"Also Microsoft can utilize their Monopoly to do things that others "bound by standards" couldn't do as easily.* If you know your API has 90 % of the market? Then many things become possible(1) Also with the influx of.NET and XAML, they have a much better foundation than the old API's gave them."
No, to the contrary. Isn't it funny that just when they won the browser war against Netscape, they basically stopped all development on IE? Bringing out new features, better API etc. would lead to better Webapps. That would make more and more MS apps obsolete, like Outlook (Gmail), Frontpage (maybe FCKEditor), Money etc. etc. In the end, if there were enough Apps to use on a browser, you could switch to Linux, or to any OS supporting a browser - OpenBeOS, BSD, whatever. Conspiracy & speculation, but still...
As could be read on Joel on Software, Webapps are becoming major competition to MS. That's why a better browser is the last thing MS wants. Worse browser = better browser.
No, seriously... 5% of population are geeks in the sense that they can understand and follow instructions regarding their machine. 1% are ultra-geeks that could write a little program or script or compile something from source. 95% are the Joes and Maries that use the machine and call support/neighbor/relative if anything happens. Like don't print or so.
That explains all about percentages of desktop OSes. Requires command-line? Just lost the other 95%.
First of all, to do the stuff Google does, you need massive hardware, tech expertise in handling that volume, and marketing channels. Right now, only Yahoo and Msn have it. Doesn't mean no one could still enter, but your neat garage (OSS?) shop. Google handles 200m searches a day. However, I would guess multiple times that in AdWord searches.
And search is like ebay. You know people want you to find them, so they make shure they are on Google (and Yahoo). So you look there to find them, and not to SomeNiftySearch.edu. I'm not saying a huge public backlash could not stop them. But it will get harder and harder...
On Amazon they have all these "people who liked A also liked B" thing and all their recommend algorithms. If Google ever gets away with something like that, it's a done deal. For Amazon, you need to visit their site. For Google, you need to visit *any AdWord enabled site*. Could be huge.
Google had net cash of 608m$ on revenues of 805m$ for the third quarter and a measly market cap of over 50b$.
Just guessing, but people might think of Google in 10 years like they do now about MS. Having 75% of internet visibility at your disposal gives you some power... You could insert any amount of conspiracy as what could happen if you displease them... As a starting point: sliding down 2 or 3 places for a major retailer can hurt significantly. Talk about serious $.
I'm not saying that Yahoo, Msn, Amazon etc. do anything differently, but Google could be the ones with the key assets. Consumer access
I know it's Christmas... You mixed up the radius with the surface of the disc. If they calculated a chance of 1/200, then the disc around Earth the Asteroid passes through should be 200 times earths cross-section. Then R^2 pi/r^2 pi should be 200, so R/r be ca 14 (thank God not 13 -- btw, the number of 233? Sounds like someone might be joking).
If the Asteroid had a significant diameter, then probably that would have to be included; so if it would be Mars-size, then anything in a disc of r_earth + r_mars would be a hit.
Galileo and Copernicus would disagree with you. What about Darwin? Ever hear of the "Scopes Monkey Trial"?
Agreed, probably there was a lot of screaming, though usually not *in* the scientific community but between scientists and people of *other* mindsets, like in the Darwin & Galileo cases. A scientist who doesn't believe the results of others are valid might not accept his/her papers, not invite him etc. Usually he will not send hate-mail etc.
So there was only one published study linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer? ANSWER ME! Prolly about 10? Then the matter was settled as (a) True (in the medical sense;-)) (b) false (c) inconclusive. In this case (smoking) (a).
[]An actual opponent would have scientific credentials[] What I meant: science is not about being good/bad but about true/false (for the time being; science being a process) People "denying" GW are not bad. Can't be
The possibility of denial shows this can't be science. (1) Real science doesn't lead to a lot of screaming. (2) You can't republish the same result ("humans responsible for warming") 50 times. Example: new research finds human genom takes form of double helix... (3) Opponents are termed "wrong" not "bad".
Nice photos of water patterns from a guy aptly named Alexander Lauterwasser ("clear water" in German). He produces them by setting shallow water tablets into vibration, mostly through sound. Nice pics
Having the app do stuff automagically can be a real pain. I don't know how many times i did something in Word only to have the program second-guess what I wanted.
This sort method would put any files it considers "date" in date-order--crazy. Proposal to make it worse: auto-rename them. Great fun.
Definitely... The conspiracy would have been something else: Google ranking down a site that has a no-ads policy. What good would it do for Google to have a wildly popular site without them?
Adding a couple of "parameters" to Google rank COULD do wonders - pure speculation though.
I don't know if anyone else noticed. A couple of weeks ago, when you googled for terms featured prominently in WP, Google showed the same article on thefreedictionary.com (WP clone with - surprise - ads) much higher on the list than WP itself. Often, WP was hidden on page x>1. Makes for a nice conspiracy;]
Now I am just recently thinking about starting my own business. I wanted to use this history-prediction theory. First to mind came the following applications: - Sports Gambling (Super Bowl 04) - Oscars (could licence to some Hollywood studios) - Traffic jams (sell expertise to local radio) - Holidays (book now - will be sold out) Would hire Majors/PhDs
Slashdot Mirror
"Also Microsoft can utilize their Monopoly to do things that others "bound by standards" couldn't do as easily.* If you know your API has 90 % of the market? Then many things become possible(1) Also with the influx of .NET and XAML, they have a much better foundation than the old API's gave them."
No, to the contrary. Isn't it funny that just when they won the browser war against Netscape, they basically stopped all development on IE? Bringing out new features, better API etc. would lead to better Webapps. That would make more and more MS apps obsolete, like Outlook (Gmail), Frontpage (maybe FCKEditor), Money etc. etc. In the end, if there were enough Apps to use on a browser, you could switch to Linux, or to any OS supporting a browser - OpenBeOS, BSD, whatever. Conspiracy & speculation, but still...
As could be read on Joel on Software, Webapps are becoming major competition to MS. That's why a better browser is the last thing MS wants. Worse browser = better browser.
for this comment.
No, seriously... 5% of population are geeks in the sense that they can understand and follow instructions regarding their machine. 1% are ultra-geeks that could write a little program or script or compile something from source. 95% are the Joes and Maries that use the machine and call support/neighbor/relative if anything happens. Like don't print or so.
That explains all about percentages of desktop OSes. Requires command-line? Just lost the other 95%.
--Quality of trolling lacking lately--
Now this touches the Path For *Ix: Make it to operate on a mouse only (apart from proper names). Wonders can do it. OSX can do it. *Ix can't.
BTW:
-Interesting = false
-Informative = refuting parent
-Insightful = changing topic
Root canal tratment.mp3
Migraine.mp3??
But survival of the fittest??
Any idea gets a "Darwinism" tacked to it. It's virulent.
Looking for Grants? try
-Darwinian database design
-Darwinian history of boygroups
-Darwinian recipy selection by opressive moms
I can't read the tea leaves so dunno...
First of all, to do the stuff Google does, you need massive hardware, tech expertise in handling that volume, and marketing channels. Right now, only Yahoo and Msn have it. Doesn't mean no one could still enter, but your neat garage (OSS?) shop. Google handles 200m searches a day. However, I would guess multiple times that in AdWord searches.
And search is like ebay. You know people want you to find them, so they make shure they are on Google (and Yahoo). So you look there to find them, and not to SomeNiftySearch.edu. I'm not saying a huge public backlash could not stop them. But it will get harder and harder...
On Amazon they have all these "people who liked A also liked B" thing and all their recommend algorithms. If Google ever gets away with something like that, it's a done deal. For Amazon, you need to visit their site. For Google, you need to visit *any AdWord enabled site*. Could be huge.
Google had net cash of 608m$ on revenues of 805m$ for the third quarter and a measly market cap of over 50b$.
Just guessing, but people might think of Google in 10 years like they do now about MS. Having 75% of internet visibility at your disposal gives you some power... You could insert any amount of conspiracy as what could happen if you displease them... As a starting point: sliding down 2 or 3 places for a major retailer can hurt significantly. Talk about serious $.
I'm not saying that Yahoo, Msn, Amazon etc. do anything differently, but Google could be the ones with the key assets. Consumer access
I know it's Christmas... You mixed up the radius with the surface of the disc. If they calculated a chance of 1/200, then the disc around Earth the Asteroid passes through should be 200 times earths cross-section. Then R^2 pi/r^2 pi should be 200, so R/r be ca 14 (thank God not 13 -- btw, the number of 233? Sounds like someone might be joking).
If the Asteroid had a significant diameter, then probably that would have to be included; so if it would be Mars-size, then anything in a disc of r_earth + r_mars would be a hit.
In Soviet Russia YOU hit the Asteroid
Bad in that they don't agree with your notion of good. They might even be morally bad. However they are not scientifically wrong.
.02) of climate science is that the models are not fully matured yet.
"My reading" (of about 2 articles, i.e. my
Galileo and Copernicus would disagree with you. What about Darwin? Ever hear of the "Scopes Monkey Trial"?
;-)) (b) false (c) inconclusive. In this case (smoking) (a).
Agreed, probably there was a lot of screaming, though usually not *in* the scientific community but between scientists and people of *other* mindsets, like in the Darwin & Galileo cases. A scientist who doesn't believe the results of others are valid might not accept his/her papers, not invite him etc. Usually he will not send hate-mail etc.
So there was only one published study linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer? ANSWER ME! Prolly about 10? Then the matter was settled as (a) True (in the medical sense
[]An actual opponent would have scientific credentials[] What I meant: science is not about being good/bad but about true/false (for the time being; science being a process) People "denying" GW are not bad. Can't be
The possibility of denial shows this can't be science. (1) Real science doesn't lead to a lot of screaming. (2) You can't republish the same result ("humans responsible for warming") 50 times. Example: new research finds human genom takes form of double helix... (3) Opponents are termed "wrong" not "bad".
Nice photos of water patterns from a guy aptly named Alexander Lauterwasser ("clear water" in German). He produces them by setting shallow water tablets into vibration, mostly through sound. Nice pics
Having the app do stuff automagically can be a real pain. I don't know how many times i did something in Word only to have the program second-guess what I wanted.
This sort method would put any files it considers "date" in date-order--crazy. Proposal to make it worse: auto-rename them. Great fun.
with 4 employees.
Definitely... The conspiracy would have been something else: Google ranking down a site that has a no-ads policy. What good would it do for Google to have a wildly popular site without them?
Adding a couple of "parameters" to Google rank COULD do wonders - pure speculation though.
I don't know if anyone else noticed. A couple of weeks ago, when you googled for terms featured prominently in WP, Google showed the same article on thefreedictionary.com (WP clone with - surprise - ads) much higher on the list than WP itself. Often, WP was hidden on page x>1. Makes for a nice conspiracy ;]
Mod parent down. tinyurl => "adult filth" (or sth)
The console business is totally different from the pc business.
PC hardware: The faster the better. Faster PC => bigger files, faster processing. (In the old days)
Console: All games run on console. No need for faster console (Think: super PS2. double speed, triple memory)
Now I am just recently thinking about starting my own business. I wanted to use this history-prediction theory. First to mind came the following applications:
- Sports Gambling (Super Bowl 04)
- Oscars (could licence to some Hollywood studios)
- Traffic jams (sell expertise to local radio)
- Holidays (book now - will be sold out)
Would hire Majors/PhDs