than political speech.
Double-tap to the forehead, then exfil with the tango wrapped in a carpet. In unmarked ocean, give him a burial at sea.
This guy probably has a legitimate patent on handshaking that has the capacity to switch encryption keys. However, he's generating massive collateral damage in exchange for his personal profit, at the expense of industry.
That in itself is not an efficient solution, and means he's essentially taking from each of us each time he unnecessarily raises costs...
If someone ever does produce an actual cloak of invisibility, we're going to have a huge problem as the foundations of our law enforcement will go out the window.
It will in effect legalize murder, since anyone with an invisibility cloak can sneak up on a victim and blow his/her head off. Even better, with printable weapons, the murder weapon won't be traceable either.
Perhaps the decision we made long ago to rely on external control (e.g. law enforcement) instead of internal moral compass, will come back to haunt us. Our citizens now don't commit murder from fear of being caught. With that gone, what?
I'm speaking more of its origins, but I'd like to clarify:
I agree with you in sentiment but wanted to point out that there is nothing inherently religious about meditation. A lot of religions have meditation as a component but a lot of religions also have specific clothing, chairs, tables, buildings and other trappings, but textiles and architecture aren't religious by nature either.
Meditation is a type of thought.
Thought is not necessarily religious.
Cassocks are types of clothing; altars are types of furniture.
Furniture and clothing (textiles) aren't necessarily religious either.
Is meditation religious by nature?
Historically at least, it arose from religious principles (Hinduism and others), and has been spread by the expansion of those religions.
The statement you be wanting to make is "Meditation does not require religion for its practice."
That's true, I think. Although some people tell me that it may lead to a more religious mindset.
Just a quick note: the Christian tradition also has a history of meditation, although they tend to call it prayer. But who would "pray" as in sending a little message to God for several hours? I think it's meditations of the same sort as in India, but perhaps less formalized. I am told the pre-Christian indigenous religions of Europe had something similar as well.
Is this related to the usage of "woo" you used above?
to seek to persuade (a person, group, etc.), as to do something; solicit; importune. Synonyms: petition, sue, address, entreat; butter up.
In most people that is all the time ["when...the brain...isn't operating flawlessly"], to some extent.
That seems true. This explains Honey Boo-Boo, dubstep and the prevalence of SUVs on the roads.
I'm not sure I agree, however. Underlying brain fog probably has a cause. This may be physiological or emotional. If it's physiological, meditation may not be the answer, but more sleep, better nutrition, or more exercise may be the answer. I'm not qualified to hypothesize beyond that point:)
It seems reasonable that you could become just as clear-minded and energetic by taking care of yourself (sleep/nutrition/exercise) as you would from caffeine.
Drugs do things to your brain that make you realize certain things.
The fallacy is assuming that the only path to these realizations come through drugs.
(It's worth mentioning that drugs have numerous downsides as well.)
If you learn to meditate, or for those with aversion to religion to "think hard," you'll get everything you could from drugs.
This isn't an anti-drug argument; that's for someone else's thread. It's an argument against assuming drugs can give you something that can't get another way.
If the potential is within the mind, clearly it's the important element, not the drugs.
That's an extreme example of course, but would you say his duty to step in line as a soldier outweighed his duties as a US citizen and a human being to expose these hypothetical extreme crimes?
At that point, why doesn't he just get his hands on a nuke and take out Washington, D.C.?
There's a channel for addressing abuses within the military and it needs to be used.
This case wasn't about his altruistic goals. It was about him having problems in his personal life, and lashing out at the military.
Slashdot Mirror
Very true. I'm planning on keeping a row of machines, whether virtual or physical, with XP, 7 and 8 running.
I know a lot of industries and scattered companies who have zero intention of upgrading. Their software works on XP, and they've bought both, so why upgrade at all? I'm hard-pressed to tell them they should fix what ain't broke.
It leads to a question of ownership: when we bought Windows, did we buy it "as is" without upgrades? Or buy into a stream of upgrades, possibly for a limited time? Or was it really a subscription for a number of years? If it isn't, maybe it is wholly legitimate for people to expect that Microsoft keep patching it for as long as people use it, which could be to 2042 and beyond.
Windows 8 is going to have some hiccups, but above all else, it's going to be a huge success.
There will be a little bit of delay as Microsoft gets Windows 7 out of the way.
The reasons Windows 8 will be a huge success:
1. It unifies the desktop and mobile under a single OS and, more importantly, development environment.
2. It has many under-the-hood fixes which allow Windows to slip past the aging win32 model, which is so successful it has become crippled. But since MSFT owns WinXP, it can always sell you virtualization to emulate your old apps within the new OS. This is inevitable; it's how Apple handled its transition to OS X and now it's an industry standard.
3. They've gotten over the moron factor. Apple used to be able to claim its GUI was so simple a child could use it, in contrast to Windows which was "complicated" and Linux which was "hard." Windows 8 is braindead simple as a GUI and has let wizards take over many of the less intuitive tasks of computer maintenance.
4. Microsoft has revamped its pricing scheme to (a) compete in the mobile market and (b) try to fix the unholy mess of crapware installed on new PCs by vendors.
5. Building on that point, Microsoft has basically squashed rampant security problems, although there will surely be hiccups, and by using its app store model has reined in the chaotic array of software people run on its OSes.
Sinofsky is leaving at a point of triumph, after which there will mostly be fixes and adjustments, and he will now be able to go on to a new, bigger gig somewhere as a big shot. Next step is for him to try for CEO at his own tech company.
Thanks to the Iraq war, Canadian oil sands, and now the vast reserves of the USA, gas is more expensive but still affordable.
If it suddenly doubled in price, our economy might collapse.
Is it time for us to admit that petrochemical energy is a strategic objective worth considering? I don't like the idea of "wars for oil" any more than you probably do, but if we don't, a lot of people will suffer and have their livelihoods destroyed.
With these wars, the world can have a consistent oil supply at a reasonable-ish price.
Moral uncertainty has arrived. It feels bad. And yet, for now, it makes sense.
* - I don't believe Iraq was about oil per se. It was about keeping the middle east under open market control in order to counter the Russian oil supply, which otherwise would control Europe financially, putting it in the hands of the US's and Europe's traditional opposition. In addition, Iraq was about the principle that if someone hits you hard and hides behind any nation, hit the biggest bad guy who might support them and destroy his ability to protect them, which will make others think twice about supporting them.
Doesn't matter; under democracy, they speak for you. But even more, I think the point was unclear or you missed it. If censorship is bad because it opposes ideas, then we should consider whether down-voting a post because it threatens our popular notions is the exact same psychological impulse that "free speech" was created to protect against.
The title should be "You're using the wrong standard." LOL
On the off-chance that this is a serious question: start by looking at the whole speech.
There's rhetoric in there, but he clearly outlines policy goals and targets specific practices.
Analytical refers to the nature and approach of the speech, not whether it's accurate.
Every product, website, and idea should be tested against its opposition. If you own it, it helps you to test it against the opposition using fake opposition before you release it to the public.
This is why the military has war games and big buildings have fire drills.
However, one thing you find is that penetration testing from outside is not enough. Some of the worst enemies turn out to be within: either helpful employees who aid the bad guys, or people who panic and respond badly. Even worse are the malicious employees or people creating "job security" through logic bombs.
It's great that people run these minimum-level tests. Any website should face them. But there can be a false sense of security created when other threats are forgotten.
The politicians who receive the most votes.
That means "the people," through their delegates.
You're using a standard for what is speech, not for what you can disqualify as speech. Insisting on standards does not create a slippery slope; however, insisting on no standards certainly can.
There's no difference between a group of angry people on Slashdot, and a group of voters. This is the government you chose. Assigning it a will of its own, beyond a certain recognition that it perpetuates itself, is to disclaim responsibility for your acts.
Checkmate.
The standard wasn't "emotional acts," but speech that would fit into political analysis versus speech that does not.
This isn't a negative standard, such as "His speech is emotional, ban it!"
It's a positive standard: the free speech we want to protect comes in the form of political speech that is analytical, informative and discursive, thus is useful to making policy decisions.
Anything else would not be protected.
Hollywood has introduced typical Hollywood people which will take Star Wars, a film loved by many in part because it departed from the Hollywood norm, and turn it into the same old Hollywood dreck.
That's bad, but what's worse is that Lucasfilm will not do any better. After sitting through at least one of the "new" Star Wars movies, I concluded that Lucas has no idea why people loved the original film. Flat dialogue, gratuitous action, and lots of special effects does not make up for lack of a compelling plot or characters, and actors who in no way matched the quality of those in the originals.
Now there's rumor they want to bring back the original cast, who are now in their 60s, and have them re-live their former roles. Unless we CGI them, too, they're going to play older characters, which will either be unbelievable as they take on action scenes, or involve a lot less action.
All of the signs regarding this movie show that Lucasfilm and now Disney have missed the point. People don't want to see "all the familiar things" again. They want a movie that's as good as the original Star Wars, and has the same elements: adventuresome space rogues, conflict between good and evil, cool technology and racing around space at light speed.
What made Star Wars good was related to these elements and a compelling script. Disney is trying to make a new one by imitating the surface traits of that past movie, and will as a result not explore what made the movie great, and therefore will be flogging a dead horse instead of coming up with a new success story.
Double irony: people down-voting the original post so that it drops to zero and won't be seen.
This isn't subjective. It's not a question of what one person considers useful speech and another doesn't, at least unless you're trying to defend the flower-burners.
Useful speech is the kind of stuff we see on the floor of Congress, in policy discussions, in think tanks, in political essays and so on.
Non-useful speech is karma-whoring, drama queening, and other forms of non-productive activity. It's not difficult to see the difference, which was clearly anticipated by the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution.
The point of free speech is to protect informative discussion and analysis of policy.
Emotional gestures don't actually do that.
Burning flags, burning poppies, etc. express discontent but not much else. In fact, it seems to me that these events get in the way of actually having a discussion on the issue and getting closer to resolution.
It's more like karma-whoring than political speech.
https://www.facebook.com/anthrax
Not only are they spreading biological agents, but they're doing it under the guise of being a heavy metal band.
Summon the drones.
Double-tap to the forehead, then exfil with the tango wrapped in a carpet. In unmarked ocean, give him a burial at sea.
This guy probably has a legitimate patent on handshaking that has the capacity to switch encryption keys. However, he's generating massive collateral damage in exchange for his personal profit, at the expense of industry.
That in itself is not an efficient solution, and means he's essentially taking from each of us each time he unnecessarily raises costs...
Which brings me back to the SEALs. Hoo-rah!
If someone ever does produce an actual cloak of invisibility, we're going to have a huge problem as the foundations of our law enforcement will go out the window.
It will in effect legalize murder, since anyone with an invisibility cloak can sneak up on a victim and blow his/her head off. Even better, with printable weapons, the murder weapon won't be traceable either.
Perhaps the decision we made long ago to rely on external control (e.g. law enforcement) instead of internal moral compass, will come back to haunt us. Our citizens now don't commit murder from fear of being caught. With that gone, what?
I'm speaking more of its origins, but I'd like to clarify:
Meditation is a type of thought.
Thought is not necessarily religious.
Cassocks are types of clothing; altars are types of furniture.
Furniture and clothing (textiles) aren't necessarily religious either.
Is meditation religious by nature?
Historically at least, it arose from religious principles (Hinduism and others), and has been spread by the expansion of those religions.
The statement you be wanting to make is "Meditation does not require religion for its practice."
That's true, I think. Although some people tell me that it may lead to a more religious mindset.
Then again, so does good quality dope.
Just a quick note: the Christian tradition also has a history of meditation, although they tend to call it prayer. But who would "pray" as in sending a little message to God for several hours? I think it's meditations of the same sort as in India, but perhaps less formalized. I am told the pre-Christian indigenous religions of Europe had something similar as well.
Is this related to the usage of "woo" you used above?
That seems true. This explains Honey Boo-Boo, dubstep and the prevalence of SUVs on the roads.
I'm not sure I agree, however. Underlying brain fog probably has a cause. This may be physiological or emotional. If it's physiological, meditation may not be the answer, but more sleep, better nutrition, or more exercise may be the answer. I'm not qualified to hypothesize beyond that point :)
I think this article makes some good points:
http://blog.seangransee.com/post/35254966580/no-studying-after-5pm-using-parkinsons-law-to-kick
Drugs do things to your brain that make you realize certain things.
The fallacy is assuming that the only path to these realizations come through drugs.
(It's worth mentioning that drugs have numerous downsides as well.)
If you learn to meditate, or for those with aversion to religion to "think hard," you'll get everything you could from drugs.
This isn't an anti-drug argument; that's for someone else's thread. It's an argument against assuming drugs can give you something that can't get another way.
If the potential is within the mind, clearly it's the important element, not the drugs.
At that point, why doesn't he just get his hands on a nuke and take out Washington, D.C.?
There's a channel for addressing abuses within the military and it needs to be used.
This case wasn't about his altruistic goals. It was about him having problems in his personal life, and lashing out at the military.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7918632/Bradley-Manning-suspected-source-of-Wikileaks-documents-raged-on-his-Facebook-page.html