Again, rounding is available both through employee selection (hire people that aren't engineers, too) and ongoing education. Meanwhile we need the best possible bridges to be built to satisfy the criteria above.
What part of 'mandatory minor in Global Studies' did you not comprehend?
And why wouldn't an adult be able to get educated in 'rounding' areas outside of the university? Why do they have a lock on knowledge in the modern age?
Also, no one in the university structure is working towards keeping people from completing completely useless degree programs. In fact they seem to usher people into them.
And finally, we are not even discussing crafting a well rounded person. We're talking about confidence in bridge safety, are we not?
because I know I'd feel safer if the guy who engineered the bridge I was driving on didn't go to an elitist "university".
What if he went to engineering school instead? I mean, does he really need a minor in Global Studies to build good bridges? I'd say it does the opposite, because he had to split study time between bridge building and, well, bullshit.
First of all, we had cheap home computers well before Microsoft became dominant.
Bullshit. 'Back then' a 'cheap' home computer cost as much as a small car! The concept of moving them in mass quantity to the consumer drove the cost down.
...now it is usually the most expensive part of a new computer
Sorry, wrong again. 'Zero dollars' is hardly the 'most expensive' anything. You specifically said new computers, and we're talking about Windows here. It comes with it, largely gratis. Particularly so with all the crapware loaded, too.
If Microsoft didn't exist, the computing environment would probably be much more diverse.
Maybe, maybe not. If everything had went Apple's way, there would be a lot fewer of the things, due to cost alone. Without MS in the picture, nothing at all is clear.
In fact, it would probably be better off if Microsoft's semi-standards compliant browsers hadn't had huge market share.
Without the PC explosion, for which I'm giving MS most of the credit, it would have probably been cleaner, yes. And all the thousands of university students with limited access to it would have likely appreciated it. Millions and millions of humans who would likewise not have PC's in their homes, not so much, due to not being connected to it at all.
I'm not buying that the large device was the genesis, sorry.
I have no doubt that you're not pulling this out of your nether regions, I simply feel that Apple is lying about the order of things as a feature of their marketing strategy.
This is a pretty weak argument. Parent said that 'zero' usability existed. You're saying something like 'ancient' usability exists. You're arguing my point, not his.
Seems like they were making an iPod with smart-device features (apps) while probing the possibilities of making a phone. I'm not buying that the large device was the genesis, sorry.
Without their trickery, we'd not have cheap PC's. At least not as soon as we did. And without PC's in the home, the internet would still be in its infancy, etc.
When was the last time that Microsoft truly innovated rather than following someone else's lead?
Never.
When was the last time Michael Jackson released a Country Western album? Also never.
That isn't what these examples do, and yet they are decidedly successful.
They have become a corporation that follows rather than leads.
This is a fantasy. Microsoft has always been a corporation that seizes someone else's idea and does it better, faster, cheaper than they ever dreamed of doing. They 'follow' by definition, so they can spot the ideas worth stealing.
The odd thing is, their intellectual theft has genuinely made the world a better place. Striking, but there it is.
Ballmer wants to chase the sexy gadgets that Apple is putting out, but Microsoft's operating system is not sexy.
This is an important point. I'd underscore that MS should simply adapt to the understanding that not everything need be 'sexy'. We can't eat at Hooters on a daily basis unless we simply no longer care about our food's substance. Besides, sexy without actual sex only leads to frustration down the road. Better to be unassuming and useful, like, say Windows 7.
Hey, Steve, your company has never been a trendsetter! Deal with it.
True.
I'm no Apple fan, but a company that can create markets out of thin air for products everyone else assumed would fail has to be doing something right.
False. Since when is anything Apple has ever done 'out of thin air'? Are we really to presume the iPad isn't merely just a large iPod Touch? Or that the iPod Touch was in no way inspired by the smart phone? Or that - okay I'm already bored. It is decently plain to see that none of the markets for the technologies in this particular slashdot article meet anything close to the 'out of thin air' standard.
Kudos to their marketing team, though, for making a believer out of you.
You express your position with excellence, and I thank you for it.
"Consensus" is a vague term and was never intended to imply unanimous agreement. Simply a very large preponderance of agreement.
In the interest of not quibbling, I refer you to the title of this very discussion:
Global Warming 'Undeniable,' Report Says
I understand that you feel that anyone who wants to publish any kind of scientific findings receives equal time, money, and attention for having done so. I have never witnessed this personally, while I have seen the opposite. I've also seen scientific trends float like butterflies upon the breeze with enough frequency to doubt their foundation. Further I understand how communities of human beings operate as a matter of psychology. You're going to claim that none of this is reality, and that's probably a very spiffy world to live in. But you're correct in that I cannot join you there.
In areas where there is ample room for dissent -- cosmology is a good example -- there are many papers published that wildly disagree with the most popular theories.
Touching on my previous point a minute, do you think that the science has as much bearing on what gets studied and what does not as the human angle does? You seem to be implying that cosmology and climate science are peers in such a way, and I find this shocking. Do we really think that cosmology has anything near the amount of real, human, and political capital in play?
If you are correct in this, then I would be very wrong indeed. However, I can't recall a single cosmological position being taken by any of the candidates in any of the recent elections.
The point stands as it is, and I do welcome your disagreement, but it isn't terribly convincing all on its own. If I've offended cosmologists or climate scientists anywhere, I apologize.
Slashdot Mirror
MS-Dos, Windows, etc. The vision to actually get the masses using the hardware.
Again, rounding is available both through employee selection (hire people that aren't engineers, too) and ongoing education. Meanwhile we need the best possible bridges to be built to satisfy the criteria above.
Nevermind, I see the link now: http://gregdekspeaks.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/red-hat-16-canonical-1/
Right now, for a number of reasons, there is a fever pitch of tribalism in plain sight in the free software world.
I guess I hadn't noticed. What's he going on about?
You're free to register for any class you want
What part of 'mandatory minor in Global Studies' did you not comprehend?
And why wouldn't an adult be able to get educated in 'rounding' areas outside of the university? Why do they have a lock on knowledge in the modern age?
Also, no one in the university structure is working towards keeping people from completing completely useless degree programs. In fact they seem to usher people into them.
And finally, we are not even discussing crafting a well rounded person. We're talking about confidence in bridge safety, are we not?
What does that have to do with confidence in the bridge?
because I know I'd feel safer if the guy who engineered the bridge I was driving on didn't go to an elitist "university".
What if he went to engineering school instead? I mean, does he really need a minor in Global Studies to build good bridges? I'd say it does the opposite, because he had to split study time between bridge building and, well, bullshit.
So I think perhaps I would feel better, actually.
Then he needs to find a more descriptive word or term than "theft," since "theft" implies that someone no longer has their property.
The need is only exigent if the reader is confused. Not so much the case here, and you well realize it.
IBM started it, but MS stole it and made it better, which brings us back to the original thesis.
First of all, we had cheap home computers well before Microsoft became dominant.
Bullshit. 'Back then' a 'cheap' home computer cost as much as a small car! The concept of moving them in mass quantity to the consumer drove the cost down.
...now it is usually the most expensive part of a new computer
Sorry, wrong again. 'Zero dollars' is hardly the 'most expensive' anything. You specifically said new computers, and we're talking about Windows here. It comes with it, largely gratis. Particularly so with all the crapware loaded, too.
If Microsoft didn't exist, the computing environment would probably be much more diverse.
Maybe, maybe not. If everything had went Apple's way, there would be a lot fewer of the things, due to cost alone. Without MS in the picture, nothing at all is clear.
In fact, it would probably be better off if Microsoft's semi-standards compliant browsers hadn't had huge market share.
Without the PC explosion, for which I'm giving MS most of the credit, it would have probably been cleaner, yes. And all the thousands of university students with limited access to it would have likely appreciated it. Millions and millions of humans who would likewise not have PC's in their homes, not so much, due to not being connected to it at all.
Ehem,
I'm not buying that the large device was the genesis, sorry.
I have no doubt that you're not pulling this out of your nether regions, I simply feel that Apple is lying about the order of things as a feature of their marketing strategy.
Capiche?
True, but colloquial use of words is pretty fundamental to ALL discussions.
You could rightfully say they 'ripped off' the site, could you not? And wouldn't that simply be a colorful synonym of 'theft'?
Are we genuinely to believe that the author claims the original site owners no longer have that property?? Of course not.
word nazi != helpful
Thank you so much for using "their" in the proper context! At last! I have read a slashdot comment with proper grammar!!!
Your easy to please.
Ooh, it made me cringe typing that.
Hey now: your not being very nice.
This is a pretty weak argument. Parent said that 'zero' usability existed. You're saying something like 'ancient' usability exists. You're arguing my point, not his.
That, and it wasn't very funny to boot.
The more they move the larger the fallout will be if/when the walls of the garden are discovered.
Seems like they were making an iPod with smart-device features (apps) while probing the possibilities of making a phone. I'm not buying that the large device was the genesis, sorry.
Without their trickery, we'd not have cheap PC's. At least not as soon as we did. And without PC's in the home, the internet would still be in its infancy, etc.
When was the last time that Microsoft truly innovated rather than following someone else's lead?
Never.
When was the last time Michael Jackson released a Country Western album? Also never.
That isn't what these examples do, and yet they are decidedly successful.
They have become a corporation that follows rather than leads.
This is a fantasy. Microsoft has always been a corporation that seizes someone else's idea and does it better, faster, cheaper than they ever dreamed of doing. They 'follow' by definition, so they can spot the ideas worth stealing.
The odd thing is, their intellectual theft has genuinely made the world a better place. Striking, but there it is.
Ballmer wants to chase the sexy gadgets that Apple is putting out, but Microsoft's operating system is not sexy.
This is an important point. I'd underscore that MS should simply adapt to the understanding that not everything need be 'sexy'. We can't eat at Hooters on a daily basis unless we simply no longer care about our food's substance. Besides, sexy without actual sex only leads to frustration down the road. Better to be unassuming and useful, like, say Windows 7.
Plenty.
How many were usable? Zero. None. Nada. Zilch.
Today only Android's come close, it's almost as good but last time I tried the iPhone still had an edge.
Now if you don't see how that made a difference, well, ...
Are you purporting that I cannot 'use' my Blackberry to surf the web?
I wouldn't call Apple's vendor lock-in an "Achilles heel" given that the vast majority of their customers don't give a shit about it.
This is an extremely short-sighted statement, and I suspect you well know it. Just in case you're not being facetious, I'll put it to you this way:
How many people 'gave a shit' about BP's drilling practices prior to April of this year?
Does that mean that none ever will, as you're assuming about Apple?
Hey, Steve, your company has never been a trendsetter! Deal with it.
True.
I'm no Apple fan, but a company that can create markets out of thin air for products everyone else assumed would fail has to be doing something right.
False. Since when is anything Apple has ever done 'out of thin air'? Are we really to presume the iPad isn't merely just a large iPod Touch? Or that the iPod Touch was in no way inspired by the smart phone? Or that - okay I'm already bored. It is decently plain to see that none of the markets for the technologies in this particular slashdot article meet anything close to the 'out of thin air' standard.
Kudos to their marketing team, though, for making a believer out of you.
You express your position with excellence, and I thank you for it.
"Consensus" is a vague term and was never intended to imply unanimous agreement. Simply a very large preponderance of agreement.
In the interest of not quibbling, I refer you to the title of this very discussion:
Global Warming 'Undeniable,' Report Says
I understand that you feel that anyone who wants to publish any kind of scientific findings receives equal time, money, and attention for having done so. I have never witnessed this personally, while I have seen the opposite. I've also seen scientific trends float like butterflies upon the breeze with enough frequency to doubt their foundation. Further I understand how communities of human beings operate as a matter of psychology. You're going to claim that none of this is reality, and that's probably a very spiffy world to live in. But you're correct in that I cannot join you there.
In areas where there is ample room for dissent -- cosmology is a good example -- there are many papers published that wildly disagree with the most popular theories.
Touching on my previous point a minute, do you think that the science has as much bearing on what gets studied and what does not as the human angle does? You seem to be implying that cosmology and climate science are peers in such a way, and I find this shocking. Do we really think that cosmology has anything near the amount of real, human, and political capital in play?
If you are correct in this, then I would be very wrong indeed. However, I can't recall a single cosmological position being taken by any of the candidates in any of the recent elections.
The point stands as it is, and I do welcome your disagreement, but it isn't terribly convincing all on its own. If I've offended cosmologists or climate scientists anywhere, I apologize.
But it should meet your criteria:
At some point I'd like to actually hear a coherent argument about why it could possibly be good to actively modify our atmosphere from the deniers
It is 'possibly good' by virtue of being necessary.
Do you not agree?