Three bullet-points that apply as well to any corporation, ever as they do to Microsoft.
However, Microsoft consistently does "evil". Anyone who is old enough to have seen the company's history knows that. Mostly ignorant kids who don't care about history keep defending the company.
I'm glad that you're talking about the perfect world and not the real world. Where there are no XP, Agile or scrum zealots, because these are methods. Nor are there Microsoft, Google or Apple Zealots.
I'm talking about the real world. And no, Microsoft, Google and Apple are not methods, and Agile and Scrum are not ideologies.
Please read this fair summary of events and then reply back.
How about you give me a summary of what you are trying to say?
Actually, blogs are increasingly breaking the big stories. And the only reason why MSM isn't "obsolete" is that they still have the connections and credentials. That will change over time. When bloggers have the same connections and credentials, they will break stories first all the time.
I'm equally as terrified by scientific zealots as religious zealots.
It is impossible to be a "scientific zealot" by definition. Science is a method, not an ideology.
Some ignorant people can say Goddidit as easily as they can say Sciencedidit.
Science did nothing. It's a method we can use to explain the world around us.
How long did "science" dispute that bacteria caused ulcers?
Until there was peer-reviewed, material based on repeatable research available showing that this was the case, presumably.
I'm not sure how Einstein, Mendell, Lord Kelvin, Henry Eyring, etc were impeded by a believe in God.
Einstein did not believe in God. He used "God" to describe the nature of the universe, not a personal god. And how do you know that religious scientists are not impeded? If they aren't, they are extremely good at comparmentalizing their minds. Cognitive dissonance springs to mind.
I'm not a member of any religion, yet I can see the value of them.
I just don't get why Science even needs to prove or disprove a God. Can't we just leave it in a box with Schrodinger's cat?
So we refrain from exploring the areas that are "explained" by the God hypothesis? No way. You are basically arguing that we should let superstition hold back scientific research!
The detective doesn't need to understand everything because he has experts at many things he doesn't understand helping him. Similarly, a scientist outside his field does not understand everything, and is therefore not well-equipped to understand it. He can see if the methods used are sound, but he can't necessarily do research.
So basically, you choose to willfully ignore facts just because you don't want to "be smarter than everyone"? You actually think being a dumb fucking moron is POSITIVE?
Not competition within a standard, no. There's a reason why it is a "standard" (W3C only publishes recommendations, but that's not really relevant here).
Considering that the EU is one of Microsoft's biggest markets, yes, Microsoft would definitely hurt. Badly. But that's all irrelevant because Microsoft is going to do whatever it takes to stay in the EU. And the EU will tell Microsoft what to do, and they will do it. You don't fuck with the government if you are a corporation (which only exists at the mercy of the government).
Once upon a time, there was a man who flouted the institutional authority. He said the Earth revolved around the Sun, instead of the other way around. He was branded a heretic.
No one branded anyone a heretic. This guy's paper was peer reviewed and rejected, not automatically rejected. So your comparison is simply insane.
Slashdot Mirror
When it comes to Microsoft, indeed, one has to be extremely ignorant of the company's history in order to keep defending it.
However, Microsoft consistently does "evil". Anyone who is old enough to have seen the company's history knows that. Mostly ignorant kids who don't care about history keep defending the company.
What do you mean by "real research"? Are you the ultimate judge of what "real research" constitutes?
I'm talking about the real world. And no, Microsoft, Google and Apple are not methods, and Agile and Scrum are not ideologies.
How about you give me a summary of what you are trying to say?
Actually, blogs are increasingly breaking the big stories. And the only reason why MSM isn't "obsolete" is that they still have the connections and credentials. That will change over time. When bloggers have the same connections and credentials, they will break stories first all the time.
Ah, the standard creationist dishonesty. "It's just a theory!" You should read this, and educate yourself.
What about him? (TL;DR)
How much is that out of the total?
No one claimed that Cathoilics today believe the earth is flat. Your comment is basically superfluous (and misleading).
It is impossible to be a "scientific zealot" by definition. Science is a method, not an ideology.
Science did nothing. It's a method we can use to explain the world around us.
Until there was peer-reviewed, material based on repeatable research available showing that this was the case, presumably.
Einstein did not believe in God. He used "God" to describe the nature of the universe, not a personal god. And how do you know that religious scientists are not impeded? If they aren't, they are extremely good at comparmentalizing their minds. Cognitive dissonance springs to mind.
What is the value?
So we refrain from exploring the areas that are "explained" by the God hypothesis? No way. You are basically arguing that we should let superstition hold back scientific research!
The detective doesn't need to understand everything because he has experts at many things he doesn't understand helping him. Similarly, a scientist outside his field does not understand everything, and is therefore not well-equipped to understand it. He can see if the methods used are sound, but he can't necessarily do research.
So basically, you choose to willfully ignore facts just because you don't want to "be smarter than everyone"? You actually think being a dumb fucking moron is POSITIVE?
Not competition within a standard, no. There's a reason why it is a "standard" (W3C only publishes recommendations, but that's not really relevant here).
Except AdBlock Plus is not owned by Google or Mozilla.
You are the idiot for making claims there is no basis for.
It isn't profit for the TPB guys. Again, all the money is going to a non-profit organization. You are just spreading FUD.
Google bought Android? No, they created it!
That's crazy talk. Chrome's existence did not and does not depend on Firefox.
Ah yes, guilt by association. The fallacy of the idiot.
Also, all the money from the sale is going for a non-profit organization. So much for "all about the money", eh?
What was the scam, exactly? And were they "scamming" on behalf of the organizations they are donating all the money to?
Considering that the EU is one of Microsoft's biggest markets, yes, Microsoft would definitely hurt. Badly. But that's all irrelevant because Microsoft is going to do whatever it takes to stay in the EU. And the EU will tell Microsoft what to do, and they will do it. You don't fuck with the government if you are a corporation (which only exists at the mercy of the government).
No one branded anyone a heretic. This guy's paper was peer reviewed and rejected, not automatically rejected. So your comparison is simply insane.
Funny how you can't answer a single relevant point, but instead you keep attacking him. Quite pathetic, really.