On the converse, a very low IQ test score means absolutely that you are a moron. So the tests are good for something. There's no better way of detecting those sorts of problems, right?;^)
Right. So long as we can make the math work, and keep slagging each other off in the popular press, we can keep ourselves on the gravy train for life. How does that sound?;^)
I believe it starts at a point where the people who own the homes, and have a deed to prove it recognized by an impartial and agreed upon authority, have the right to the land. The "individual land ownership" solution. Some call it partition.
The "problem" with Israel began when Arabs sold them the land, and then other Arabs decided they didn't like their new neighbors. Wars ensued shortly afterward, because the basic premise of land ownership was not respected.
Israel continues this proud tradition. No matter what arguments you may make about how intractable the problem is.
Nothing excuses the kind of violence being perpetuated, by both sides, to decide the issue. It is a civil matter, to be settled in a court, not a military one. All landowners in the area would do much better to assent to an agreed upon third party and find a way to settle the civil matter. This hysteria about which "empire" to restore is the source of the trouble. We should be more concerned about which "family" will be forcibly removed from its home in the name of "empire" next.
The other option is to leave. Go somewhere where civil law is respected. Lots of folks have done that.
That's the only options I see. No empire. No single state solution. The people of the region must create impartial civil courts that recognize individual land ownership and live with one another in an uneasy peace. This will almost certainly require a third party.
The other options are to leave or wait to get blown up, one by one. No establishment of an "empire" will help a damned thing. Jews are not going to find the "promised land" through a military solution, no matter what the book of Joshua says. Those days are gone. The only option is respect of personal property.
And, of course, the enormous problem with that is that it would require some kind of unified government, which would probably annul the concept of an ancestral Jewish state. If a Jewish state is worth more to the Jews living there than peace, then they are on the correct path, though they haven't killed nearly as many people as they need.
Setting up an ancestral state has always required mass murder when there is someone already living there. Check the Torah.
And all who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000 - all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not withdraw his hand... until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.
The less folks are allowed to deny that basic historical fact, the more they'll be willing to negotiate for something else.
Microsoft seriously launched without the hardware vendors on board again?
Which vendors? 64-bit or 32-bit? I hope it's minor ones and not, say, nVidia again. The promise that "it's coming over the next 4-5 months" does not inspire confidence.
Yup. It's the Mayan Y2K bug. Good thing their calendar is based on mechanical circles. People discussing a 2012 apocalypse are discussing where a circle begins and ends.
Re:MS snatched victory from the jaws of failure...
on
A Tale of Two Windows 7s
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
And if anyone had a job, they could all buy new computers. Oops. Economic timing at odds with market synergies. What to do?
We'll see how successful this launch is in 5 years. I'm sure they'll fake the numbers in the short term, even if no one is buying.
The desktop OS is besieged from all sides: More and more of our applications now run on the Web, and the idea of running huge, complex, and expensive personal systems will, in time, seem strange.
Does this remark seem strange to anyone else ? I, honestly, am not seeing this trend at all, but I've seen it talked about. What's the reality here ?
The reality here is various business interests with a large stake in server farms and service based software fee structures are pushing cloud computing. Hard.
You will see it talked about as if it is reality a lot, but it really hasn't fully materialized yet.
This is like someone in the 50's talking about things in "The Jetsons" as the way the future will be, for the time being. A "personal robot" will not seem strange in the future, and so on.
Yup. I'm an Independent and I like Obama, but it's very likely he's going to have to escalate in Afghanistan, due to hawkish things he said on the trail. This is not a man who ran on a peaceable platform. He didn't say "war is wrong," he said Iraq was the wrong war.
From the Nobel site:
Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements... [in various award categories].
So, the Prize is supposed to be for achievement, not intent. Even for his intent, it's clear he intends to prosecute wars in the interests of our national security, and he has said so explicitly. He just doesn't intend to prosecute them unilaterally.
His Afghan/Pakistani policy is marginal at best (civilian casualties anyone?) and he should not be a Peace Laureate while he's considering additional troop deployments. Furthermore, he has yet to avert a war and thus achieve peace with Iran's nuclear situation. Come January, the Israelis could be bombing them with weapons they bought from us. We could be at war next year and this UPI poll claims that 61% of Americans would back a military solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
What has he done to ward that kind of "drum beat" off? Has he come out and said the American public is wrong, at risk to his political skin? Has he made clear statements against the Israeli demonization of Iran? Against the Iranian demonization of Israel? It makes no sense to award this to him as he has been a remarkable coward on the issue, hoping it will blow over, and probably praying that cooler heads will prevail. That is a good way to start a war, not "achieve" peace.
The Nobel foundation may end up looking very foolish next year.
There is lots of skepticism that the asteroid strike "killed off [the] dinosaurs." I saw a study where a microbiologist claims that many factors contributed to the death of the dinosaurs, but mostly it was disease, a competing lifeform that grew rampant well after the strike. I don't remember his name because it was a TV show, but I'm sure you can track it down.
In the meantime, this is all I have to offer from the Google:
At this point, because of the data we have available in the sediment record, the idea of the dinosaurs being destroyed by the asteroid strike is almost mythology. Keller's work has gone a long way to confirming that we still don't really understand exactly what happened.
Yup. This is true. I still use a Magnovox my friend got from a sports bar and repaired in shop.
But the government still forced an unnecessary obsolescence. You brilliantly refuted the unimportant hyperbole, but failed to counter the substance of his argument.
The real killer is the aspect ratio. When they left and right letterbox a widescreen letterboxed HDTV input for 4:3, and my NTSC set has a black band around the entire thing because it's already north and south letterboxing the 16:9 widescreen format, and the picture is about as big as the set I had in college, I feel like I'm at least being pressured to go and drop $800 on a new set, if not forced.
The government took 6-inches of diagonal from my picture by passing a bill. I feel like, at the very least, I have been robbed of the fruits of my efforts to keep an older TV off the junk heap. At worst, this is coercion of a sort, and in a down economy, nobody can afford to fix the problem.
So no, subsidized antennae boxes don't quite cut it. Nor does 480p or 780p. They signed this dumb bill without even settling on a standard, like NTSC. Was it authored by marketers? Are we now going to be on the aspect ratio, resolution changing treadmill, forced to upgrade according to the whims of the electronics industry?
That's what I see.
And did anyone take a national poll to see if we "chose" this mess? I think it's just a love note to the entertainment lobby, and their analogue hole. That's right, it all boils down to a great big A-Hole.
In biology, in situ means to examine the phenomenon exactly in place where it occurs (i.e. without moving it to some special medium). This usually means something intermediate between in vivo and in vitro. For example, examining a cell within a whole organ intact and under perfusion may be in situ investigation. This would not be in vivo as the donor is sacrificed before experimentation, but it would not be the same as working with the cell alone (a common scenario in in vitro experiments).
That is, the use of the phrase in situ implies that the person is dead. in situ literally means "as it is," and is more synonymous with untampered. In a literal sense, the bone could heal by itself in situ, but with an implant, tampering has already occurred, and the process is actually occurring in vivo, in a live organism. It's a minor quibble, but don't use Latin when you can just say "in place," "without further intervention," or "on its own." These would have been better choices, and clearer because they are plain English.
I'd make a headline change, sub in "users" for "scanners."
If there was ever a clearer case of PEBKAC, I'd like to hear about it. This is like trying to wall off a cliff to protect the lemmings.
If people will install random crap off the Internet without first reading a review, getting some word of mouth, and/or downloading it from a trusted source, they're going to get infected. Having an AV is useless if you're going to behave as described in TFA. There isn't a technological solution here.
An AV can't protect people who don't understand that you shouldn't "fertilize your lawn with motor oil." This is the level of dumb we are talking about here.
If you bought a new car, and the next day the same company started giving them away for free, and it was clear to you that they had full knowledge of that plan, didn't tell you, and wouldn't take a refund, you wouldn't feel screwed?
Really?
Clearly, there is a huge price difference in this case and the time frame isn't as drastic. Malice and foreknowledge is not clear, but the principle is the same. People who recently purchased OneCare have reason to believe they are entitled to a refund, if only as a matter of "good faith" customer service.
This is at least unprincipled. Absent malice, it's totally legal, Caveat Emptor, but it stinks to high heaven. If it can be proven in a court that it was malicious and willful, then it is actionable as fraud.
So I'm sorry, but I take a rather dim view of your analysis. Consumers are entitled to a refund when they find out that they paid for something that they were told was useful and necessary, but turned out to be worth nothing.
It doesn't matter that it does what it's supposed to, if someone's holding out on you in a commercial transaction of this sort, that's wrong.
Product dumping doesn't require a monopoly. It simply requires you to have enough capital reserves to run everyone else out of a market by deliberately selling your products at a loss.
This is clearly product dumping. It's not a tiered model like other "free" AV providers. They are putting money into a product and dumping it at a loss they have no hope of recovering.
When that kind of behavior runs competitors to the unemployment office, it is not altruism or quality control. It is "altruism and QA" out one side of their mouth, and a "f___king burial" for an entire industry out the other.
That is illegal.
I don't like it one bit. I'm no great Microsoft hater, but I can read the writing on the wall, and Microsoft has decided they're a security company. I've seen them do this before. They will keep system internals a secret so their AV "just works better" and run everyone out of Dodge. Both in cost, and with inside-track advantages.
This is DOJ material for "fair trade" abuse, not monopoly abuse. No one can begin to compete with them if they decide to dump a "free" AV product to combat exploits, and they keep the exploits a secret.
This is a bit like suing the Xerox company for providing the copy machine to the guy who stapled photocopies of your a$$ to all the phone poles in town.
1) You photocopied your own a$$ and let someone else get a hold of it 2) You determine that Xerox is liable for that. 3) ??? 4) SUE!
-- Toro
Dear God, I really hope that the ??? step in the profit meme isn't actually "sue." That is a frightening thought.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be hilarious if you had a need to modify it much.
In light of the fact that you didn't (mirror image really), I'm terrified. Really, amazingly terrified.
The universe is a web meme, folks. 'night all. Sleep as well as you can.
A baguette. It figures! And this is why the LHC should never have been built in France, nor near an Au Bon Pain.
--
Toro
On the converse, a very low IQ test score means absolutely that you are a moron. So the tests are good for something. There's no better way of detecting those sorts of problems, right? ;^)
--
Toro
Right. So long as we can make the math work, and keep slagging each other off in the popular press, we can keep ourselves on the gravy train for life. How does that sound? ;^)
--
Toro
(Apologies to the late Adams Douglas Adams)
I believe it starts at a point where the people who own the homes, and have a deed to prove it recognized by an impartial and agreed upon authority, have the right to the land. The "individual land ownership" solution. Some call it partition.
The "problem" with Israel began when Arabs sold them the land, and then other Arabs decided they didn't like their new neighbors. Wars ensued shortly afterward, because the basic premise of land ownership was not respected.
Israel continues this proud tradition. No matter what arguments you may make about how intractable the problem is.
Nothing excuses the kind of violence being perpetuated, by both sides, to decide the issue. It is a civil matter, to be settled in a court, not a military one. All landowners in the area would do much better to assent to an agreed upon third party and find a way to settle the civil matter. This hysteria about which "empire" to restore is the source of the trouble. We should be more concerned about which "family" will be forcibly removed from its home in the name of "empire" next.
The other option is to leave. Go somewhere where civil law is respected. Lots of folks have done that.
That's the only options I see. No empire. No single state solution. The people of the region must create impartial civil courts that recognize individual land ownership and live with one another in an uneasy peace. This will almost certainly require a third party.
The other options are to leave or wait to get blown up, one by one. No establishment of an "empire" will help a damned thing. Jews are not going to find the "promised land" through a military solution, no matter what the book of Joshua says. Those days are gone. The only option is respect of personal property.
And, of course, the enormous problem with that is that it would require some kind of unified government, which would probably annul the concept of an ancestral Jewish state. If a Jewish state is worth more to the Jews living there than peace, then they are on the correct path, though they haven't killed nearly as many people as they need.
Setting up an ancestral state has always required mass murder when there is someone already living there. Check the Torah.
And all who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000 - all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not withdraw his hand... until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.
The less folks are allowed to deny that basic historical fact, the more they'll be willing to negotiate for something else.
--
Toro
Wait. What?
Microsoft seriously launched without the hardware vendors on board again?
Which vendors? 64-bit or 32-bit? I hope it's minor ones and not, say, nVidia again. The promise that "it's coming over the next 4-5 months" does not inspire confidence.
--
Toro
And on that note, it sheds a whole new light to the "messing with sasquatch" campaign as well.
Yup. It's the Mayan Y2K bug. Good thing their calendar is based on mechanical circles. People discussing a 2012 apocalypse are discussing where a circle begins and ends.
And if anyone had a job, they could all buy new computers. Oops. Economic timing at odds with market synergies. What to do?
We'll see how successful this launch is in 5 years. I'm sure they'll fake the numbers in the short term, even if no one is buying.
--
Toro
From the article:
The desktop OS is besieged from all sides: More and more of our applications now run on the Web, and the idea of running huge, complex, and expensive personal systems will, in time, seem strange.
Does this remark seem strange to anyone else ? I, honestly, am not seeing this trend at all, but I've seen it talked about. What's the reality here ?
The reality here is various business interests with a large stake in server farms and service based software fee structures are pushing cloud computing. Hard.
You will see it talked about as if it is reality a lot, but it really hasn't fully materialized yet.
This is like someone in the 50's talking about things in "The Jetsons" as the way the future will be, for the time being. A "personal robot" will not seem strange in the future, and so on.
--
Toro
If you took an average customer and stuck windows vista and windows 7 in front of them they'd probably not notice the difference.
Are you the guy behind the "Mojave" campaign? ;^)
Ni-MgO.
Yeah. I read that as Mi-go. Go figure. I guess I just want my brain cylinder to be full of these chips.
Back to sleep, for now. ;^)
--
Toro
00101010 is two digits? Since when? Since the small rat died in a cavity in my left ankle?
--
Marvin the robot
Browsing through proxy might fix your privacy issues, if you're at all serious. VPN through a proxy if you're nuts.
--
Toro
Yup. I'm an Independent and I like Obama, but it's very likely he's going to have to escalate in Afghanistan, due to hawkish things he said on the trail. This is not a man who ran on a peaceable platform. He didn't say "war is wrong," he said Iraq was the wrong war.
From the Nobel site:
Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements... [in various award categories].
So, the Prize is supposed to be for achievement, not intent. Even for his intent, it's clear he intends to prosecute wars in the interests of our national security, and he has said so explicitly. He just doesn't intend to prosecute them unilaterally.
His Afghan/Pakistani policy is marginal at best (civilian casualties anyone?) and he should not be a Peace Laureate while he's considering additional troop deployments. Furthermore, he has yet to avert a war and thus achieve peace with Iran's nuclear situation. Come January, the Israelis could be bombing them with weapons they bought from us. We could be at war next year and this UPI poll claims that 61% of Americans would back a military solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
What has he done to ward that kind of "drum beat" off? Has he come out and said the American public is wrong, at risk to his political skin? Has he made clear statements against the Israeli demonization of Iran? Against the Iranian demonization of Israel? It makes no sense to award this to him as he has been a remarkable coward on the issue, hoping it will blow over, and probably praying that cooler heads will prevail. That is a good way to start a war, not "achieve" peace.
The Nobel foundation may end up looking very foolish next year.
--
Toro
We could have World War III, and if it had a John Williams soundtrack, it'd be awesome.
--
Toro
It's definitely "news for nerds," but I get this creeping feeling that the whole endeavor should be tagged "slow chemistry day."
Are chemists really this bored with the classical table? Don't they have more important things to do? ;^)
--
Toro
There is lots of skepticism that the asteroid strike "killed off [the] dinosaurs." I saw a study where a microbiologist claims that many factors contributed to the death of the dinosaurs, but mostly it was disease, a competing lifeform that grew rampant well after the strike. I don't remember his name because it was a TV show, but I'm sure you can track it down.
In the meantime, this is all I have to offer from the Google:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/04/29/new-study-casts-doubt-on-the-asteroid-strike-theory-of-dino-extinction/
At this point, because of the data we have available in the sediment record, the idea of the dinosaurs being destroyed by the asteroid strike is almost mythology. Keller's work has gone a long way to confirming that we still don't really understand exactly what happened.
--
Toro
Yup. This is true. I still use a Magnovox my friend got from a sports bar and repaired in shop.
But the government still forced an unnecessary obsolescence. You brilliantly refuted the unimportant hyperbole, but failed to counter the substance of his argument.
The real killer is the aspect ratio. When they left and right letterbox a widescreen letterboxed HDTV input for 4:3, and my NTSC set has a black band around the entire thing because it's already north and south letterboxing the 16:9 widescreen format, and the picture is about as big as the set I had in college, I feel like I'm at least being pressured to go and drop $800 on a new set, if not forced.
The government took 6-inches of diagonal from my picture by passing a bill. I feel like, at the very least, I have been robbed of the fruits of my efforts to keep an older TV off the junk heap. At worst, this is coercion of a sort, and in a down economy, nobody can afford to fix the problem.
So no, subsidized antennae boxes don't quite cut it. Nor does 480p or 780p. They signed this dumb bill without even settling on a standard, like NTSC. Was it authored by marketers? Are we now going to be on the aspect ratio, resolution changing treadmill, forced to upgrade according to the whims of the electronics industry?
That's what I see.
And did anyone take a national poll to see if we "chose" this mess? I think it's just a love note to the entertainment lobby, and their analogue hole. That's right, it all boils down to a great big A-Hole.
--
Toro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ
In biology, in situ means to examine the phenomenon exactly in place where it occurs (i.e. without moving it to some special medium). This usually means something intermediate between in vivo and in vitro. For example, examining a cell within a whole organ intact and under perfusion may be in situ investigation. This would not be in vivo as the donor is sacrificed before experimentation, but it would not be the same as working with the cell alone (a common scenario in in vitro experiments).
That is, the use of the phrase in situ implies that the person is dead. in situ literally means "as it is," and is more synonymous with untampered. In a literal sense, the bone could heal by itself in situ, but with an implant, tampering has already occurred, and the process is actually occurring in vivo, in a live organism. It's a minor quibble, but don't use Latin when you can just say "in place," "without further intervention," or "on its own." These would have been better choices, and clearer because they are plain English.
--
Toro
Spot the English major in this post. :^)
I'd make a headline change, sub in "users" for "scanners."
If there was ever a clearer case of PEBKAC, I'd like to hear about it. This is like trying to wall off a cliff to protect the lemmings.
If people will install random crap off the Internet without first reading a review, getting some word of mouth, and/or downloading it from a trusted source, they're going to get infected. Having an AV is useless if you're going to behave as described in TFA. There isn't a technological solution here.
An AV can't protect people who don't understand that you shouldn't "fertilize your lawn with motor oil." This is the level of dumb we are talking about here.
--
Toro
If you bought a new car, and the next day the same company started giving them away for free, and it was clear to you that they had full knowledge of that plan, didn't tell you, and wouldn't take a refund, you wouldn't feel screwed?
Really?
Clearly, there is a huge price difference in this case and the time frame isn't as drastic. Malice and foreknowledge is not clear, but the principle is the same. People who recently purchased OneCare have reason to believe they are entitled to a refund, if only as a matter of "good faith" customer service.
This is at least unprincipled. Absent malice, it's totally legal, Caveat Emptor, but it stinks to high heaven. If it can be proven in a court that it was malicious and willful, then it is actionable as fraud.
So I'm sorry, but I take a rather dim view of your analysis. Consumers are entitled to a refund when they find out that they paid for something that they were told was useful and necessary, but turned out to be worth nothing.
It doesn't matter that it does what it's supposed to, if someone's holding out on you in a commercial transaction of this sort, that's wrong.
--
Toro
Product dumping doesn't require a monopoly. It simply requires you to have enough capital reserves to run everyone else out of a market by deliberately selling your products at a loss.
This is clearly product dumping. It's not a tiered model like other "free" AV providers. They are putting money into a product and dumping it at a loss they have no hope of recovering.
When that kind of behavior runs competitors to the unemployment office, it is not altruism or quality control. It is "altruism and QA" out one side of their mouth, and a "f___king burial" for an entire industry out the other.
That is illegal.
I don't like it one bit. I'm no great Microsoft hater, but I can read the writing on the wall, and Microsoft has decided they're a security company. I've seen them do this before. They will keep system internals a secret so their AV "just works better" and run everyone out of Dodge. Both in cost, and with inside-track advantages.
This is DOJ material for "fair trade" abuse, not monopoly abuse. No one can begin to compete with them if they decide to dump a "free" AV product to combat exploits, and they keep the exploits a secret.
--
Toro
This is a bit like suing the Xerox company for providing the copy machine to the guy who stapled photocopies of your a$$ to all the phone poles in town.
1) You photocopied your own a$$ and let someone else get a hold of it
2) You determine that Xerox is liable for that.
3) ???
4) SUE!
--
Toro
Dear God, I really hope that the ??? step in the profit meme isn't actually "sue." That is a frightening thought.
Depends on how much I need a stick to beat him with, and how easy it is to snap it off. ;^P
--
Toro