Surface was unveiled by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer on May 30, 2007 at The Wall Street Journal's 'D: All Things Digital' conference in Carlsbad, California.[10]
Microsoft-sponsored demo.
Surface Computing is part of Microsoft's Productivity and Extended Consumer Experiences Group, which is within the Entertainment & Devices division. The first few companies to deploy Surface will include Harrah's Entertainment, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, T-Mobile and a distributor, International Game Technology.[11]
Any actual deployments?
On April 17, 2008 AT&T became the first retail location to launch Surface.[12] In June 2008 Harrah's Entertainment launched Microsoft Surface at Rio iBar[13] and Disneyland launched it in Tomorrowland, Innoventions Dream Home[14]. On August 13, 2008 Sheraton Hotels introduced Surface in their hotel lobbies at 5 locations[15]. On September 8, 2008 MSNBC began using the Surface to work with election maps for the 2008 US Presidential Election on air. MSNBC's political director, Chuck Todd, was placed at the helm.
All sound like Microsoft-sponsored demos and pilot projects.
The absence of the task bar will puzzle a lot of people used to it since Windows 95 (but I had no problems working without it on X Terminals before then) so removing it is a very bold and risky decision.
Before taskbar there were iconized windows. This thing doesn't have them -- it looks like MacOS or Window Selector applet that exists in the current Gnome (though no one uses it for switching). Even OSX has a panel now (similar to twm/fvwm icon boxes).
I have changed default directory browser application to Thunar, and changed file manager in "mandatory" applications to/bin/false. If I want to see desktop icons (that I usually don't) I add xfdesktop to the session.
It looks like Dolphin may be a better (though fatter than Thunar) file manager for Gnome.
Actually Communists distinguish personal property (what a person owns and uses directly) and private ownership of the means of production (that a person uses to take control of the fruits of others' labor).
Socialist countries (what you, Americans, call "Communist countries") had banned the latter but not the former. People could own anything from thumbtacks to livestock and shares in the buildings under construction, however only government could own a factory, road, bank, etc. Considering that this made government bureaucrats better at management than most of managers and executives I have ever seen in US, I don't see any problem with this.
"greed is natural" also has the purpose, that you of course ignore, of being used as a justification for systems that don't fall apart in the presence of greed.
This is not the same as creating a system that encourages and rewards greed. Modern society takes into account all kinds of things that people don't like, however we don't have to reward, say, murderers to develop a murder-resistant society.
Oh, and in the reality of politics you can't get away from greed. It's self selecting, there are only two real reasons to want political power:
1. Greed 2. Altruism
Guess which is more common?
In a society that openly encourages greed, or in all societies?
Then how come, he protests against society performing its function of resisting such behavior by opposing and oppressing people who perpetrate it?
The whole "greed is natural" argument has no other purpose but to defend unusually greedy people from backlash caused by their actions. Oh, and occasionally as a stepping stone to "greed is good" that glorifies such people and paves their way to political power and ideological leadership.
First, maturity is realizing that not everyone who disagrees with you is a "fuckhead".
No, it's realization that some people are in fact fuckheads.
Greed isn't deviant. In fact, it's rather common, and to some degree, universal.
Most of deviant behavior is rather common and universal, just significantly less common than mainstream and recognized as such.
Most people do not exhibit a compulsion to rip off their fellow humans without having their life and health threatened, or being placed in other equally dire circumstances. People like the above mentioned businessmen, do, and their lackeys (a.k.a. fuckheads) spread propaganda trying to convince others (sane people) that such behavior is "natural".
What we call "greed" is just the manifestation of game theory.
Game theory does not describe a society.
When all is well, we all get along in a state of enlightened self-interest
Wow. Just wow.
where our self-interest and collective interest balance. But aggressive players can disrupt the game and at least temporarily benefit. Sometimes the gain really is short-term, and the society (system) settles back into a stable state. Other times, a new equilibrium is achieved. In human terms, that new equilibrium usually isn't desirable, and even the aggressors end up worse off. (To pick an example: who did the Trojan War benefit, exactly?)
More often than not such "balance" was achieved over many decades by society being nearly wiped out, and new generation adopting less idiotic ideas. Later it was achieved by being conquered and enslaved by less collectively stupid neighbors, having a bloody revolt, etc. At this point in history, I think, we are at the point when public humiliation of fuckheads is becoming sufficient to avert a disaster (or preventing it from spreading outside US).
I am sure, supporters of this fine example of business will also defend this scam.
It's a true masterpiece -- from dynamically generated "comments", to a disclaimer that everything on the page is a lie disguised as a "Terms and Conditions" fine print.
I think sharks are smart enough to figure out who threw those painful titanium darts sticking out of their backs.
I am pretty sure, sharks' behavior toward tasty meat-filled creatures in front of them is not predicated on recognizing those creatures as related to other events in those sharks' lives.
Also i'm a shark!!! i'm a SHAAAARK! suck my titanium daaaart!! I'M A SHAAARK!!
People should be always suspicious toward prophets (and propaganda workers) who are trying to explain humans what humans are supposed to feel to follow our own "human nature". Humans have all kinds of emotions and motivations, and tendency for what we recognize as selfishness and competitiveness being balanced by approximately the same amount of tendency toward what we recognize as altruism and cooperation. If humans were overwhelmingly inclined toward some specific kind of behavior, that behavior would not ever be given a name because it would never be necessary to explain it to a human. Is there a specific name for a typical way of walking? Typical way of breathing? Typical attitude toward others? If something has a name, especially a recognizable and emotionally charged one, it has to be a deviation.
is here to stay
Greed, being a deviant behavior, is very easy to suppress to the level when it does not take over large groups of people and turns them into a danger to everyone around them.
That is, when the society is not full of stupid fuckheads like yourself who bought this idea of greed being the only driving force that is worth following.
It's not a product until it is being sold or at least ready to be sold. So far it's the other way around -- it's a "cool demo" that Microsoft exhibits and pays others to exhibit as some kind of expression of intellectual prowess.
From that perspective it can be summarized as "We commend you for your suffering, however we are asking your oppressors to sin less because they are not as saved as you are". Or, more objectively, church fulfilling its function of placating the masses without actually giving anything useful to anyone.
I'm not sure I agree, Firefox should be vetting the plugins it allows to attach to it.
And verify what, that they are not written by idiots?
Do you understand that you can't install a plugin remotely? That it's a program that a user has to install before it can do anything?
Also, the plugins are tied to the browser, so any vulnerability that pops up is at least indirectly related to the way the browser handles the plugin.
Actually now Mozilla plugins are used by all browsers that are not IE. Firefox EXTENSIONS are browser-specific, however they are rarely contain vulnerabilities unless they are full-blown trojans distributed in as extensions.
Secondly there was no copy of the GPL involved here - the persons who received the potentially infringing code did not receive it under the GPL, they received it under a potential violation of copyright law.
Then whoever they received is from, had to violate the GPL. Software does not get distributed to developers automagically.
kind of suck when it comes to concurrency programming and network stuff
I can assure you that they are just fine for those purposes. Low-level languages (what actually means C because it's the only one) occasionally suck at being high-level languages.
WTF is this "unwilfull infringement" and how is it supposed to apply to software that is always distributed with a copy of GPL attached to it and prominently shown in comments and executables? What is this defense, "I thought, it was in public domain"?
Slashdot Mirror
You mean, drug stamps?
...US military should rob foreign banks, too?
Surface was unveiled by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer on May 30, 2007 at The Wall Street Journal's 'D: All Things Digital' conference in Carlsbad, California.[10]
Microsoft-sponsored demo.
Surface Computing is part of Microsoft's Productivity and Extended Consumer Experiences Group, which is within the Entertainment & Devices division. The first few companies to deploy Surface will include Harrah's Entertainment, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, T-Mobile and a distributor, International Game Technology.[11]
Any actual deployments?
On April 17, 2008 AT&T became the first retail location to launch Surface.[12] In June 2008 Harrah's Entertainment launched Microsoft Surface at Rio iBar[13] and Disneyland launched it in Tomorrowland, Innoventions Dream Home[14]. On August 13, 2008 Sheraton Hotels introduced Surface in their hotel lobbies at 5 locations[15]. On September 8, 2008 MSNBC began using the Surface to work with election maps for the 2008 US Presidential Election on air. MSNBC's political director, Chuck Todd, was placed at the helm.
All sound like Microsoft-sponsored demos and pilot projects.
The absence of the task bar will puzzle a lot of people used to it since Windows 95 (but I had no problems working without it on X Terminals before then) so removing it is a very bold and risky decision.
Before taskbar there were iconized windows. This thing doesn't have them -- it looks like MacOS or Window Selector applet that exists in the current Gnome (though no one uses it for switching). Even OSX has a panel now (similar to twm/fvwm icon boxes).
Gnome is still plagued by Nautilus
I have changed default directory browser application to Thunar, and changed file manager in "mandatory" applications to /bin/false. If I want to see desktop icons (that I usually don't) I add xfdesktop to the session.
It looks like Dolphin may be a better (though fatter than Thunar) file manager for Gnome.
I just switched to Ubuntu 9.10 it has been ok. Very rough, buggy, and unpolished compared to Windows but I really wanted to soldier on.
Gnome is just fine -- certainly better than Windows Vusta/7. Just switch to any other theme/color scheme.
But why would anyone believe something that:
1. Makes absolutely no sense.
2. Said by Madoff?
RFC 1925:
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.
In other words, you believe that Madoff intended to spend the rest of his life in prison?
Are you really that stupid?
Actually Communists distinguish personal property (what a person owns and uses directly) and private ownership of the means of production (that a person uses to take control of the fruits of others' labor).
Socialist countries (what you, Americans, call "Communist countries") had banned the latter but not the former. People could own anything from thumbtacks to livestock and shares in the buildings under construction, however only government could own a factory, road, bank, etc. Considering that this made government bureaucrats better at management than most of managers and executives I have ever seen in US, I don't see any problem with this.
"greed is natural" also has the purpose, that you of course ignore, of being used as a justification for systems that don't fall apart in the presence of greed.
This is not the same as creating a system that encourages and rewards greed. Modern society takes into account all kinds of things that people don't like, however we don't have to reward, say, murderers to develop a murder-resistant society.
Oh, and in the reality of politics you can't get away from greed. It's self selecting, there are only two real reasons to want political power:
1. Greed
2. Altruism
Guess which is more common?
In a society that openly encourages greed, or in all societies?
Oh come on, "somewhere". If such picture exists, it was on /b/.
I'm not sure what you're implying. You can buy Surface today
Where and how much does it cost?
and there are organizations out there that did so and are using it already. Please read the link in my previous post more carefully.
The link shows Surface being showcased on behalf of Microsoft, not actual use by paying customers.
Then how come, he protests against society performing its function of resisting such behavior by opposing and oppressing people who perpetrate it?
The whole "greed is natural" argument has no other purpose but to defend unusually greedy people from backlash caused by their actions. Oh, and occasionally as a stepping stone to "greed is good" that glorifies such people and paves their way to political power and ideological leadership.
First, maturity is realizing that not everyone who disagrees with you is a "fuckhead".
No, it's realization that some people are in fact fuckheads.
Greed isn't deviant. In fact, it's rather common, and to some degree, universal.
Most of deviant behavior is rather common and universal, just significantly less common than mainstream and recognized as such.
Most people do not exhibit a compulsion to rip off their fellow humans without having their life and health threatened, or being placed in other equally dire circumstances. People like the above mentioned businessmen, do, and their lackeys (a.k.a. fuckheads) spread propaganda trying to convince others (sane people) that such behavior is "natural".
What we call "greed" is just the manifestation of game theory.
Game theory does not describe a society.
When all is well, we all get along in a state of enlightened self-interest
Wow. Just wow.
where our self-interest and collective interest balance. But aggressive players can disrupt the game and at least temporarily benefit. Sometimes the gain really is short-term, and the society (system) settles back into a stable state. Other times, a new equilibrium is achieved. In human terms, that new equilibrium usually isn't desirable, and even the aggressors end up worse off. (To pick an example: who did the Trojan War benefit, exactly?)
More often than not such "balance" was achieved over many decades by society being nearly wiped out, and new generation adopting less idiotic ideas. Later it was achieved by being conquered and enslaved by less collectively stupid neighbors, having a bloody revolt, etc. At this point in history, I think, we are at the point when public humiliation of fuckheads is becoming sufficient to avert a disaster (or preventing it from spreading outside US).
I am sure, supporters of this fine example of business will also defend this scam.
It's a true masterpiece -- from dynamically generated "comments", to a disclaimer that everything on the page is a lie disguised as a "Terms and Conditions" fine print.
I think sharks are smart enough to figure out who threw those painful titanium darts sticking out of their backs.
I am pretty sure, sharks' behavior toward tasty meat-filled creatures in front of them is not predicated on recognizing those creatures as related to other events in those sharks' lives.
Also
i'm a shark!!! i'm a SHAAAARK!
suck my titanium daaaart!! I'M A SHAAARK!!
greed, as a part of human nature,
People should be always suspicious toward prophets (and propaganda workers) who are trying to explain humans what humans are supposed to feel to follow our own "human nature". Humans have all kinds of emotions and motivations, and tendency for what we recognize as selfishness and competitiveness being balanced by approximately the same amount of tendency toward what we recognize as altruism and cooperation. If humans were overwhelmingly inclined toward some specific kind of behavior, that behavior would not ever be given a name because it would never be necessary to explain it to a human. Is there a specific name for a typical way of walking? Typical way of breathing? Typical attitude toward others? If something has a name, especially a recognizable and emotionally charged one, it has to be a deviation.
is here to stay
Greed, being a deviant behavior, is very easy to suppress to the level when it does not take over large groups of people and turns them into a danger to everyone around them.
That is, when the society is not full of stupid fuckheads like yourself who bought this idea of greed being the only driving force that is worth following.
It's not a product until it is being sold or at least ready to be sold. So far it's the other way around -- it's a "cool demo" that Microsoft exhibits and pays others to exhibit as some kind of expression of intellectual prowess.
From that perspective it can be summarized as "We commend you for your suffering, however we are asking your oppressors to sin less because they are not as saved as you are". Or, more objectively, church fulfilling its function of placating the masses without actually giving anything useful to anyone.
I'm not sure I agree, Firefox should be vetting the plugins it allows to attach to it.
And verify what, that they are not written by idiots?
Do you understand that you can't install a plugin remotely? That it's a program that a user has to install before it can do anything?
Also, the plugins are tied to the browser, so any vulnerability that pops up is at least indirectly related to the way the browser handles the plugin.
Actually now Mozilla plugins are used by all browsers that are not IE. Firefox EXTENSIONS are browser-specific, however they are rarely contain vulnerabilities unless they are full-blown trojans distributed in as extensions.
No, it's a reference to this video.
Secondly there was no copy of the GPL involved here - the persons who received the potentially infringing code did not receive it under the GPL, they received it under a potential violation of copyright law.
Then whoever they received is from, had to violate the GPL. Software does not get distributed to developers automagically.
kind of suck when it comes to concurrency programming and network stuff
I can assure you that they are just fine for those purposes. Low-level languages (what actually means C because it's the only one) occasionally suck at being high-level languages.
WTF is this "unwilfull infringement" and how is it supposed to apply to software that is always distributed with a copy of GPL attached to it and prominently shown in comments and executables? What is this defense, "I thought, it was in public domain"?