To be fair to WINE, it is already more than just a toy. I am able to run the full Starsiege Tribes Yes, and to back up the statement that it's not a toy, I should point out that here at NASA, we are using Starsiege Tribes to design the next Mars rocket.
I try to use only free software, but if I had to use some software under Windows, I'd run Windows. Creating an alpha environment to run proprietary software just seems wrong. But what if you were running Windows, and wanting to move to another OS such as Mac or Linux....but you realize you have to keep Windows for one or two apps? Or maybe you don't HAVE to, but if you have to give up those apps, you'll lose some productivity.
Nothing is outright STOPPING you from moving to the new platform, but it sure becomes a lot harder to justify it. Something like WINE or ReactOX can help a lot in making the switch economically practical and smoothing the transition. (I think someone else pointed out that WINE and ReactOS draw from the same codebase)
Because most applications that people use are written for Windows.
Once you give people other options for running those apps, that aren't controlled by a company trying to protect their monopoly, you open up a lot of possibilities for the industry to move away from Microsoft lock-in.
Wouldn't you assume they'd adjust the boundaries periodically to keep it so that each server is handing approximately the same amount of data and processing?
Assuming they do that, it seems the way they do it is far more efficient than what you seem to propose.
the difference being print advertising appeals to the conscious mind, subliminal tv advertising targets the unconscious mind Well, print or tv, my point was neither for nor against subliminal advertising.
It is simply that we can discuss it more reasonably if you don't try to look at something that is inherently a "shades of gray" issue as a black and white one.
Most advertising, I'd guess, tries to use subtle psychological "tricks" to try to influence you to buy the product. What if they use shades of yellow and orange, because some study says that those colors connote trust? Or whatever. Is that subliminal? I don't think so, but it might be said to be influencing you without you knowing why you are influenced.
Just plain old advertising could be said to make people "buy things against their will", if it tips the balance from "slightly inclined to not purchase" to "slightly inclined to purchase".
Speaking in such black and white terms is misleading.
There are direct ancestors of humans that, by any taxonomic classification system, were monkeys. Just a species of monkey that isn't alive today, but a monkey nonetheless.
(N.B., I know gorillas are apes not monkeys, so save the posting effort, it's just a freaking joke...) Well, since that part doesn't appear to be a joke, I'll address it. Apes are really monkeys, if monkeys are to be considered a monophyletic group. Apes are within the old world monkey clade. And yes, we ARE evolved from monkeys, despite what many well meaning people defending Darwinism will tell you.
Well I don't see that it is THAT much of a puzzle as to why. I assume it is related to the invention of clothing. Clothes have a lot of advantages over fur, such as the ability to toss em in the fire when they get full of lice, to dry them when wet, to take them off when its hot, and put more on when cold. So once we had that, fur became a liability.
I think "above" in the solar system is the direction that is perpendicular to the plane of rotation of the planets, and that roughly corresponds to north (but is actually 23.5 degrees from earth-north).
I mean, its neat and all, but is showing a different perspective, that really provides no new information, really worth all those over-the-top effusive words? "Alien world we've never seen before"? Or just one we have seen before, but from a 45 degree different angle?
Saying that seems about as meaningful as saying "people are short".
Did you really not think this through, or are you just trying to prove your point by example?
Well, if SUV's are banned, maybe the next person who thinks its a good idea to crank out 8 kids will recognize the impracticality of needing four cars, and will consider contraception instead. And we'll all be better for it.
Just sayin.
(and to be serious, I don't support banning them outright, I'm more on the side of taxing them heavily)
The metric that equates technical advancement with cultural virtue, that confuses complexity with development, that lauds aggression over diplomacy, that values power over honour, and rewards personal greed over multigenerational-foresight... well, it seems like a primitive metric to me. Except that the original poster used the term "advanced". You seem to have assumed he said "virtuous".
(although I must take exception to the OP's statement that they "didn't matter"....I think he could have used a much better choice of words)
That would be challenging for them to cover up from their employees. At least one employee who saw a blatant crime going on would be a whistleblower, I'd bet.
I don't think they'd be stupid enough to try something like that. They'd get busted.
The dinosaurs didn't have technology. Most likely, an asteroid the size of the one that killed the dinosaurs won't hit us for a million years or more. Now extrapolate human technology forward 1 million years. That's a short time in geological time, but a REALLY LONG time in technology.
You really think we won't be able to do anything about it?
All of your life's savings tied up in a single stock? Again, you are clearly an idiot. You might want to check Apples stock history over the last 6 years. Bought at 12, its now at 80. I've cashed $100,000 of it, and still own as much (in dollar value) as the day I bought it.
You must be using a meaning of the word "idiot" I wasn't previously aware of.
Spending 6 years of life savings into a company is not called Investment, that's Love, true real Love. Well, just to be clear, I bought at 12 and now its above 80. So I didn't do it entirely out of love, it turned out to a wise move, financially. I invest in what I think will make me money, sure, but I also strongly factor in that I believe in what the company is doing.
Can you show me exactly where case or statutory law says that?
Regardless, in the real world, if a company pursues less aggressive, more "pro-consumer" policies, how are is anyone going to "prove" that that is not in the long term financial interest of their shareholders? Thay can't, because the company can argue that maintaining a good reputation has value as well, and which one will be better financially is purely subjective (as are the great majority of decisions a company makes).
By your argument it is illegal for a company to give to charity, and that is just utter crap.
I have a hard time seeing how your examples compares with what microsoft has done.
I mean "iPhone trademark"? Huh? What have they done evil? I'm sure the courts can help decide that fairly. Apple has no particular advantage over Cisco in that. I'm sure they will pay Cisco whatever they deserve, probably a lot more than I'd think they deserve.
Stock options? Who exactly is harmed by that? The stockholders? I'm a stockholder, and sure am not complaining. It's a rule violation, sure, but how is that so evil?
Legal actions against bloggers....ok I'll grant you Apple can be a bit of a control freak. I happen to enjoy Apples big dramatic announcements, and not having them spoiled, so I can't blame them from trying to protect stuff like that. Other things...well, ok, they can be a bit heavy handed.
Treatment of Woz....Hmmm. He seemed to make out ok on the deal. That just seems a little bit of a personal thing on Steve Jobs part, not really Apple. Woz doesn't seem overly bitter. In any case, consumers aren't harmed by it.
Microsoft, meanwhile, well almost everything they have done to leverage their monopoly to prevent competition is in a whole different ballpark. It directly hurts consumers by preventing competitors from staying in business and making new stuff, and by raising prices. That's evil.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's talking about Java?
I don't believe you.
Nothing is outright STOPPING you from moving to the new platform, but it sure becomes a lot harder to justify it. Something like WINE or ReactOX can help a lot in making the switch economically practical and smoothing the transition. (I think someone else pointed out that WINE and ReactOS draw from the same codebase)
Because most applications that people use are written for Windows.
Once you give people other options for running those apps, that aren't controlled by a company trying to protect their monopoly, you open up a lot of possibilities for the industry to move away from Microsoft lock-in.
Wouldn't you assume they'd adjust the boundaries periodically to keep it so that each server is handing approximately the same amount of data and processing?
Assuming they do that, it seems the way they do it is far more efficient than what you seem to propose.
It is simply that we can discuss it more reasonably if you don't try to look at something that is inherently a "shades of gray" issue as a black and white one.
Most advertising, I'd guess, tries to use subtle psychological "tricks" to try to influence you to buy the product. What if they use shades of yellow and orange, because some study says that those colors connote trust? Or whatever. Is that subliminal? I don't think so, but it might be said to be influencing you without you knowing why you are influenced.
What does that even mean?
Just plain old advertising could be said to make people "buy things against their will", if it tips the balance from "slightly inclined to not purchase" to "slightly inclined to purchase".
Speaking in such black and white terms is misleading.
There are direct ancestors of humans that, by any taxonomic classification system, were monkeys. Just a species of monkey that isn't alive today, but a monkey nonetheless.
Well I don't see that it is THAT much of a puzzle as to why. I assume it is related to the invention of clothing. Clothes have a lot of advantages over fur, such as the ability to toss em in the fire when they get full of lice, to dry them when wet, to take them off when its hot, and put more on when cold. So once we had that, fur became a liability.
Who said anything about magnetic north?
I think "above" in the solar system is the direction that is perpendicular to the plane of rotation of the planets, and that roughly corresponds to north (but is actually 23.5 degrees from earth-north).
I mean, its neat and all, but is showing a different perspective, that really provides no new information, really worth all those over-the-top effusive words? "Alien world we've never seen before"? Or just one we have seen before, but from a 45 degree different angle?
You should tell them that you are evolving to preferring to hang out with non-idiots.
So people everywhere are stupid you say?
Relative to what?
Saying that seems about as meaningful as saying "people are short". Did you really not think this through, or are you just trying to prove your point by example?
Well, if SUV's are banned, maybe the next person who thinks its a good idea to crank out 8 kids will recognize the impracticality of needing four cars, and will consider contraception instead. And we'll all be better for it.
Just sayin.
(and to be serious, I don't support banning them outright, I'm more on the side of taxing them heavily)
(although I must take exception to the OP's statement that they "didn't matter"....I think he could have used a much better choice of words)
That would be challenging for them to cover up from their employees. At least one employee who saw a blatant crime going on would be a whistleblower, I'd bet.
I don't think they'd be stupid enough to try something like that. They'd get busted.
The dinosaurs didn't have technology. Most likely, an asteroid the size of the one that killed the dinosaurs won't hit us for a million years or more. Now extrapolate human technology forward 1 million years. That's a short time in geological time, but a REALLY LONG time in technology.
You really think we won't be able to do anything about it?
I don't see your logic. What makes you think that if more people voted, the percentage of pro-evolution voters would go up?
Most likely, the change is not in the number of voters, but in the fact that those who did vote had seen the international ridicule.
You must be using a meaning of the word "idiot" I wasn't previously aware of.
Can you show me exactly where case or statutory law says that?
Regardless, in the real world, if a company pursues less aggressive, more "pro-consumer" policies, how are is anyone going to "prove" that that is not in the long term financial interest of their shareholders? Thay can't, because the company can argue that maintaining a good reputation has value as well, and which one will be better financially is purely subjective (as are the great majority of decisions a company makes).
By your argument it is illegal for a company to give to charity, and that is just utter crap.
I have a hard time seeing how your examples compares with what microsoft has done.
I mean "iPhone trademark"? Huh? What have they done evil? I'm sure the courts can help decide that fairly. Apple has no particular advantage over Cisco in that. I'm sure they will pay Cisco whatever they deserve, probably a lot more than I'd think they deserve.
Stock options? Who exactly is harmed by that? The stockholders? I'm a stockholder, and sure am not complaining. It's a rule violation, sure, but how is that so evil?
Legal actions against bloggers....ok I'll grant you Apple can be a bit of a control freak. I happen to enjoy Apples big dramatic announcements, and not having them spoiled, so I can't blame them from trying to protect stuff like that. Other things...well, ok, they can be a bit heavy handed.
Treatment of Woz....Hmmm. He seemed to make out ok on the deal. That just seems a little bit of a personal thing on Steve Jobs part, not really Apple. Woz doesn't seem overly bitter. In any case, consumers aren't harmed by it.
Microsoft, meanwhile, well almost everything they have done to leverage their monopoly to prevent competition is in a whole different ballpark. It directly hurts consumers by preventing competitors from staying in business and making new stuff, and by raising prices. That's evil.