Unless you can honestly claim to give a larger percentage of your salary to charity than bill gates has,
Until his wife Melinda started up their charity foundation, it was a well-known fact that Bill Gates gave a lower percentage of his annual income to charity than the average welfare recipient.
Now, of course, he is making up for lost time, and following the footsteps of numerous 20th century business moguls who transformed a bloodthirsty financial reputation into charity-based secular sainthood.
It is always easier to destroy rather than build. It is easier to tear down than rebuild.
True. That's WHY Usama was more important: because he was a destroyer, and destruction is easier. Therefore with the same amount of effort, he could become more important than someone who tried to create or preserve.
The easiest way to earn an international headline is always to flip out and kill a bunch of people. No contest, no question.
Actually, many would argue that Giuliani made more of a difference than Bin Laden
That's rather insulting to Giuliani, but it might be true. Prehaps if he'd had a more intelligent fire-depeartment structure, there could've been 1000 fewer deaths. But it's a stretch to blame him for that incompetence.
You can google it in any country and see the sheer volume of articles about him.
If you'd done that, you'd know Guiliani had under 0.3% of binLaden's article count. LNS.
with more democracies than before (Afghanistan and Iraq),
Neither of them has come close to qualifying as a "democracy" yet.
Even Egypt and Saudi Arabia have begun some limited but meaningful democratic reforms.
Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and especially Iran have become more theocratic and militant at the same time. The worsening conditions in Iran and North Korea are especially troublesome, as either of them had already presented a stronger threat than Iraq plus Afganistan combined.
Now I know you were trying to be funny, but Time's "Person of the Year" is nominated not for being a good person, but for being an impactful person.
Not anymore. In 2001, the Man Of The Year was Rudolph Guiliani, when it is painfully obvious that Usama bin Laden had an inestimably bigger impactful on that year's events. (Indeed, 100% of Rudy's interesting actions were merely responses to Usama's initiatives).
Face it, Time uses at least 4 factors to pick Yearitude: Attractiveness, Deserving, Virtue, and Import.
One minor nit. Is 'reverse discrimination' actually a valid term? Discrimination is discrimination, isn't it?
Yes and yes. If somebody tells you to operate an automobile and give it 'reverse acceleration', you know what that means: accelerate it in the non-default, less-usual direction. But still, both forward and backwards are both acceleration.
Either way, you would have noticed that Bill and Melinda Gates won SPECIFICALLY for doing good.
More specifically, for being good SAMARITANS, not good programmers or good software designers.
The anti-Gates feeling you can detect on Slashdot is largely due to his influence on the computer industry, which is a separate topic from the reason Time Magazine decided to reward him. (Arguably, Gates has a Robin-Hood scenario going: monopolizing the computer-owning upper classes to feed the poor)
They're either time consuming to set up(programs), or expensive,
And they're violations of the Terms of Service, which in some jurisdictions could make installing them the equivalent of felon computer-intrusion.
If a disabled person wanted to play Counter-strike, she'd need a client-side AimBot, which is very clearly cheating. Your suggestion is not as bad, but it's on the same lines.
Reading the comments I get the feeling a lot of people have problems distinguishing "ought to" from "must", let me explain:
Given that all sides agree Sony has a goal of making game which is popular, fun, and commercially successful, it is totally valid for someone to use "must" if, in her opinion, the suggestion is a firm prerequisite towards that objective.
"Ought to" * based on moral beliefs (which can greatly differ!)
Dictionary time! must, v. 1. to be obiliged or required by morality
So why not have both? Why alienate such a large group of people.
Because they're afraid that more players will stay with the old version, and it'd be pretty humiliating for a corp to be faced with such objective proof that "newer" != "better".
Sony tried to have both, and released Everquest2 while EQ1 was still running. They attribute some of EQ2's disappointing results to that choice. Looking at http://www.mmogchart.com/ EQ2 still doesn't have nearly the subscribers as EQ1 (although I don't know if this is confused because of Sony's combined-subscription plans).
The concern of auto-cannibalization is greater for an franchise property like Star Wars. The marketplace might support niches for several kinds of online games based on spaceships, androids, and laser-pistols, but there can only be one "Star Wars Online" at a time. To be THE StarWars game carries automatic value, independent from the quality of the specific game.
The publishers wanted to shift to target different customers, but didn't want to dilute their brand by continuing the older service. Thus, the many existing subscribers suffer because Sony hopes to replace them with 5x the number of 15-21 year-old males.
(This will turn out to have been a losing gamble- if they wanted online twitchy StarWars combat, they should've tried to improve StarWars-Battlefront2 with a more compelling and persistent online service. Instead, they're making a pale WoW-clone in a StarWars skin)
Wouldn't a console controller be easier to control with a disability?
Absolutely not. Console controllers are "gamepads", which are a small object you hold in your hands while pressing little buttons in timed combinations to input commands.
A PC keyboard + mouse has 4-6 times as many buttons as a gamepad, meaning that instead of requiring one thumb to accurately depress an arbitrary subset of 4 keys to do something, the player can simply use one finger to hit the key dedicated to that function.
Plus, a gamepad requires you to have more finger strength, because you must hold the controller in midair, instead of resting it on a desk.
Plus, game consoles are an inherently less-customizable environment overall, and will be less permissive towards a user who needs to customize a layout (or even install "accessibility" software) to compensate for disabilities.
You can't expect them to know and account for every possible disability.
The disabled guy is just an extreme example of the class of player who has been deprived by this actions. An existing game, which had been sold for multiple years, was suddenly replaced with a different product: same name, same art-assets, different genre. Imagine if I had purchased Half-Life2 when it came out, and then tommorrow the UI was changed from FPS into top-down RPG style.
Customers would rightly feel exploited as they had purchased one thing, only to see it retroactively change into another. The argument that the publisher has the "right" to do so isn't what matters. Yes, they have the right to do something that's wrong- that doesn't mean it's automatically the correct desicion.
This incident illustrates another way the Free Software model protects the user. The situation is that a corporation has rented use of a program for a couple of years, and customers became accustomed to it's availability. But later, the corp decided (for reasons that will turn out to have been mistaken) that they no longer wanted to provide access to the software.
Since the software is proprietary, it goes away when the developer loses interest, even though there may remain a strong customer base willing to financially support the older version.
If SWG had been a Free Software project, then this would've never happened. Or, more realistically, if the developer had released their obseleted server code as Free Software (like idsoftware does with the Quake and Doom series 4 years after publication), then amateur servers offering "SWG Classic" would pop up, and all of this negative publicity would've been avoided.
Wrong. Artificial doesn't imply "fake", "illusory", or anything like that. Whoever posted the lame "synthetic intelligence" blurb to Wikipedia doesn't understand English (or merely has peeve about the unimpressive results from the large bulk of research attempted under the "AI" banner).
And anyway, "synthetic" has "fake", "counterfeit" as parts of it's definition, too.
Part of the problem with that is that someone could then distribute binaries
That is not a concern with the current v2 GPL revision. It is specific that the code must be as easily to access as the binaries.
That fear is no more rational than "What if I buy something on ebay, and he doesn't really send it to me?" That is a risk, but there are standard legal ways to fight back if it happens.
Re:But we should also be aware of the following
on
Videogame Mythbusting
·
· Score: 1
GTA doesn't force you to break any laws outside of mission goals.
And aside from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
(Does the mission to kill 12 Haitians in 5 minutes ring a bell?)
And as a result, some Democrats will stop supporting her (like me).
I wonder which state you live in. If it's a "Blue" state (instead of Red or Purple), then she didn't need you anyhow. The Democratic candidate will have a virtual lock on places like CA, MA, and NY. Fewer than 20% of voters reside someplace in any doubt.
This is why the Democrats have done so poorly in recent years: they don't stand for anything
The Republicans don't stand for anything either- they just manage to sound more sincere when they lie about it (or take a stand on minor cultural issues that they really can't effect anyhow).
and gain precious few converts from the Republican side anyway
Dem strategists are hopeful that Bush's torrent of mistakes will still be remembered two years from now, which could shake loose many centrist voters.
Why? I don't want to deal with the hassle of providing it on the website, especially when I just installed it via apt-get.
The Debian project scrupulously upholds software licensing requirements, and is majorly pro-GPL. If they placed software with that (hypothetical) GPLv3 license in an apt repository, it would automatically make a source link available, as part of its default behavior.
It it largely dated, because not so many programs today "read commands" interactively.
Many (most?) programs still do this. Anything with a "Splash Screen", for example. The facts that the commands are read via mouse clicks instead of text syntax is irrelevant to the requirement.
Note that users are allowed to disable the splash screen, so long as the screen is on by default.
support Hillary Clinton's cause to ban games she doesn't personally approve of
It's doubtful that this is really her cause, or that she particularly dislikes those games.
Instead, Hillary has made a political judgement that borderline-Republican voters might be attracted enough by these proposals to get her into higher office, to fight for the things she REALLY thinks are important (health care, tax rate, nation-building, pollution, abortion, etc). The game thing is just a smoke screen.
Her recent support for criminalizing flag-burning is similar: a transparent bid to trade some of her beliefs for a little electability.
Each of those entries is not unique to Perl (applying as well to other common languages like C++ or sh), straight-out false, or just as prevalent in "math geek" writings as standard speech.
Math notation involves all that situational ambiguity that Perl boasts of, as in "0 <One of the great things that I love about Perl is that you can rearrange statements.
Not original to Perl. And arguably not great, either, because it creates difficulties in teaching, and causes differences in source code layout which make no difference in program execution. (That's what we call "counter intuitive")
While most programming languages would opt for several features of Perl to be libraries (like RegEx), Perl has it as a part of the syntax of the language itself.
It'd be more useful and impressive to say instead that Perl "allows separate libraries to act as if they were part of the language syntax". If being "modelled after human languages" doesn't make the language easier for ordinary humans to grasp, what does it actually mean?
It's "modelled on sh and awk" which causes that effect, not anything about natural languages. Several of the "natural-language features" specifically make Perl more difficult to learn, such as the ordering-insensitivity of conditionals.
20 years worth of marketing and executive keynotes and interviews.
Apple says nothing about their interfaces making up for being lazy and unwilling to learn.
That's SO untrue, you simply must not be paying attention.
As is often said: "The only truly intuitive interface is the nipple; everything else is learned."
Yes, many people say that, even though it isn't true: babies to not suckle intuitively.
Also, you might notice that I didn't mention Apple in my post at all.
Also, you might notice that you were responding to a post 100% about the Mac OSX GUI, which as it happens, is an Apple project. If you hadn't meant to talk about Apple, you shouldn't have responded to an Apple-oriented thread.
The libs are the biggest part of kde or gnome, so just installing the libs doesn't solve much.
False, but irrelevant.
And when you run the app that needs the libs, they get copied into memory anyway. So if you're just running one gnome app, you might as well be running the whole gnome suite.
No. RAM usage is not a main concern- it's a problem that's automatically solved every few years with new hardware. The UI design and application integration, however, is a challenge that no amount of $29.95 DIMM chips will fix. It is the real obstacle which Linus Torvalds was analyzing.
It's a "superset" of features, but damn if it isn't easy and powerful once you get the concept.
And if you're willing to restructure your program to obey the concept!
Signals & slots is a compile-time description of object relationships, so it is difficult to use with a platform-independent GUI wrapper which must, by necessity, select the GUI backend at run-time.
GTK = just function calls = easy to dynamically swap into existing project. Qt = functions + inheritance + many elaborate macros = difficult to unobtrusively insert to existing code.
And, if you do get to using Signals+Slots effectively, then your program has become dependent on them, which would fail the wxWidgets goal of target-independence.
In all these cases, "condone" is used with a topic that is expected to be self-evidently wrong. In 2 cases, "not condone" is used by a politician to express double-displeasure with a subject: not only is Rice claiming to be against torture, but she also claims never to let it take place without interference.
"Not condone" is popular because it promises both active and passive resistance to a behavior.
even the concept of reality tv are borrowed from Great Britain.
Example? It would have to predate the 1972 broadcast of An American Family... and even the 1992 release of MTV's "The Real World" might be tough to beat.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you can honestly claim to give a larger percentage of your salary to charity than bill gates has,
Until his wife Melinda started up their charity foundation, it was a well-known fact that Bill Gates gave a lower percentage of his annual income to charity than the average welfare recipient.
Now, of course, he is making up for lost time, and following the footsteps of numerous 20th century business moguls who transformed a bloodthirsty financial reputation into charity-based secular sainthood.
It is always easier to destroy rather than build. It is easier to tear down than rebuild.
True. That's WHY Usama was more important: because he was a destroyer, and destruction is easier. Therefore with the same amount of effort, he could become more important than someone who tried to create or preserve.
The easiest way to earn an international headline is always to flip out and kill a bunch of people. No contest, no question.
Actually, many would argue that Giuliani made more of a difference than Bin Laden
That's rather insulting to Giuliani, but it might be true. Prehaps if he'd had a more intelligent fire-depeartment structure, there could've been 1000 fewer deaths. But it's a stretch to blame him for that incompetence.
You can google it in any country and see the sheer volume of articles about him.
If you'd done that, you'd know Guiliani had under 0.3% of binLaden's article count. LNS.
with more democracies than before (Afghanistan and Iraq),
Neither of them has come close to qualifying as a "democracy" yet.
Even Egypt and Saudi Arabia have begun some limited but meaningful democratic reforms.
Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and especially Iran have become more theocratic and militant at the same time. The worsening conditions in Iran and North Korea are especially troublesome, as either of them had already presented a stronger threat than Iraq plus Afganistan combined.
Now I know you were trying to be funny, but Time's "Person of the Year" is nominated not for being a good person, but for being an impactful person.
Not anymore. In 2001, the Man Of The Year was Rudolph Guiliani, when it is painfully obvious that Usama bin Laden had an inestimably bigger impactful on that year's events. (Indeed, 100% of Rudy's interesting actions were merely responses to Usama's initiatives).
Face it, Time uses at least 4 factors to pick Yearitude: Attractiveness, Deserving, Virtue, and Import.
One minor nit. Is 'reverse discrimination' actually a valid term? Discrimination is discrimination, isn't it?
Yes and yes. If somebody tells you to operate an automobile and give it 'reverse acceleration', you know what that means: accelerate it in the non-default, less-usual direction. But still, both forward and backwards are both acceleration.
Either way, you would have noticed that Bill and Melinda Gates won SPECIFICALLY for doing good.
More specifically, for being good SAMARITANS, not good programmers or good software designers.
The anti-Gates feeling you can detect on Slashdot is largely due to his influence on the computer industry, which is a separate topic from the reason Time Magazine decided to reward him. (Arguably, Gates has a Robin-Hood scenario going: monopolizing the computer-owning upper classes to feed the poor)
They're either time consuming to set up(programs), or expensive,
And they're violations of the Terms of Service, which in some jurisdictions could make installing them the equivalent of felon computer-intrusion.
If a disabled person wanted to play Counter-strike, she'd need a client-side AimBot, which is very clearly cheating. Your suggestion is not as bad, but it's on the same lines.
Reading the comments I get the feeling a lot of people have problems distinguishing "ought to" from "must", let me explain:
Given that all sides agree Sony has a goal of making game which is popular, fun, and commercially successful, it is totally valid for someone to use "must" if, in her opinion, the suggestion is a firm prerequisite towards that objective.
"Ought to" * based on moral beliefs (which can greatly differ!)
Dictionary time!
must, v. 1. to be obiliged or required by morality
So why not have both? Why alienate such a large group of people.
Because they're afraid that more players will stay with the old version, and it'd be pretty humiliating for a corp to be faced with such objective proof that "newer" != "better".
Sony tried to have both, and released Everquest2 while EQ1 was still running. They attribute some of EQ2's disappointing results to that choice. Looking at http://www.mmogchart.com/ EQ2 still doesn't have nearly the subscribers as EQ1 (although I don't know if this is confused because of Sony's combined-subscription plans).
The concern of auto-cannibalization is greater for an franchise property like Star Wars. The marketplace might support niches for several kinds of online games based on spaceships, androids, and laser-pistols, but there can only be one "Star Wars Online" at a time. To be THE StarWars game carries automatic value, independent from the quality of the specific game.
The publishers wanted to shift to target different customers, but didn't want to dilute their brand by continuing the older service. Thus, the many existing subscribers suffer because Sony hopes to replace them with 5x the number of 15-21 year-old males.
(This will turn out to have been a losing gamble- if they wanted online twitchy StarWars combat, they should've tried to improve StarWars-Battlefront2 with a more compelling and persistent online service. Instead, they're making a pale WoW-clone in a StarWars skin)
Wouldn't a console controller be easier to control with a disability?
Absolutely not. Console controllers are "gamepads", which are a small object you hold in your hands while pressing little buttons in timed combinations to input commands.
A PC keyboard + mouse has 4-6 times as many buttons as a gamepad, meaning that instead of requiring one thumb to accurately depress an arbitrary subset of 4 keys to do something, the player can simply use one finger to hit the key dedicated to that function.
Plus, a gamepad requires you to have more finger strength, because you must hold the controller in midair, instead of resting it on a desk.
Plus, game consoles are an inherently less-customizable environment overall, and will be less permissive towards a user who needs to customize a layout (or even install "accessibility" software) to compensate for disabilities.
You can't expect them to know and account for every possible disability.
The disabled guy is just an extreme example of the class of player who has been deprived by this actions. An existing game, which had been sold for multiple years, was suddenly replaced with a different product: same name, same art-assets, different genre. Imagine if I had purchased Half-Life2 when it came out, and then tommorrow the UI was changed from FPS into top-down RPG style.
Customers would rightly feel exploited as they had purchased one thing, only to see it retroactively change into another. The argument that the publisher has the "right" to do so isn't what matters. Yes, they have the right to do something that's wrong- that doesn't mean it's automatically the correct desicion.
This incident illustrates another way the Free Software model protects the user. The situation is that a corporation has rented use of a program for a couple of years, and customers became accustomed to it's availability. But later, the corp decided (for reasons that will turn out to have been mistaken) that they no longer wanted to provide access to the software.
Since the software is proprietary, it goes away when the developer loses interest, even though there may remain a strong customer base willing to financially support the older version.
If SWG had been a Free Software project, then this would've never happened. Or, more realistically, if the developer had released their obseleted server code as Free Software (like idsoftware does with the Quake and Doom series 4 years after publication), then amateur servers offering "SWG Classic" would pop up, and all of this negative publicity would've been avoided.
Artificial. It's an illusion.
Wrong. Artificial doesn't imply "fake", "illusory", or anything like that. Whoever posted the lame "synthetic intelligence" blurb to Wikipedia doesn't understand English (or merely has peeve about the unimpressive results from the large bulk of research attempted under the "AI" banner).
And anyway, "synthetic" has "fake", "counterfeit" as parts of it's definition, too.
Part of the problem with that is that someone could then distribute binaries
That is not a concern with the current v2 GPL revision. It is specific that the code must be as easily to access as the binaries.
That fear is no more rational than "What if I buy something on ebay, and he doesn't really send it to me?" That is a risk, but there are standard legal ways to fight back if it happens.
GTA doesn't force you to break any laws outside of mission goals.
And aside from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
(Does the mission to kill 12 Haitians in 5 minutes ring a bell?)
And as a result, some Democrats will stop supporting her (like me).
I wonder which state you live in. If it's a "Blue" state (instead of Red or Purple), then she didn't need you anyhow. The Democratic candidate will have a virtual lock on places like CA, MA, and NY. Fewer than 20% of voters reside someplace in any doubt.
This is why the Democrats have done so poorly in recent years: they don't stand for anything
The Republicans don't stand for anything either- they just manage to sound more sincere when they lie about it (or take a stand on minor cultural issues that they really can't effect anyhow).
and gain precious few converts from the Republican side anyway
Dem strategists are hopeful that Bush's torrent of mistakes will still be remembered two years from now, which could shake loose many centrist voters.
Why? I don't want to deal with the hassle of providing it on the website, especially when I just installed it via apt-get.
The Debian project scrupulously upholds software licensing requirements, and is majorly pro-GPL. If they placed software with that (hypothetical) GPLv3 license in an apt repository, it would automatically make a source link available, as part of its default behavior.
The "spirit" of the GPL is clearly stated within the GPL itself. Look at Clause 0. It's quite explicit.
Indeed, it is explicit: the goal is that USERS of software have access to the CODE of that software.
To uphold that spirit, software executed as a web-service would have to be offer to anyone who has access rights to operate that service.
If you disagree with that, then try to convince someone that you're not a Slashdot USER.
It it largely dated, because not so many programs today "read commands" interactively.
Many (most?) programs still do this. Anything with a "Splash Screen", for example. The facts that the commands are read via mouse clicks instead of text syntax is irrelevant to the requirement.
Note that users are allowed to disable the splash screen, so long as the screen is on by default.
support Hillary Clinton's cause to ban games she doesn't personally approve of
It's doubtful that this is really her cause, or that she particularly dislikes those games.
Instead, Hillary has made a political judgement that borderline-Republican voters might be attracted enough by these proposals to get her into higher office, to fight for the things she REALLY thinks are important (health care, tax rate, nation-building, pollution, abortion, etc). The game thing is just a smoke screen.
Her recent support for criminalizing flag-burning is similar: a transparent bid to trade some of her beliefs for a little electability.
See here: http://world.std.com/~swmcd/steven/perl/linguistic s.html
Each of those entries is not unique to Perl (applying as well to other common languages like C++ or sh), straight-out false, or just as prevalent in "math geek" writings as standard speech.
Math notation involves all that situational ambiguity that Perl boasts of, as in "0 <One of the great things that I love about Perl is that you can rearrange statements.
Not original to Perl.
And arguably not great, either, because it creates difficulties in teaching, and causes differences in source code layout which make no difference in program execution. (That's what we call "counter intuitive")
While most programming languages would opt for several features of Perl to be libraries (like RegEx), Perl has it as a part of the syntax of the language itself.
It'd be more useful and impressive to say instead that Perl "allows separate libraries to act as if they were part of the language syntax".
If being "modelled after human languages" doesn't make the language easier for ordinary humans to grasp, what does it actually mean?
It's "modelled on sh and awk" which causes that effect, not anything about natural languages. Several of the "natural-language features" specifically make Perl more difficult to learn, such as the ordering-insensitivity of conditionals.
What on earth are you talking about?
20 years worth of marketing and executive keynotes and interviews.
Apple says nothing about their interfaces making up for being lazy and unwilling to learn.
That's SO untrue, you simply must not be paying attention.
As is often said: "The only truly intuitive interface is the nipple; everything else is learned."
Yes, many people say that, even though it isn't true: babies to not suckle intuitively.
Also, you might notice that I didn't mention Apple in my post at all.
Also, you might notice that you were responding to a post 100% about the Mac OSX GUI, which as it happens, is an Apple project. If you hadn't meant to talk about Apple, you shouldn't have responded to an Apple-oriented thread.
The libs are the biggest part of kde or gnome, so just installing the libs doesn't solve much.
False, but irrelevant.
And when you run the app that needs the libs, they get copied into memory anyway. So if you're just running one gnome app, you might as well be running the whole gnome suite.
No. RAM usage is not a main concern- it's a problem that's automatically solved every few years with new hardware. The UI design and application integration, however, is a challenge that no amount of $29.95 DIMM chips will fix. It is the real obstacle which Linus Torvalds was analyzing.
It's a "superset" of features, but damn if it isn't easy and powerful once you get the concept.
And if you're willing to restructure your program to obey the concept!
Signals & slots is a compile-time description of object relationships, so it is difficult to use with a platform-independent GUI wrapper which must, by necessity, select the GUI backend at run-time.
GTK = just function calls = easy to dynamically swap into existing project.
Qt = functions + inheritance + many elaborate macros = difficult to unobtrusively insert to existing code.
And, if you do get to using Signals+Slots effectively, then your program has become dependent on them, which would fail the wxWidgets goal of target-independence.
She's going against standard usage.
No, she isn't. A quick search of current newspaper headlines will show that YOU are acting against popular usage:
"Report: Moms condone girls drinking"
"Rice: Washington Does Not Condone Torture"
"Atiku: We'll Not Condone Lawlessness"
"Why are Republicans still able to condone Bush?"
In all these cases, "condone" is used with a topic that is expected to be self-evidently wrong. In 2 cases, "not condone" is used by a politician to express double-displeasure with a subject: not only is Rice claiming to be against torture, but she also claims never to let it take place without interference.
"Not condone" is popular because it promises both active and passive resistance to a behavior.
even the concept of reality tv are borrowed from Great Britain.
Example? It would have to predate the 1972 broadcast of An American Family... and even the 1992 release of MTV's "The Real World" might be tough to beat.
Though technically that's not gravity, though it's a reasonable approximation.
Technically, anything which can produce a centri-petal/fugal force ALSO exerts gravity. Massive objects, you know.