No, 99% or so of all real advancement in the sciences (and any other area for that matter) are based on the work of others. I think it was Einstein who said something along the lines of "what I have accomplished I have done by standing on the shoulders of giants". WishI could remember exactly who it was and the exact quote (yes, I'm lazy, don't feel like moving the mouse the 800 pixels or so to the Google toolbar and typing it in, but I'm not lazy enough to type this telling you how lazy I am. Ok, now THERE'S a real contradiction!). The point is, I disagree, innovation != originality all the time.
I think you still are misunderstanding what I was saying originally... I said that doing something like collecting data or any other breach of security you can think of would be caught by the techie community rather quickly, that's why it would be such a bad idea for MS. That would be a PR nightmare not even they could recover from I think.
I agree, perhaps there would be such a large installed base that it would be too late, and perhaps plenty of people would have their private data made public already. That's being a bit too paranoid in my estimation though. From all we've read about Longhorn and this "data anywhere" idea as I'll call it, it has always sounded like it will be your choice what you put out there. Contrary to what some people think, I don't think BillG wants to rule the world through some subversive conspiracy. This isn't the X-Files, this is computers.
And as I said before, even *IF* that were the case, you open-source guys are smart enough to catch it so fast that it wouldn't be too late (not like your not going to have copies before the public release and not like everyone going to run out and install it at midnight of release day!)
I get out plenty by the way. When I am inside though, I never see a shortage of "we must protect the world from tyranny and especially Microsoft" type posts from the open-source community (I apologize to everyone for using the generalization, I realize your not all nuts, unfortunately there are too many of them floating around muddying the waters). So, what I'm saying is: HERE'S YOUR CHANCE! If there is some nefarious intent here, PROVE IT. If Microsoft pulls some crap, then Joe Sixpack and Aunt Tilly will look to YOU to defend them. Don't let'em down!
You said: "Yah, right. `Hey, hon! Have you seen the packet sniffer? I left in on the end table next to the VCR remote and now I can't find it.'"
I was referring to the community (or any technically savy user) finding out what MS might be doing behind our backs when the time comes, NOT Joe User who bought their brand-new eMachine from WalMart an hour ago.
Try reading everything in context, things tend to make more sense that way.
You say: "Windows gives you flexibility? Try moving your Outlook contacts from Outlook to Groupwise some time. Yes, that is in your own words the definition of flexibility."
That is BILL GATES' definition of flexibility, theoretically coming in Longhorn. That's the way it should work in my mind, so yeah, I would say that's flexibility.
Are you trying to tell me you can freely move your adress book from any mail client under Linux to any other? While I'm sure you could find some examples where this is true, it is certainly not guaranteed. If each program uses their only proprietary format, you certainly can't do it. How does Linux help you in this respect? Windows is no better of course, but that's an application-level problem, not an OS problem. MS is trying to remedy it at the OS level so that the applications don't have to be concerned with it. Sounds like a reasonable idea to me.
And your right incidentally, my usage of Linux is limited to server applications, and I don't claim to be any super-knowledgable Linux geek. I can set up and administer some relatively basic web-related services and do some fairly simple development chores, but I don't get down into the bowls of the OS on a regular basis.
Then you said: "Quick, think: Where is that user's address book stored right now? Is it in "Documents and settings", under "Local Data" or "Applications"? Is it in the Windows directory under profiles? Is it in some folder named after some GUID? Now, quick, think: Where is the user's address book in linux? Well, it's definitely in their HOME Directory. What e-mail program are they using? Evolution? I'll bet it's in a folder called ~/evolution."
This is a common problem with Linux advocates. You say something like that as if everyone should know it. Indeed, anyone with a little bit of Linux experience would be thinking along the same lines. But since I use Windows 95% of the time I know precisely where to go to find my address book. It's a question of familiarity, not necasserily a question of better design. If you understand the philosophy behind the My Documents paradigm under Windows, it's just as clear as a user's Home directory under Linux (note that I'm not agreeing with the vision, I personally do not use My Documents unless some particular program won't allow me not to, which is a gripe in and of itself!).
And then you can go to the extreme that MS is going to... Why should I CARE where my address book is stored? I'm using an application that accesses it, that application has to know where it is, not me. Therefore, if it's stored out on the net somewhere and I can access it from my PocketPC the same way I access it on the desktop, that's a very powerful paradigm shift.
I'm not necasserily chearing about this, I'm as considered with the security implications at anyone, but to deny the power of the model means you (or anyone else) probably doesn't see the full picture.
Call this a troll if you want, but consider: if it was a troll, I'd have done it anonymously...
I understand/. is anti-MS in nearly every respect. I understand and accept that, in fact it's one of the reasons I visit here 100 times a day: I like seeing both sides of an argument before I reach my own conclusions.
But it seems to me that many of you (you meaning the open source community in general) are spreading just as much FUD as MS is, drapped in a cloak of supposed reality.
For instance: I constantly see posts saying how crash-prone MS OS's are and how you get 100 BSOD's a day on your work PC's (those of you that admit using an MS OS in the first place that is).
I'd be foolish to try and say that Win95, Win98, Win98SE or WinME aren't more crash-prone than just about any Linux distro, they are. But the FUD is in not being specific enough: Win2K and WinXP are quite stable. If you find it to be otherwise in your experience, let me point you in the right direction: It's not the OS! My work PC, a 2+ year-old Win2K PIII/500 Dell Optiplex GX1 with 512M RAM, on which I have over 20 gigs of various software installed, I have 10+ different things running at any given time (currently I have Windows Explorer, UltraEdit, CuteFTP, Apache Tomcat, IE, Lotus Notes R5, IIS with.Net installed, Norton Antivirus, ActiveSync, eVC++, Seti@Home, Popup Killer, WinAmp, AOLIM and a PocketPC emulator... and this is pretty much what is always open). My machine is virtually never turned off and I have not seen a BSOD in well over a year, I virtually never experience problems whatsoever, and those that I do on those rare occassions are directly traceable to a misbehaving app, and the OS DOES NOT get taken down with the app.
If your Win2K or WinXP machine crashes all the time, perhaps I'm just that much better an admin than you are, but I doubt it. But, rather than be fair about it, you will be quick to bash MS and their "buggy" OS. Bull. Rag on any Win9x you want, I won't argue, but if your going to tell me Win2K or WinXP are crash-prone and buggy, you are wrong, absolutely. (WinNT by the way is somewhere in between in my experience... I have 5 NT servers, database and web servers, with heavy usage, none of them has had ANY unscheduled downtime in about two years, but I also had NT on my desktop for a while and it did blue screen on occassion, once every few months perhaps. Not terrible, but not great either).
How about the secure argument? Well, there's no denying that MS didn't place the emphasis on security that they should have all along. There are far too many buffer overruns in MS software to be sure. But the vast majority of viruses and trojans and other serious security problems are the result of good-old-fashioned social engineering, getting people to open attachments and such. Understand, having an application scriptable is not a bad thing, *IF* the user base is somewhat intelligent (there are exceptions of course, scripts should NEVER run without user authorization, and they of course can under some conditions in Outlook, that's MS's fault for sure). I'm not going to hammer them for giving us greater flexibility.
And what about the FUD? People claim Linux is less virus-prone than Windows. Of COURSE it is! Go out and iterview 100 virus writers and I guarantee you will find the majority hate MS and love Linux and the open-source movement. Which platform do you think they are going to target? DUH!
Windows sees more viruses because it is targeted more, plain and simple. Now, don't misunderstand me: I AM NOT blaming the open-source community for viruses, not in the least. And I am NOT saying that Windows is as secure as Linux, because it's not at a fundamental level. But simply because you see more viruses on Windows DOES NOT mean it is soo much more virus-prone than Linux. That's why I hope Linux does make it's way onto the desktop in good numbers. Let's see if this piece of FUD still stands up at that point. I very much suspect it won't.
Now, what about this Longhorn stuff? MS is trying to do something innovative (although not original) here... they are trying to give you ubiquitous access to any type of data from any location in a common fashion. What's wrong with that? Sounds like a fantastic idea to me. In fact, from a strictly forward-looking mentality, it's the logical evolution. I see so many paranoid statements about privacy, but come on folks, your smart enough to not go down that path! You know as well as I do that if MS is pulling anything fishy with privacy, it will be found out in short order. I mean, how hard is it to unplug your cable modem and throw a packet sniffer on the network to see what the OS is sending out? Geez, MS's worst move would be to do something like that because, and I say this in a positive way, you people will find it and scream it at the top of your virtual lungs faster than Bill Clinton goes down on an interm!
You say they never truly innovate. Then, when you hear about some potential innovation from them, you bash them for it!
It's one thing to be anti-MS, it's another thing to spread your own brand of FUD. It's also another thing to dismiss out of hand absolutely anything at all that comes from Redmond. If something is a good idea, it's a good idea regardless of where it comes from. The United States thought the atomic bomb was a good idea, even though the idea came from Germany (and try to not make the obvious "and Windows explodes just as bad as an atomic bomb!" jokes).
It's funny... I have always hated with a passion Bill Gates because he always struck me as an arrogant cheater who I just could not respect. Be better than that folks, make the community better than that... don't pull the same dirty tricks he has.
I don't think the ability to play DivX on my XBox is too big a deal, but the door a MOD chip opens up is...
DVD burners are coming down in price even faster than CD writers did it seems. Couple this with some new software that will almost certainly be available in the near future, in addition to a modded XBox, now you have the ability to copy games, which is something I'm sure MS *IS* concerned with.
More importantly though, as soon as I can run the popular emulators on my machine (read: MAME, mostly), then the geek population will have a reason to buy an XBox.
Then there of course is putting Linux on it, which I know is being worked on, and although I'm not aware of it, I'm sure it's doable already. That further adds to the geek factor, which is certainly important.
For me, buying an XBox was not a great move... I own about 10 games, only maybe 3 of which I play with any regularity. Yes, I have a list of about 30 that are coming this year that I look forward to, but it was with other things in mind that I bought it... emulators, a full OS (Linux or Windows or something else, I'm not particular), access to my network so I can surf the web properly in my living room, things like that.
But then again, I'm a geek, I can mod the thing myself and I can take the time and effort that might be involved to install Linux and MAME and whatever else I want. Will the average consumer? Certainly not.
My point? Ah, never really had one I guess. Simply that the DivX thing doesn't especially thrill me, but I *AM* excited about a MOD chip because I know there will be cool stuff coming as a result of it. That's all!
I'll be lazy and do the easy part... in no particular order...
Star Wars Forbidden Planet The Matrix Alien The Day The Earth Stood Still Tron Blade Runner Terminator II (more powerful than the first) 2001: A Space Odyssey (I found 2010 more entertaining, but 2001 had the certain "something") Event Horizon (most people detest this movie, I don't think those people quite get it though) Predator Scanners (how could anyone miss this one?) V (should miniseries be included as movies? I argue yes) Fantastic Voyage The Andromeda Strain The Abyss The Fly Eraserhead The Thing (remake, but either can be on the list in my view) War Of The Worlds (an all-time classic, yet no one mentions it?!?)
Excellent response, I find it almost impossible to argue against anything you said!
I would love to read the article referred to here, of course it's completely unavailable at the moment.
I think it is fair to differentiate between Win2K and above and anything before that. I think it's fair to say that Windows' security before Win2K is, shall we say, suspect?
However, from Win2K and above, I think it is a much improved story, and while I agree the OS still allows some things that maybe it shouldn't, I think it's a much better comparison to make to other OS's.
I should have been more specific in my comments I suppose since when I think of Windows I don't even think of anything prior to Win2K anymore because I would NEVER use any of them anymore.
Look at all the security issues that have come to light for Windows over the past year or two. I'd bet my newly purchased house that over 90% of them are APPLICATIONS that are insecure, NOT the OS.
How many security problems are a result of Outlook alone? 70%? Wouldn't surprise me a bit.
How many are direct results of VBA? 80% or more? Yeah, I'd think so (and I happen to love VBA but there's no arguing the danger that is opened up when you allow that level of integration and automation in software).
I don't think there were a massive number of problems that arise from protocol-level problems, security subsystem abuses or kernel hacks. Sure, there is always the occassional buffer overflow and things of that nature, but I'd bet the number is about equal with what you get on any other OS out there.
It's the apps folks, not the OS. Compare the Linux kernel with the NT kernel and I bet they are both secure as hell. It's what's on top of them that's a problem sometimes.
It's so very sad to see this (although not surprising mind you) because.Net is actually good technology and should be able to stand on it's own.
Now, I'm the guy that cheats just to beat my two-year-old in Tic-Tac-Toe, I'm about as competitive as it gets, so I suppose on the one hand I can understand where M$ gets it from.
But as someone who is generally an M$ enthusiast (I say enthusiast because I like much of their product line, but I won't go so far as to say "supporter" because I LOATH their business practices), this is sad. I could ALMOST live with it if they had an obviously inferior product, like the early days of IE vs. Netscape when IE was about as robust as Notepad and as crash-proof as an airliner with El-Qaeda operative onboard.
But now, when they actually have a GOOD product (or rather will when it's finally released)... no need for this, just compete on the merits of your work because this time around I suspect you'll do pretty damned good!
Well, as is the case with any theory, you start with what you can observe and then find a solution that fits those observations. That's the nature of any scientific exploration. So, making an observation of where the pyramids are, and then making an observation about how that location relates to the land mass of the planet, you have yourself a theory. I certainly agree it could be a coincidence, it's just an improbable one. I also agree, the center of land mass certainly IS the core of the planet, but the observations I was describing is talking about surface features of the planet.
As for the inch thing, I would agree that one seems a bit "out there", more so than the rest perhaps. There ARE explanations, but not ones that even *I* am willing to look at! Again, I was just stating an observation that I don't even know to be true (someone else claims it is, I don't know it to be factual). If it IS true, it is very interesting, I agree is sounds crazy though.
I don't think your getting it, or maybe I'm still not being clear (or maybe I AM wrong, but I'm confident I'm not).
Let me see if I can explain this better...
The Pyramid is located at the exact center of the Earth's land mass. That is, its East-West axis corresponds to the longest land parallel across the Earth, passing through Africa, Asia, and America. Similarly, the longest land meridian on Earth, through Asia, Africa, Europe, and Antarctica, also passes right through the Pyramid. Since the Earth has enough land area to provide 3 billion possible building sites for the Pyramid (or so I've read, I'M not about to verify this!), the odds of it's having been built where it is are 1 in 3 billion (also what I've read). I don't just believe everything I read, but the logic in this does hold, I just can't verify the exact number of permutations and the odds.
And I also have a few other details about the pyramids that are worthy of thought. Again, I'm not claiming any of this is accurate or that it means anything if it is, but it is interesting food for thought (this all refers the the Great Pyramid by the way)...
We know from geometry that there is a universal relationship between the diameter of a circle and its circumference. Consider this: The height of the Pyramid's apex is 5,812.98 inches, and each side is 9,131 inches from corner to corner (in a straight line). If the circumference of the Pyramid is divided by twice its height (the diameter of a circle is twice the radius), the result is 3.14159, which just happens to be pi. Incredibly, this calculation is accurate to six digits. So the Pyramid is a square circle, and thus pi was designed into it 4,600 years ago. Pi is demonstrated many times throughout the Pyramid.
Other numbers are also repeated throughout. Each of the Pyramids four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131 inches, for a total of 36,524 inches. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24. Modern science has shown us that the exact length of the solar year is 365.24 days.
The average height of land above sea level (Miami being low and the Himalayas being high), as can be measured only by modern-day satellites and computers, happens to be 5,449 inches. That is the exact height of the Pyramid.
All four sides of the Pyramid are very slightly and evenly bowed in, or concave. This effect, which cannot be detected by looking at the Pyramid from the ground, was discovered around 1940 by a pilot taking aerial photos to check certain measurements. As measured by today's laser instruments, all of these perfectly cut and intentionally bowed stone blocks duplicate exactly the curvature of the earth. The radius of this bow is equal to the radius of the Earth.
As if the pyramids themselves aren't records enough? We have very strong evidence that the pyramids exist, notwithstanding the lack of papyrus documentation.
I never said the pyramids don't exist. What I am saying is that it is human nature to brag about one's accomplishments. That in and of itself leads me to believe we should have seen some documentation. If the pyramids were tombs, is it likely that the Egyptians, who were EXCELLENT at recording almost EVERYTHING they did in day-to-day life, would have neglected to mention what they had done for their glorious leaders, who were considered just slightly lower than Gods?
Because the body was inside of a bunch of gold. Grab the gold casket, run like hell, sort out the treasure later, which includes disposing of the corpse that is inside of it.
That's possible. However, you are implying haste in their actions. A casket of gold would way a tremendous amount by itself, and moving quickly with it would be nearly impossible. If they had time to move it to begin with, they likely had time to open it up and get rid of the body, maybe reduce the weight a hundred pounds, maybe even two.
Eh? "Scrunch them together"? You mean make up new positions for them? It seems to me that just about any point in the world can be the center of all the landmass, depending on how the scruncher chooses to scrunch.
Ok, maybe I didn't explain this clearly... Take a world map, unfold it onto the floor. Draw a vertical line straight through where the pyramids are. Now measure how much land is to the left and how much is to the right. You'll find that they are almost totally equal. Coincidence? I can't say it's not, but it's a hell of a big one, that's my point.
Either that, or a reasonably good system of geometry.
That level of accuracy is well beyond a "reasonably good system". It's damned near perfect, more perfect than what we have today (or so I've read, I don't know if that's true or not and even if it is it doesn't mean the Egyptians maybe had a better system than we do today).
Because alien belief isn't part of a reproducive meme complex, like God belief is. Duh. If you want people to believe in aliens as much as they believe in mystical things (like God), your alien theory needs to include parts that encouraging evangelism. And if you're just interested in The Truth (instead of polling people to see what beliefs are popular) then you won't worry about it.
Your implying that alien belief should be thought of like religion. I'm not saying that at all. My question was simply why is it so easu for people to believe in God and at the same time not believe in aliens? Let's look at it this way: we have pictures of UFOs, bits of implants, physical marks on the ground and many other things as "evidence" of aliens' existence and visitations to Earth. None of it is conclusive, every bit of it can be argued for authenticity, interpretation and implication. I'm not saying any of that stuff is real, mearly that it exists. What similar "evidence" can you offer, as tenuous as it may be, that God exists? Don't simply offer me philosophical and/or logical arguments, that is not evidence (if it was, alien existence would be an easy matter to prove). I'm talking about physical and historical evidence. Let's see, your the Shroud of Turrin (sp?). That's all I can think of. The Bible (and other religious documents) are not proof, they are simply books. I happen to believe in God myself, but I have no evidence whatsoever that he/she actually exists. I do have that evidence of aliens, even if none of it is even remotely solid.
Can we maybe deal with some facts folks? There is more that is unknown about the pyramids than is known...
(1) There are NO officially recognized (and by that I mean what the all-knowing scholars declare to be real) records by the Egyptians mentioning their construction of the pyramids. Not a one. Seems like something you might want to leave a note or two about, no? I mean, you put all that effort and time and everything else in them, whatever their purpose is (more on that later), but never bother to tell the world how proud you are of your accomplishments?
(2) No body has ever been found in a pyramid, so to say they were constructed as tombs for Egyptian kings is, while certainly one possibility, not supported by any evidence. Yes, its possible early graverobbers took them, but why? Why take a body? Sure, they might have snatched all the gold and whatever other goodies were left there, but why a body? Note that I'm not saying they WEREN'T tombs, simply that there really is no evidence to support this.
(3) As I think someone else wrote earlier, I'd be willing to bet my wife (ok, that's not saying much, so I'll bet my PocketPC, that's worth more!) that if you did celestial models over a wide period of time, you would find all sorts of star alignments with true north that we could theorize helped the Egyptians do it. Wouldn't exclusivity need to be a part of that observation for it to be valid? I mean, if I can only find one five-year period where two visible stars lined up with true north, that would be saying something, but if I find 100 such periods, the conclusion no longer seems valid, does it?
(4) Keep in mind that the alignment to true north is only ONE mystery of the pyramins, and not really even one of the more hard to explain. What else? Here's some that I am aware of:
a. The pyramids sit in the exact center of land masses of the planet. In other words: take all the land masses on the planet and scrunch them together. The pyramids are in the exact center. How was this possible since the Egyptians certainly didn't know about the rest of the world, e.g., what we now call the United States? Did they just get lucky? Or where the pyramids actually built when Pangea existed (when all the continents where theoretically one solid chunk), which would of course mean the Egyptians didn't build them? Or did they have some help? Or did they just simply know MUCH more than we think? If so, how?
b. The near perfect alignment of all the blocks used to construct the great pyramids (just referring to the three main ones here, not the smaller ones scattered about the plateu). We're not talking about some Egyptian architect eyeing it up saying "yeah, that looks about centered". We're talking about hundreds or even thousands of blocks with alignment accuracies so perfect that we can only determine their difference by use of lasers today. This is an Egyptian with one HELL of good eye, wouldn't you say?
Well, look, I'm not saying they were built by aliens. I'll also say I do believe aliens exist and that they probably have been here, but I'm also a scientist (of amatuer standing anyway!), so I'm not going to simply say "I don't have all the facts about this so it must be aliens". All I want to point out is that there are a great many anomolous things about the pyramids to consider. Maybe aliens WERE involved, maybe they weren't. I don't think it's a good idea to close one's mind either way.
On a semi-related topic: why is it that people can accept God and religion so easily, but aliens are completely beyond belief? Why can we believe Adam & Eve, Noah, Jesus and all that, but aliens helping an ancient civilization construct something (for whatever reason), is totally absurd?
(P.S. - If aliens WERE involved, I very much doubt they pyramids were navigational beacons. I imagine their purpose was something else, although I haven't the faintest idea what. But then again, I'm *STILL* not saying aliens were involved!)
Slashdot Mirror
No, 99% or so of all real advancement in the sciences (and any other area for that matter) are based on the work of others. I think it was Einstein who said something along the lines of "what I have accomplished I have done by standing on the shoulders of giants". WishI could remember exactly who it was and the exact quote (yes, I'm lazy, don't feel like moving the mouse the 800 pixels or so to the Google toolbar and typing it in, but I'm not lazy enough to type this telling you how lazy I am. Ok, now THERE'S a real contradiction!). The point is, I disagree, innovation != originality all the time.
I think you still are misunderstanding what I was saying originally... I said that doing something like collecting data or any other breach of security you can think of would be caught by the techie community rather quickly, that's why it would be such a bad idea for MS. That would be a PR nightmare not even they could recover from I think.
I agree, perhaps there would be such a large installed base that it would be too late, and perhaps plenty of people would have their private data made public already. That's being a bit too paranoid in my estimation though. From all we've read about Longhorn and this "data anywhere" idea as I'll call it, it has always sounded like it will be your choice what you put out there. Contrary to what some people think, I don't think BillG wants to rule the world through some subversive conspiracy. This isn't the X-Files, this is computers.
And as I said before, even *IF* that were the case, you open-source guys are smart enough to catch it so fast that it wouldn't be too late (not like your not going to have copies before the public release and not like everyone going to run out and install it at midnight of release day!)
I get out plenty by the way. When I am inside though, I never see a shortage of "we must protect the world from tyranny and especially Microsoft" type posts from the open-source community (I apologize to everyone for using the generalization, I realize your not all nuts, unfortunately there are too many of them floating around muddying the waters). So, what I'm saying is: HERE'S YOUR CHANCE! If there is some nefarious intent here, PROVE IT. If Microsoft pulls some crap, then Joe Sixpack and Aunt Tilly will look to YOU to defend them. Don't let'em down!
You said:
"Yah, right. `Hey, hon! Have you seen the packet sniffer? I left in on the end table next to the VCR remote and now I can't find it.'"
I was referring to the community (or any technically savy user) finding out what MS might be doing behind our backs when the time comes, NOT Joe User who bought their brand-new eMachine from WalMart an hour ago.
Try reading everything in context, things tend to make more sense that way.
You say:
"Windows gives you flexibility? Try moving your Outlook contacts from Outlook to Groupwise some time. Yes, that is in your own words the definition of flexibility."
That is BILL GATES' definition of flexibility, theoretically coming in Longhorn. That's the way it should work in my mind, so yeah, I would say that's flexibility.
Are you trying to tell me you can freely move your adress book from any mail client under Linux to any other? While I'm sure you could find some examples where this is true, it is certainly not guaranteed. If each program uses their only proprietary format, you certainly can't do it. How does Linux help you in this respect? Windows is no better of course, but that's an application-level problem, not an OS problem. MS is trying to remedy it at the OS level so that the applications don't have to be concerned with it. Sounds like a reasonable idea to me.
And your right incidentally, my usage of Linux is limited to server applications, and I don't claim to be any super-knowledgable Linux geek. I can set up and administer some relatively basic web-related services and do some fairly simple development chores, but I don't get down into the bowls of the OS on a regular basis.
Then you said:
"Quick, think: Where is that user's address book stored right now? Is it in "Documents and settings", under "Local Data" or "Applications"? Is it in the Windows directory under profiles? Is it in some folder named after some GUID?
Now, quick, think: Where is the user's address book in linux? Well, it's definitely in their HOME Directory. What e-mail program are they using? Evolution? I'll bet it's in a folder called ~/evolution."
This is a common problem with Linux advocates. You say something like that as if everyone should know it. Indeed, anyone with a little bit of Linux experience would be thinking along the same lines. But since I use Windows 95% of the time I know precisely where to go to find my address book. It's a question of familiarity, not necasserily a question of better design. If you understand the philosophy behind the My Documents paradigm under Windows, it's just as clear as a user's Home directory under Linux (note that I'm not agreeing with the vision, I personally do not use My Documents unless some particular program won't allow me not to, which is a gripe in and of itself!).
And then you can go to the extreme that MS is going to... Why should I CARE where my address book is stored? I'm using an application that accesses it, that application has to know where it is, not me. Therefore, if it's stored out on the net somewhere and I can access it from my PocketPC the same way I access it on the desktop, that's a very powerful paradigm shift.
I'm not necasserily chearing about this, I'm as considered with the security implications at anyone, but to deny the power of the model means you (or anyone else) probably doesn't see the full picture.
Call this a troll if you want, but consider: if it was a troll, I'd have done it anonymously...
/. is anti-MS in nearly every respect. I understand and accept that, in fact it's one of the reasons I visit here 100 times a day: I like seeing both sides of an argument before I reach my own conclusions.
.Net installed, Norton Antivirus, ActiveSync, eVC++, Seti@Home, Popup Killer, WinAmp, AOLIM and a PocketPC emulator... and this is pretty much what is always open). My machine is virtually never turned off and I have not seen a BSOD in well over a year, I virtually never experience problems whatsoever, and those that I do on those rare occassions are directly traceable to a misbehaving app, and the OS DOES NOT get taken down with the app.
I understand
But it seems to me that many of you (you meaning the open source community in general) are spreading just as much FUD as MS is, drapped in a cloak of supposed reality.
For instance: I constantly see posts saying how crash-prone MS OS's are and how you get 100 BSOD's a day on your work PC's (those of you that admit using an MS OS in the first place that is).
I'd be foolish to try and say that Win95, Win98, Win98SE or WinME aren't more crash-prone than just about any Linux distro, they are. But the FUD is in not being specific enough: Win2K and WinXP are quite stable. If you find it to be otherwise in your experience, let me point you in the right direction: It's not the OS! My work PC, a 2+ year-old Win2K PIII/500 Dell Optiplex GX1 with 512M RAM, on which I have over 20 gigs of various software installed, I have 10+ different things running at any given time (currently I have Windows Explorer, UltraEdit, CuteFTP, Apache Tomcat, IE, Lotus Notes R5, IIS with
If your Win2K or WinXP machine crashes all the time, perhaps I'm just that much better an admin than you are, but I doubt it. But, rather than be fair about it, you will be quick to bash MS and their "buggy" OS. Bull. Rag on any Win9x you want, I won't argue, but if your going to tell me Win2K or WinXP are crash-prone and buggy, you are wrong, absolutely. (WinNT by the way is somewhere in between in my experience... I have 5 NT servers, database and web servers, with heavy usage, none of them has had ANY unscheduled downtime in about two years, but I also had NT on my desktop for a while and it did blue screen on occassion, once every few months perhaps. Not terrible, but not great either).
How about the secure argument? Well, there's no denying that MS didn't place the emphasis on security that they should have all along. There are far too many buffer overruns in MS software to be sure. But the vast majority of viruses and trojans and other serious security problems are the result of good-old-fashioned social engineering, getting people to open attachments and such. Understand, having an application scriptable is not a bad thing, *IF* the user base is somewhat intelligent (there are exceptions of course, scripts should NEVER run without user authorization, and they of course can under some conditions in Outlook, that's MS's fault for sure). I'm not going to hammer them for giving us greater flexibility.
And what about the FUD? People claim Linux is less virus-prone than Windows. Of COURSE it is! Go out and iterview 100 virus writers and I guarantee you will find the majority hate MS and love Linux and the open-source movement. Which platform do you think they are going to target? DUH!
Windows sees more viruses because it is targeted more, plain and simple. Now, don't misunderstand me: I AM NOT blaming the open-source community for viruses, not in the least. And I am NOT saying that Windows is as secure as Linux, because it's not at a fundamental level. But simply because you see more viruses on Windows DOES NOT mean it is soo much more virus-prone than Linux. That's why I hope Linux does make it's way onto the desktop in good numbers. Let's see if this piece of FUD still stands up at that point. I very much suspect it won't.
Now, what about this Longhorn stuff? MS is trying to do something innovative (although not original) here... they are trying to give you ubiquitous access to any type of data from any location in a common fashion. What's wrong with that? Sounds like a fantastic idea to me. In fact, from a strictly forward-looking mentality, it's the logical evolution. I see so many paranoid statements about privacy, but come on folks, your smart enough to not go down that path! You know as well as I do that if MS is pulling anything fishy with privacy, it will be found out in short order. I mean, how hard is it to unplug your cable modem and throw a packet sniffer on the network to see what the OS is sending out? Geez, MS's worst move would be to do something like that because, and I say this in a positive way, you people will find it and scream it at the top of your virtual lungs faster than Bill Clinton goes down on an interm!
You say they never truly innovate. Then, when you hear about some potential innovation from them, you bash them for it!
It's one thing to be anti-MS, it's another thing to spread your own brand of FUD. It's also another thing to dismiss out of hand absolutely anything at all that comes from Redmond. If something is a good idea, it's a good idea regardless of where it comes from. The United States thought the atomic bomb was a good idea, even though the idea came from Germany (and try to not make the obvious "and Windows explodes just as bad as an atomic bomb!" jokes).
It's funny... I have always hated with a passion Bill Gates because he always struck me as an arrogant cheater who I just could not respect. Be better than that folks, make the community better than that... don't pull the same dirty tricks he has.
I don't think the ability to play DivX on my XBox is too big a deal, but the door a MOD chip opens up is...
DVD burners are coming down in price even faster than CD writers did it seems. Couple this with some new software that will almost certainly be available in the near future, in addition to a modded XBox, now you have the ability to copy games, which is something I'm sure MS *IS* concerned with.
More importantly though, as soon as I can run the popular emulators on my machine (read: MAME, mostly), then the geek population will have a reason to buy an XBox.
Then there of course is putting Linux on it, which I know is being worked on, and although I'm not aware of it, I'm sure it's doable already. That further adds to the geek factor, which is certainly important.
For me, buying an XBox was not a great move... I own about 10 games, only maybe 3 of which I play with any regularity. Yes, I have a list of about 30 that are coming this year that I look forward to, but it was with other things in mind that I bought it... emulators, a full OS (Linux or Windows or something else, I'm not particular), access to my network so I can surf the web properly in my living room, things like that.
But then again, I'm a geek, I can mod the thing myself and I can take the time and effort that might be involved to install Linux and MAME and whatever else I want. Will the average consumer? Certainly not.
My point? Ah, never really had one I guess. Simply that the DivX thing doesn't especially thrill me, but I *AM* excited about a MOD chip because I know there will be cool stuff coming as a result of it. That's all!
I'll be lazy and do the easy part... in no particular order...
Star Wars
Forbidden Planet
The Matrix
Alien
The Day The Earth Stood Still
Tron
Blade Runner
Terminator II (more powerful than the first)
2001: A Space Odyssey (I found 2010 more entertaining, but 2001 had the certain "something")
Event Horizon (most people detest this movie, I don't think those people quite get it though)
Predator
Scanners (how could anyone miss this one?)
V (should miniseries be included as movies? I argue yes)
Fantastic Voyage
The Andromeda Strain
The Abyss
The Fly
Eraserhead
The Thing (remake, but either can be on the list in my view)
War Of The Worlds (an all-time classic, yet no one mentions it?!?)
Excellent response, I find it almost impossible to argue against anything you said!
I would love to read the article referred to here, of course it's completely unavailable at the moment.
I think it is fair to differentiate between Win2K and above and anything before that. I think it's fair to say that Windows' security before Win2K is, shall we say, suspect?
However, from Win2K and above, I think it is a much improved story, and while I agree the OS still allows some things that maybe it shouldn't, I think it's a much better comparison to make to other OS's.
I should have been more specific in my comments I suppose since when I think of Windows I don't even think of anything prior to Win2K anymore because I would NEVER use any of them anymore.
Let's make this perfectly clear, shall we?
Look at all the security issues that have come to light for Windows over the past year or two. I'd bet my newly purchased house that over 90% of them are APPLICATIONS that are insecure, NOT the OS.
How many security problems are a result of Outlook alone? 70%? Wouldn't surprise me a bit.
How many are direct results of VBA? 80% or more? Yeah, I'd think so (and I happen to love VBA but there's no arguing the danger that is opened up when you allow that level of integration and automation in software).
I don't think there were a massive number of problems that arise from protocol-level problems, security subsystem abuses or kernel hacks. Sure, there is always the occassional buffer overflow and things of that nature, but I'd bet the number is about equal with what you get on any other OS out there.
It's the apps folks, not the OS. Compare the Linux kernel with the NT kernel and I bet they are both secure as hell. It's what's on top of them that's a problem sometimes.
It's so very sad to see this (although not surprising mind you) because .Net is actually good technology and should be able to stand on it's own.
Now, I'm the guy that cheats just to beat my two-year-old in Tic-Tac-Toe, I'm about as competitive as it gets, so I suppose on the one hand I can understand where M$ gets it from.
But as someone who is generally an M$ enthusiast (I say enthusiast because I like much of their product line, but I won't go so far as to say "supporter" because I LOATH their business practices), this is sad. I could ALMOST live with it if they had an obviously inferior product, like the early days of IE vs. Netscape when IE was about as robust as Notepad and as crash-proof as an airliner with El-Qaeda operative onboard.
But now, when they actually have a GOOD product (or rather will when it's finally released)... no need for this, just compete on the merits of your work because this time around I suspect you'll do pretty damned good!
Well, as is the case with any theory, you start with what you can observe and then find a solution that fits those observations. That's the nature of any scientific exploration. So, making an observation of where the pyramids are, and then making an observation about how that location relates to the land mass of the planet, you have yourself a theory. I certainly agree it could be a coincidence, it's just an improbable one. I also agree, the center of land mass certainly IS the core of the planet, but the observations I was describing is talking about surface features of the planet.
As for the inch thing, I would agree that one seems a bit "out there", more so than the rest perhaps. There ARE explanations, but not ones that even *I* am willing to look at! Again, I was just stating an observation that I don't even know to be true (someone else claims it is, I don't know it to be factual). If it IS true, it is very interesting, I agree is sounds crazy though.
I don't think your getting it, or maybe I'm still not being clear (or maybe I AM wrong, but I'm confident I'm not).
Let me see if I can explain this better...
The Pyramid is located at the exact center of the Earth's land mass. That is, its East-West axis corresponds to the longest land parallel across the Earth, passing through Africa, Asia, and America. Similarly, the longest land meridian on Earth, through Asia, Africa, Europe, and Antarctica, also passes right through the Pyramid. Since the Earth has enough land area to provide 3 billion possible building sites for the Pyramid (or so I've read, I'M not about to verify this!), the odds of it's having been built where it is are 1 in 3 billion (also what I've read). I don't just believe everything I read, but the logic in this does hold, I just can't verify the exact number of permutations and the odds.
And I also have a few other details about the pyramids that are worthy of thought. Again, I'm not claiming any of this is accurate or that it means anything if it is, but it is interesting food for thought (this all refers the the Great Pyramid by the way)...
We know from geometry that there is a universal relationship between the diameter of a circle and its circumference. Consider this: The height of the Pyramid's apex is 5,812.98 inches, and each side is 9,131 inches from corner to corner (in a straight line). If the circumference of the Pyramid is divided by twice its height (the diameter of a circle is twice the radius), the result is 3.14159, which just happens to be pi. Incredibly, this calculation is accurate to six digits. So the Pyramid is a square circle, and thus pi was designed into it 4,600 years ago. Pi is demonstrated many times throughout the Pyramid.
Other numbers are also repeated throughout. Each of the Pyramids four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131 inches, for a total of 36,524 inches. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24. Modern science has shown us that the exact length of the solar year is 365.24 days.
The average height of land above sea level (Miami being low and the Himalayas being high), as can be measured only by modern-day satellites and computers, happens to be 5,449 inches. That is the exact height of the Pyramid.
All four sides of the Pyramid are very slightly and evenly bowed in, or concave. This effect, which cannot be detected by looking at the Pyramid from the ground, was discovered around 1940 by a pilot taking aerial photos to check certain measurements. As measured by today's laser instruments, all of these perfectly cut and intentionally bowed stone blocks duplicate exactly the curvature of the earth. The radius of this bow is equal to the radius of the Earth.
As if the pyramids themselves aren't records enough? We have very strong evidence that the pyramids exist, notwithstanding the lack of papyrus documentation.
I never said the pyramids don't exist. What I am saying is that it is human nature to brag about one's accomplishments. That in and of itself leads me to believe we should have seen some documentation. If the pyramids were tombs, is it likely that the Egyptians, who were EXCELLENT at recording almost EVERYTHING they did in day-to-day life, would have neglected to mention what they had done for their glorious leaders, who were considered just slightly lower than Gods?
Because the body was inside of a bunch of gold. Grab the gold casket, run like hell, sort out the treasure later, which includes disposing of the corpse that is inside of it.
That's possible. However, you are implying haste in their actions. A casket of gold would way a tremendous amount by itself, and moving quickly with it would be nearly impossible. If they had time to move it to begin with, they likely had time to open it up and get rid of the body, maybe reduce the weight a hundred pounds, maybe even two.
Eh? "Scrunch them together"? You mean make up new positions for them? It seems to me that just about any point in the world can be the center of all the landmass, depending on how the scruncher chooses to scrunch.
Ok, maybe I didn't explain this clearly... Take a world map, unfold it onto the floor. Draw a vertical line straight through where the pyramids are. Now measure how much land is to the left and how much is to the right. You'll find that they are almost totally equal. Coincidence? I can't say it's not, but it's a hell of a big one, that's my point.
Either that, or a reasonably good system of geometry. That level of accuracy is well beyond a "reasonably good system". It's damned near perfect, more perfect than what we have today (or so I've read, I don't know if that's true or not and even if it is it doesn't mean the Egyptians maybe had a better system than we do today).
Because alien belief isn't part of a reproducive meme complex, like God belief is. Duh. If you want people to believe in aliens as much as they believe in mystical things (like God), your alien theory needs to include parts that encouraging evangelism. And if you're just interested in The Truth (instead of polling people to see what beliefs are popular) then you won't worry about it.
Your implying that alien belief should be thought of like religion. I'm not saying that at all. My question was simply why is it so easu for people to believe in God and at the same time not believe in aliens? Let's look at it this way: we have pictures of UFOs, bits of implants, physical marks on the ground and many other things as "evidence" of aliens' existence and visitations to Earth. None of it is conclusive, every bit of it can be argued for authenticity, interpretation and implication. I'm not saying any of that stuff is real, mearly that it exists. What similar "evidence" can you offer, as tenuous as it may be, that God exists? Don't simply offer me philosophical and/or logical arguments, that is not evidence (if it was, alien existence would be an easy matter to prove). I'm talking about physical and historical evidence. Let's see, your the Shroud of Turrin (sp?). That's all I can think of. The Bible (and other religious documents) are not proof, they are simply books. I happen to believe in God myself, but I have no evidence whatsoever that he/she actually exists. I do have that evidence of aliens, even if none of it is even remotely solid.
Can we maybe deal with some facts folks? There is more that is unknown about the pyramids than is known...
(1) There are NO officially recognized (and by that I mean what the all-knowing scholars declare to be real) records by the Egyptians mentioning their construction of the pyramids. Not a one. Seems like something you might want to leave a note or two about, no? I mean, you put all that effort and time and everything else in them, whatever their purpose is (more on that later), but never bother to tell the world how proud you are of your accomplishments?
(2) No body has ever been found in a pyramid, so to say they were constructed as tombs for Egyptian kings is, while certainly one possibility, not supported by any evidence. Yes, its possible early graverobbers took them, but why? Why take a body? Sure, they might have snatched all the gold and whatever other goodies were left there, but why a body? Note that I'm not saying they WEREN'T tombs, simply that there really is no evidence to support this.
(3) As I think someone else wrote earlier, I'd be willing to bet my wife (ok, that's not saying much, so I'll bet my PocketPC, that's worth more!) that if you did celestial models over a wide period of time, you would find all sorts of star alignments with true north that we could theorize helped the Egyptians do it. Wouldn't exclusivity need to be a part of that observation for it to be valid? I mean, if I can only find one five-year period where two visible stars lined up with true north, that would be saying something, but if I find 100 such periods, the conclusion no longer seems valid, does it?
(4) Keep in mind that the alignment to true north is only ONE mystery of the pyramins, and not really even one of the more hard to explain. What else? Here's some that I am aware of:
a. The pyramids sit in the exact center of land masses of the planet. In other words: take all the land masses on the planet and scrunch them together. The pyramids are in the exact center. How was this possible since the Egyptians certainly didn't know about the rest of the world, e.g., what we now call the United States? Did they just get lucky? Or where the pyramids actually built when Pangea existed (when all the continents where theoretically one solid chunk), which would of course mean the Egyptians didn't build them? Or did they have some help? Or did they just simply know MUCH more than we think? If so, how?
b. The near perfect alignment of all the blocks used to construct the great pyramids (just referring to the three main ones here, not the smaller ones scattered about the plateu). We're not talking about some Egyptian architect eyeing it up saying "yeah, that looks about centered". We're talking about hundreds or even thousands of blocks with alignment accuracies so perfect that we can only determine their difference by use of lasers today. This is an Egyptian with one HELL of good eye, wouldn't you say?
Well, look, I'm not saying they were built by aliens. I'll also say I do believe aliens exist and that they probably have been here, but I'm also a scientist (of amatuer standing anyway!), so I'm not going to simply say "I don't have all the facts about this so it must be aliens". All I want to point out is that there are a great many anomolous things about the pyramids to consider. Maybe aliens WERE involved, maybe they weren't. I don't think it's a good idea to close one's mind either way.
On a semi-related topic: why is it that people can accept God and religion so easily, but aliens are completely beyond belief? Why can we believe Adam & Eve, Noah, Jesus and all that, but aliens helping an ancient civilization construct something (for whatever reason), is totally absurd?
(P.S. - If aliens WERE involved, I very much doubt they pyramids were navigational beacons. I imagine their purpose was something else, although I haven't the faintest idea what. But then again, I'm *STILL* not saying aliens were involved!)