That's a very hard thing to manage for any transcontinental company.
And that's why you either monitor things very closely or keep the code writing at home. Regardless of the fact that it's Microsoft China, it was Microsoft's choice to set up the organization, it was their choice to put whoever was in charge of managing the operation and the code from that organization in their position and, ultimately, they bear the responsibilities for those actions. Especially given that it's a company that screams to high heaven about IP rights (and specifically, issues with IP rights in the far east).
Bottom line, Microsoft deserves everything negative it gets from this.
Take the average of the audio energy in the base program (divided into 32-64 frequency bands across the ten octaves above 20Hz). Weight the energy using the Fletcher-Munson curve for the overall average energy level. If the time-average of the audio in the commercial sums to more than the time-average energy in the base program by more than 10%, auto-file a violation report. Fine as needed. You can do it automatically.
In fact, by expanding (if you need to, look up "compression") the audio range and decreasing the volume, you can automatically adjust the volume to within a comfortable range. It's really not much of a trick to do either.
I tend to think the legislation would be better because it would be a global solution to a global annoyance with very little downside. If you have to depend on your commercial being LOUD to get people to notice, you have something wrong. Really, all you need to do is make the people in your commercial more naked.
So you judge information based on who told you rather than what they told you?
So you'd listen to a three year old's opinion rather than that of a physician? Sometimes obvious does not equal correct.
The bottom line is that we all make determinations of the validity of information based on a combination of factors. Using peer review as a basis for information validity seems to work better, in general, than other criteria.
All true, but note that it did not prevent him from researching, getting published, and being recognized as the interesting physicist he was. The system worked. Those of you who are assisting in tearing down the system in your "useful idiot" mouthing of "Four legs good, two legs bad" will make sure that it never works again.
you do realize that Albert Einstein was shut of out academia for years (as he was only a so-so student with a poor grasp of academic politics), which is why he was a Swiss patent clerk in the first place (and not considered as a "scientist" for many years)?
You do realize that academia in Germany and Switzerland in 1905 is not the same as academia today? And that, even then, Einstein not being in academia did not prevent him from researching, publishing, and becoming recognized (and hired, after the fact, as an academician)? I know several mathematicians who are not currently affiliated with any educational institution. They still contribute papers and knowledge. Most of those who are truly "shut out" of academia have a good reason for being in that state.
Either its science, or its propaganda. It cannot be both. 'An Inconvenient Truth' is propaganda masquerading as science, which is actually what this forum topic is about.
No, this forum topic is about those who would discredit the process of peer review (which is the only way we actually have to form consensus) because they don't agree with its outcome.
If I uncork a bottle of blue-tinted water within a tub of clear water, I cannot tell the exact location where the blue will be in one second. However, I can make a pretty good guess that within the next twelve hours, the water in the tub will no longer be clear.
Of course, I figure someone who doesn't know the difference between climatology and meteorology will have a bit of a problem with this argument.
Any "scientist" who works to "shut up" the opposition, has ceased to be a scientist...
Does this also count, if the "skeptics" do not use science to make their case, are given media exposure much greater than their viewpoint is worth, and has funding that far exceeds the research funding of the real scientists? I guess than that trying to shut up the "creation scientists" is the wrong way to go - instead, we should use our limited time and resources endlessly debating them. Do that for flat earthers, too.
Eventually all debates come down to which facts one wants to believe (unless you actually do the experiments yourself - and good luck with that). All I'm saying is that our peer review process, even with its flaws, works better than any other system out there that we've had up to this time (sort of like democracy). Those who seek to tear down this system (and, make no mistake, those who are blowing this one incident out of proportion are doing this), in the guise of "fixing it" are evil.
[Bunch of junk, trying to draw distinction where none exists to make people feel better about killing each other.]
Bottom line, it's all just killing. Try talking to people and do your best to ensure that they have enough resources to guarantee their existence without a bunch of interference in how they run their lives and you probably won't have to do as much of it. Not that it would take care of everything, but it does seem that we (and by we, I mean the species) tend to run for the bombs before we talk to each other these days.
That isn't a bad thing but they are doing it by limiting what you can do with it.
In most circles, limiting functionality to what the majority of targeted customers need, rather than trying to satisfy the needs of any and all potential customers is seen as economical engineering design. Tell me why every Windows user needs administrative tools allowing them to add users to their system. Or why I need an event viewer, even if I have no idea what a system event is or how to deal with it.
The bottom line is that most computer systems are over-featured and under-designed for most users. In fact, one might see most of the superfluous features creating more potential security, misconfiguration, and difficulty of use issues than their (supposedly inherent) usefulness provides.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on... We've done a lot better than that lately.
It's very challenging and crucial role in delivering software project.
Plus, you get to try to boss around nerds, which is always oh so, so satisfying [rolls eyes].
Gosh, you know, I wanted to go into nursing, but I changed my mind once I saw how horribly those blue-green scrubs smocks clash with the beige walls.
So you're an interior designer now?
I guess IT workers, tending towards more libertarian/anarcho-capitalist viewpoints, can't get their shit together then?
Yeah, it's like the article summary implies - they're too dumb to do it (which is what you'd expect from a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist).
... is there anything you can't do?
since you don't use it on your lap.
Speak for yourself...
Best regards,
Stubby
That's a very hard thing to manage for any transcontinental company.
And that's why you either monitor things very closely or keep the code writing at home. Regardless of the fact that it's Microsoft China, it was Microsoft's choice to set up the organization, it was their choice to put whoever was in charge of managing the operation and the code from that organization in their position and, ultimately, they bear the responsibilities for those actions. Especially given that it's a company that screams to high heaven about IP rights (and specifically, issues with IP rights in the far east).
Bottom line, Microsoft deserves everything negative it gets from this.
Take the average of the audio energy in the base program (divided into 32-64 frequency bands across the ten octaves above 20Hz). Weight the energy using the Fletcher-Munson curve for the overall average energy level. If the time-average of the audio in the commercial sums to more than the time-average energy in the base program by more than 10%, auto-file a violation report. Fine as needed. You can do it automatically.
In fact, by expanding (if you need to, look up "compression") the audio range and decreasing the volume, you can automatically adjust the volume to within a comfortable range. It's really not much of a trick to do either.
I tend to think the legislation would be better because it would be a global solution to a global annoyance with very little downside. If you have to depend on your commercial being LOUD to get people to notice, you have something wrong. Really, all you need to do is make the people in your commercial more naked.
So you judge information based on who told you rather than what they told you?
So you'd listen to a three year old's opinion rather than that of a physician? Sometimes obvious does not equal correct.
The bottom line is that we all make determinations of the validity of information based on a combination of factors. Using peer review as a basis for information validity seems to work better, in general, than other criteria.
Because, in case you were too stupid to notice, we now get to blame Obama for everything. Wake up!
It's really amazing how they can do so well in engine design and yet put out software that causes this much consternation...
All true, but note that it did not prevent him from researching, getting published, and being recognized as the interesting physicist he was. The system worked. Those of you who are assisting in tearing down the system in your "useful idiot" mouthing of "Four legs good, two legs bad" will make sure that it never works again.
you do realize that Albert Einstein was shut of out academia for years (as he was only a so-so student with a poor grasp of academic politics), which is why he was a Swiss patent clerk in the first place (and not considered as a "scientist" for many years)?
You do realize that academia in Germany and Switzerland in 1905 is not the same as academia today? And that, even then, Einstein not being in academia did not prevent him from researching, publishing, and becoming recognized (and hired, after the fact, as an academician)? I know several mathematicians who are not currently affiliated with any educational institution. They still contribute papers and knowledge. Most of those who are truly "shut out" of academia have a good reason for being in that state.
Either its science, or its propaganda. It cannot be both. 'An Inconvenient Truth' is propaganda masquerading as science, which is actually what this forum topic is about.
No, this forum topic is about those who would discredit the process of peer review (which is the only way we actually have to form consensus) because they don't agree with its outcome.
If I uncork a bottle of blue-tinted water within a tub of clear water, I cannot tell the exact location where the blue will be in one second. However, I can make a pretty good guess that within the next twelve hours, the water in the tub will no longer be clear.
Of course, I figure someone who doesn't know the difference between climatology and meteorology will have a bit of a problem with this argument.
Any "scientist" who works to "shut up" the opposition, has ceased to be a scientist...
Does this also count, if the "skeptics" do not use science to make their case, are given media exposure much greater than their viewpoint is worth, and has funding that far exceeds the research funding of the real scientists? I guess than that trying to shut up the "creation scientists" is the wrong way to go - instead, we should use our limited time and resources endlessly debating them. Do that for flat earthers, too.
Eventually all debates come down to which facts one wants to believe (unless you actually do the experiments yourself - and good luck with that). All I'm saying is that our peer review process, even with its flaws, works better than any other system out there that we've had up to this time (sort of like democracy). Those who seek to tear down this system (and, make no mistake, those who are blowing this one incident out of proportion are doing this), in the guise of "fixing it" are evil.
So we get Lotus Domino instead?! Somehow that doesn't seem... right.
Are there a lot of late life conception slashdotters out there?
Dude, you'd have to look long and hard for any Slashdotter who had a chance to procreate, late life or not...
Interesting... Except for the syntax thing, you'd have Slashdot editors.
[Bunch of junk, trying to draw distinction where none exists to make people feel better about killing each other.]
Bottom line, it's all just killing. Try talking to people and do your best to ensure that they have enough resources to guarantee their existence without a bunch of interference in how they run their lives and you probably won't have to do as much of it. Not that it would take care of everything, but it does seem that we (and by we, I mean the species) tend to run for the bombs before we talk to each other these days.
try:
man man
And to find out what that does, you type man man man
See? Simple!
And then, finally... their real target! Ladies and gentlemen! Introducing Windows X!
That isn't a bad thing but they are doing it by limiting what you can do with it.
In most circles, limiting functionality to what the majority of targeted customers need, rather than trying to satisfy the needs of any and all potential customers is seen as economical engineering design. Tell me why every Windows user needs administrative tools allowing them to add users to their system. Or why I need an event viewer, even if I have no idea what a system event is or how to deal with it.
The bottom line is that most computer systems are over-featured and under-designed for most users. In fact, one might see most of the superfluous features creating more potential security, misconfiguration, and difficulty of use issues than their (supposedly inherent) usefulness provides.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case...
Yes. Another example of the free market working its wonders.
And then some idiot brought in a laser pointer and the machine destroyed itself trying to catch the dot.