You make a great point, for your point of view which is propaganda. There is no "fact" that human produced carbon dioxide is warming the Earth. You believe those who say it is, so you accept it as fact.
The "science of economics" is a mystery. I don't follow that one. The concept of lowering the tax "rate" to increase the economy is sound. It works. It's worked in both administrations it's been tried with. The deficit is really incidental to that because deficits are a result of spending more than you have. So deficits are less a part of the economy as a whole and more a symptom of a problem that happens to fall into the category of "economics."
There is no attempt to replace textbooks with the Bible. It's interesting that the Left has to justify their extremism with extremes. You simply want Intelligent Design mentioned as another theory and suddenly you want everyone to read the Bible. Keep using this tactic and we'll keep voting in conservatives. Conservatism isn't about being "far right." It's about taking some responsibility for youself, for your financial freedom, and for your family. Paint it however makes you and your "educated" friends wish. Keep doing it this way, and all you win over are twenty-somethings and high-schoolers. Guess what? When they get a job and actually pay taxes they'll see the beauty of "Conservative Extremism."
OT: I find it interesting that when some leftist idiot wants to say something about how the U.S. is, they goto England to do it. Want to change the state of technology and science education? Start supporting it. Bush is. Go google for it.
This would be fascinating if true. You underestimate Microsoft's veracious appetite. They have no interest in interoperability. Perhaps in the short-term, yes, but in the long term their view is always dominance. Always. We might not see their plan at this stage, but start sleeping with them and you eventually you'll get screwed. By then, it might be too late. Who knows? Perhaps they want to inject code or simply muddy the legal waters. Perhaps bastardize even more "standards." As much as it sounds PC to say, "We can all get along and Microsoft has some place in the market" the truth is we're at the head of the battle. Microsoft is the enemy of competition in technology and the bane of innovation. No matter how we choose to "interoperate" with Windows, we need to have a hand on the pistols when dealing with them. Paranoia? I don't think so. The last 30 years is littered with "corpses" from their "embrace and extend" tactics. I say, keep them out. The fact that they're even talking this is a sign of the progress OSS is making. Why start talking truce now?
My Mom can't either. She lives on a rural road with old equipment. Telco doesn't have a cost benefit for replacing it. She's well within her distance requirements, though.
" I merely pointed out that the pursuit of religious truth is based on traditions and opinions rather than facts." A rash assumption and an opinion. Hey, it's yours. Love it, cradle it. Sleep well in your own blanket of superiority and ignorance. I just don't see a place for it here.
Not all religions can be categorized the way you do just as not all scientists can. The notion that spiritual thinkers are divoid of honestly pursuing truth and therefore unable to appreciate it if they found it is the height of arrogance. Dude, why don't you just go live your life banging whores guilt free? You seem to spend more cycles rehashing your own feelings of justification.
Does it really matter if they collect or not? I mean, yes it does but my point is the fact that they went after the patent is part and parcel of their philosophy. This, in my opinion, is as bad or worse than domain squatting. All you "M$ isn't so bad" folks can eat a little crow. If you think M$ is anything short of Evil Incarnate, you have serious mental issues.
Simple. If it's not caused by man then it's natural. If it's natural, it's futile or at least dangerous to attempt to reverse it. Let's assume it's all caused by natural forces and is a part of nature. Then we come along and take all these drastic measures to reverse it based on environmental extremists' mandates. Now these same environmentalists would tell you "don't alter this forest or that ecosystem because that is tampering with nature!" Why is this blatant double standard not obvious? To avoid it, they assume it's manmade. It's funny, in the 70's we were headed to an ice age. It's a cycle folks. Calm down.
You sound fairly technically minded, though. I can give my Mom a PC with XP (and that's what she's using, BTW) and I have cleanup work when I visit. Spyware, viruses, all kinds of issues and she's on dialup! I wouldn't have those with a Mac. Even beyond that, she's far less likely to mistakenly turn off a feature or install software or disable drivers with a Mac.
All of this storage is useless if your access to it is limited. That is the situation we find ourselves in now, to an extent. Windows, for instance, is largely useless as an OS for large amounts of data particularly if that data is in the form of thousands of small files. I realize this is an NTFS issue largely, but SMB is also limited. Then you look at bandwidth. Transporting large amounts of data over typical 100Mpbs of shared pipe can be cumbersome as well. It's nice to have a terabyte of storage but when it takes 4hrs to retrieve a couple of hundred gig what's the point?
I understand that this is how it works, I'm not saying I don't follow the logic. My issue is with the principles involved. I think they assume a risk and their clients shouldn't be penalised because they assumed the risk. I know how the system works I just think it's skewed in favor of the company, which explains why they're in business. If Joe Schmoe has heart disease, why should the insurance company charge me for it? It's not Joe's fault. Certainly it's not mine either. He paid his premiums, not me. It's a philosophical problem, I suppose.
My problem is that they don't "drive up the rates" insurance companies do. Just because they are predisposed to these issues doesn't mean they will succomb to them. So there is still an unknown. Insurance companies could always raise his rates and leave yours alone, they choose not too. So they get higher premiums from you both and profit on interest from investments. Therein lies my issue with them. I have no problem with profit, don't get me wrong. My problem is that they are largely unfettered. Why should my rates go up because another policy holder has a problem? This shouldn't be possible.
The problem is no one wants to assume risk. Shouldn't this be an insurance issue instead of a workman's comp issue? You have insurance companies that don't want any risk but yet want premiums. Part of the recipe for insurance is that you are paying them to assume a risk and they are betting on that risk not falling through. Further, they are making profit off your money via investment. In the case of employers, they are making these deposits on the chance that something does happen. I understand that you don't want to lose at poker, but you're playing the game. I realize this analogy breaks down at some point but isn't it equally unethical to collect insurance premiums from people who have predispositions to ANYTHING? Insurance companies are largely evil entities and unfortunately, necessary evils. My opinion, FWIW.
It's far more likely that Microsoft bought into Hilfiger. Offer some low-cost licensing, sprinkle some software (Great Plains, anyone?) and you "make them an offer they can't refuse." The TCO starts looking pretty good when Microsoft is willing to lose some money on the deal. After all, look at the publicity.
This, in my mind, is a myth. People think that you can go to Microsoft and they will be liable. This is false. You CAN lay blame, but it is largely pointless. At best, this will get you a Microsoft shirt onsite who will help you through the issue. Did you lose critical data? Too bad. The EULA is setup to protect Microsoft. If you lost $150,000 in data you're not going to get that from Microsoft. But hey, you can blame them. I suppose that's all CIO's seem to really want.
I know "force" was not the proper word. Frankly, I think they shouldn't try. I think they're simply so arrogant and anti-competitive that it eats them up that anyone could have a piece of software they don't. More directly, a technology they don't dominate. It's this maniacal obsession with dominance that frankly turns my stomach.
Slashdot Mirror
You make a great point, for your point of view which is propaganda. There is no "fact" that human produced carbon dioxide is warming the Earth. You believe those who say it is, so you accept it as fact.
The "science of economics" is a mystery. I don't follow that one. The concept of lowering the tax "rate" to increase the economy is sound. It works. It's worked in both administrations it's been tried with. The deficit is really incidental to that because deficits are a result of spending more than you have. So deficits are less a part of the economy as a whole and more a symptom of a problem that happens to fall into the category of "economics."
There is no attempt to replace textbooks with the Bible. It's interesting that the Left has to justify their extremism with extremes. You simply want Intelligent Design mentioned as another theory and suddenly you want everyone to read the Bible. Keep using this tactic and we'll keep voting in conservatives. Conservatism isn't about being "far right." It's about taking some responsibility for youself, for your financial freedom, and for your family. Paint it however makes you and your "educated" friends wish. Keep doing it this way, and all you win over are twenty-somethings and high-schoolers. Guess what? When they get a job and actually pay taxes they'll see the beauty of "Conservative Extremism."
OT: I find it interesting that when some leftist idiot wants to say something about how the U.S. is, they goto England to do it. Want to change the state of technology and science education? Start supporting it. Bush is. Go google for it.
This would be fascinating if true. You underestimate Microsoft's veracious appetite. They have no interest in interoperability. Perhaps in the short-term, yes, but in the long term their view is always dominance. Always. We might not see their plan at this stage, but start sleeping with them and you eventually you'll get screwed. By then, it might be too late. Who knows? Perhaps they want to inject code or simply muddy the legal waters. Perhaps bastardize even more "standards." As much as it sounds PC to say, "We can all get along and Microsoft has some place in the market" the truth is we're at the head of the battle. Microsoft is the enemy of competition in technology and the bane of innovation. No matter how we choose to "interoperate" with Windows, we need to have a hand on the pistols when dealing with them. Paranoia? I don't think so. The last 30 years is littered with "corpses" from their "embrace and extend" tactics. I say, keep them out. The fact that they're even talking this is a sign of the progress OSS is making. Why start talking truce now?
My Mom can't either. She lives on a rural road with old equipment. Telco doesn't have a cost benefit for replacing it. She's well within her distance requirements, though.
I didn't find it logical; coherent, I'll give you. The anger!
" I merely pointed out that the pursuit of religious truth is based on traditions and opinions rather than facts." A rash assumption and an opinion. Hey, it's yours. Love it, cradle it. Sleep well in your own blanket of superiority and ignorance. I just don't see a place for it here.
Not all religions can be categorized the way you do just as not all scientists can. The notion that spiritual thinkers are divoid of honestly pursuing truth and therefore unable to appreciate it if they found it is the height of arrogance. Dude, why don't you just go live your life banging whores guilt free? You seem to spend more cycles rehashing your own feelings of justification.
Does it really matter if they collect or not? I mean, yes it does but my point is the fact that they went after the patent is part and parcel of their philosophy. This, in my opinion, is as bad or worse than domain squatting. All you "M$ isn't so bad" folks can eat a little crow. If you think M$ is anything short of Evil Incarnate, you have serious mental issues.
Just tell her that her robot is more sexually responsive than she is.
Or maybe, "We're Real: Worried about an Apple lawsuit!"
But I thought we'd just evolve. I mean, what with our primate heritage and all.
Troll, I know I know. Mod be, Baby!
Simple. If it's not caused by man then it's natural. If it's natural, it's futile or at least dangerous to attempt to reverse it. Let's assume it's all caused by natural forces and is a part of nature. Then we come along and take all these drastic measures to reverse it based on environmental extremists' mandates. Now these same environmentalists would tell you "don't alter this forest or that ecosystem because that is tampering with nature!" Why is this blatant double standard not obvious? To avoid it, they assume it's manmade. It's funny, in the 70's we were headed to an ice age. It's a cycle folks. Calm down.
You sound fairly technically minded, though. I can give my Mom a PC with XP (and that's what she's using, BTW) and I have cleanup work when I visit. Spyware, viruses, all kinds of issues and she's on dialup! I wouldn't have those with a Mac. Even beyond that, she's far less likely to mistakenly turn off a feature or install software or disable drivers with a Mac.
You lost me at "the stability of XP."
All of this storage is useless if your access to it is limited. That is the situation we find ourselves in now, to an extent. Windows, for instance, is largely useless as an OS for large amounts of data particularly if that data is in the form of thousands of small files. I realize this is an NTFS issue largely, but SMB is also limited. Then you look at bandwidth. Transporting large amounts of data over typical 100Mpbs of shared pipe can be cumbersome as well. It's nice to have a terabyte of storage but when it takes 4hrs to retrieve a couple of hundred gig what's the point?
I understand that this is how it works, I'm not saying I don't follow the logic. My issue is with the principles involved. I think they assume a risk and their clients shouldn't be penalised because they assumed the risk. I know how the system works I just think it's skewed in favor of the company, which explains why they're in business.
If Joe Schmoe has heart disease, why should the insurance company charge me for it? It's not Joe's fault. Certainly it's not mine either. He paid his premiums, not me. It's a philosophical problem, I suppose.
My problem is that they don't "drive up the rates" insurance companies do. Just because they are predisposed to these issues doesn't mean they will succomb to them. So there is still an unknown. Insurance companies could always raise his rates and leave yours alone, they choose not too. So they get higher premiums from you both and profit on interest from investments. Therein lies my issue with them. I have no problem with profit, don't get me wrong. My problem is that they are largely unfettered. Why should my rates go up because another policy holder has a problem? This shouldn't be possible.
The problem is no one wants to assume risk. Shouldn't this be an insurance issue instead of a workman's comp issue? You have insurance companies that don't want any risk but yet want premiums. Part of the recipe for insurance is that you are paying them to assume a risk and they are betting on that risk not falling through. Further, they are making profit off your money via investment. In the case of employers, they are making these deposits on the chance that something does happen. I understand that you don't want to lose at poker, but you're playing the game. I realize this analogy breaks down at some point but isn't it equally unethical to collect insurance premiums from people who have predispositions to ANYTHING? Insurance companies are largely evil entities and unfortunately, necessary evils. My opinion, FWIW.
So did you get any stock while at Microsoft?
Oh...uh...
Soon when you say, "This computer's a piece of shit!" you'll be correct!
It's far more likely that Microsoft bought into Hilfiger. Offer some low-cost licensing, sprinkle some software (Great Plains, anyone?) and you "make them an offer they can't refuse." The TCO starts looking pretty good when Microsoft is willing to lose some money on the deal. After all, look at the publicity.
LOL! I like you, you're silly!
Stupid, but silly!
"Microsoft strongly supports the promotion of open standards"
That's where his credibility was lost on me.
This, in my mind, is a myth. People think that you can go to Microsoft and they will be liable. This is false. You CAN lay blame, but it is largely pointless. At best, this will get you a Microsoft shirt onsite who will help you through the issue. Did you lose critical data? Too bad. The EULA is setup to protect Microsoft. If you lost $150,000 in data you're not going to get that from Microsoft. But hey, you can blame them. I suppose that's all CIO's seem to really want.
See! Some practical uses! I like it.
I know "force" was not the proper word. Frankly, I think they shouldn't try. I think they're simply so arrogant and anti-competitive that it eats them up that anyone could have a piece of software they don't. More directly, a technology they don't dominate. It's this maniacal obsession with dominance that frankly turns my stomach.