I on the other hand believe it is just an attempt by M$ to get more money. Hence a better name would be XP 2: The Search For More Money. Rather than fixing the bugs in the OS, they will now sell 'updates' which will do the exact same thing - fix the bugs by introducing more serious ones so the old ones don't look quite so bad anymore.
"If your watchdog barks at every breeze that rustles the trees, you aren't getting any good information from it."
Then again the one time they did ignore the boy who cried wolf was the one real time that the wolf actually came. The price of peace and freedom is eternal vigilance.
Yet another new source of revenue for M$. In the future, you'll not only have to rent Windows you'll also have to pay to learn how to use it. And everyone thinks I am a freak for using Linux...
It was on a couple television channels etc. It was hysterical for awhile (I think either Dennis Miller or Jon Stewart had a particularly witty comment on it but I can't remember it). The point was taht due to the fact that they routinely threaten to destory the world anyway, they wouldn't get much symapthy if ti suddenly turned out that they themselves were about to get destroyed. Sort of like the bully who suddenly is begging for protection from a bigger bully - most people even if they had an obligation wouldn't go out of their way to protect them.
But since you're ten times smarter, you were probably using incorrect English as some sort of masterfully sublime witticism which is beyond mere humans.
Yep.
Okay. Fast forward twenty years: war is common, afterall its like a video game - their lives aren't nearly worth ours so why not kill them. Women and children - like a video game, a few die? That's life. Don't like a country? Declare war - you can only lose money and afterall they are the enemy, right? Don't like our neighbor? Send a robot to kill him. Anothers life? It isn't worth yours...
See the danger. Once you reduce a casuality to a statistic and you no longer see the human on the other side you begin to lose a part of the humanity on your side. Once one life no longer has value, what value is your neighbors or our own? Now I am not saying don't kill terrorists, afterall if anyone should be killed it is those who destroy other life. But it needs to be remebered that there is not just some nameless enemy on the other side, not just a number on sheet. That person had dreams and hopes, friends and family. When you look through a gun sight and see another person just like you before you pull that trigger, you understand that your action means a lot more than just killing an 'enemy'. Do you get the same from walking in an office and geting a newspaper with a casuality list in it? Of course not. It is important to remember that their is a huamn side to war, that your not just killing numbers on a page but real flesh and blood people a lot like you. It makes war something you don't enter into lightly, something of last resort.
That is why the continued mechanization of war is not something that should be rushed into. Do you want your life afforded a value in a computer? If the computer decides it can win a world war but it will cost 100 million american lives, what is to stop it from doing so? If your enemy is just a number on a page, so are you. Once you devalue one human life, you devalue all human life. That is the danger. You will stop seeing your enemies as other people, then you will stop seeing people you dislike as not being fully human, then you see everyone as not being worth you. And once you lose that respect, you lose what makes you human to begin with. War is no game, it is quite real and we must not forget that. If you do, you end up with the arm chair generals of war world 1 who saw only the glory and not the gore. You end up with the Nazi's of war world 2 who saw only themselves as worthy of life. You end up with a people who place no value on human life cause to them it is only a number on a page. When its people killing people, at least someone recognizes that. They can see not only the numbers and statistics but the horror of it all. As Robert E. Lee put it, "It is good that war is so terrible lest we should grow too fond of it."
The episode was "A Taste of Armaggedon" and they never actually went to war. Kirk's point was that they had made war nice, clean, and something they could live with so they had little motivation to stop it. By destroying their incinerators and then the computer that controlled the simulation on that world, he forced them to choose between going into a real war with real death and real destruction or to turn to peace. When the Enterpise left orbit, the planets had decided to start peace negotations with a situation rating "hopeful".
As far as the prime directive was concerned, the people seemed to have already had contact with other interstellar species (even indicating they themselves had reached the technological point were the prime directive no longer applied forbidden contact with them.) They did not seem at all suprised the Eneterprise was entering orbit. If I am not mistaken the mission was to stop the war in order to establish trade relations with them as opposed situations like "Patterns of Force" were they did not reveal themselves as aliens until the had little choice in their attempted to prevent further damage from Gill. The real interesting move in "...Taste..." was when he ordered Scotty to carry out General Order 17(?) directing him to level every city on the planet. His point was the same - make the alternative to peace so frightening that they would be forced to go towards peace.
You do know that the money isn't just going to suddenly be dropped form the budget. They will just move to other programs like UAV's (which in 15 or 20 yrs will probably look like the HK's from terminator). You really have to look at the moral significance of such a choice. We can no sends machines in to kill people with almsot zero risk to oursleves. We send a machine up, if it's destroyed its a finicial loss. What happens in a couple years if all our weapons become automated? Will we be more willing to go to war (assuming they don't overthrow us)? I would mnuch rather have a $8 billion flying machine than a million UAV's. Wars will end up liek video games in our present course and we all know where that is going to lead.
1) Legally no. Morally yes. Legally, its like Missle Command when the missle wasn't aimed at one of the cities. You didn't waste your ammo. Now, the UN would probably be legally bound to do something (assuming their members) but we don't have any obligation what-so-ever to save North Korea (which routinely threatens to destroy the world) or Cuba (though the cigars would be dearly missed) from any threat. That's why Cuba and North Korea have armies: so they can defend themselves. We have no alliance and no obligation to save their asses. Morally, though, we do. It's like walking down the street and seeing someone screaming for help. Your morally obligated to do something. You see some woman getting raped on the street, it is your moral obligation to kick the rapist's ass.
2) Yes, but why would you want to? It would be like having a shotgun aimed at yourself and your enemy and your constantly running behind each other. If you time it right, your enemy will egt blown away but if you screw up your screwed. In addition, the energy it would take and the fact that everyone would be aware your doing it makes it wortless. Nukes take less energy and do more damage.
Well, if your worried about pollution what we really need to do is to stop volcanos from erupting. After all, one volcano disperses more pollutants like CFC into the air than the sum of all the industries on Earth in all of history...
The truth is we can't ignore any problem. We can't bury our heads in the sand while dealing with one probelm and then end up getting kicked in the ass. We as a siociety and as a civilization must deal with these problems, all these problems.
No, it will probably be liek "This island Earth" where the aliens use asteroids to attack other planets. Go to asteroid belt, get big rock, throw at planet, return to belt to get more. We are defending oursleves from alien invaders when we prevent asteroid strikes. Of course, any alien race that can get here will probably just kick our asses the odl fashioned way when asteroids fail anyway. DOn't believe me? Think Gort x 1,000,000...
"I'm sorry but worrying about asteroids is downright silly. Instead of spending money on something as fanciful as this, it would be much better to spend our energies on real problems: enviromental degradation, nuclear proliferation and such.
We may as well worry about the boogyman as far as issues that are likely to affect us."
Flashback 65 million years ago to the the late cretaceous: I'm sorry but worrying about asteroids is downright silly. Instead of spending time on something as fanicful as this, it would be much better to spend out energies on real problems: dropping stegasaurus populations, longer teeth and such.
We may as well worry about another protozoan extinction as far as issues that are likely to affect us...
He who failes to plan is dogmeat. What happens if we do nothing and say five years from now we find an asteroid coming towards us to wipe us out? You'll probably be the first to bitch and moan "why didn't we do something when we had time?"
Actually from what I understand, trying to break into the x86 market woudl be a disaster for apple since they supposedly make most of their money not ont eh oS but on the hardware. Plus, with only apple certified devices (namely apple computers) to keep in mind, Mac OS is a lot more stable than say releasing it to the intel family of chips. By keeping Mac OSX limited to proprietary hardware, they don't have to deal with a lot of the satbility issues that plague windows. In other words, the systems greatest benefits come from a stability granted by limiting the computers it can run on and not having to worry about hardware form 3rd party vendors.
You also have to look at stock value. If this gets their stock to go up, it might be overall a good thing to pay it off just so you can say you did and then immediately go back into debt (by dumping cash in something.)
Slashdot Mirror
I on the other hand believe it is just an attempt by M$ to get more money. Hence a better name would be XP 2: The Search For More Money. Rather than fixing the bugs in the OS, they will now sell 'updates' which will do the exact same thing - fix the bugs by introducing more serious ones so the old ones don't look quite so bad anymore.
I don't think Larry Ellison is available for comment...
Didn't playmobile make lego type toys or something?
Forget the hummers, dude. Anyone else see the arcade machines? Galaga, Ms. Packman, Raiden II, Soul Edge...
"Fear leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
-Yoda
"If your watchdog barks at every breeze that rustles the trees, you aren't getting any good information from it."
Then again the one time they did ignore the boy who cried wolf was the one real time that the wolf actually came. The price of peace and freedom is eternal vigilance.
Yet another new source of revenue for M$. In the future, you'll not only have to rent Windows you'll also have to pay to learn how to use it. And everyone thinks I am a freak for using Linux...
So we have seen the loss of:
EA:
Westwood studios
Maxis
Origin
Interplay:
Black Isle Studios
and Looking Glass Studios
And yet Ion Storm, the same people that brought you Daikatana are still around...
"Pyongyang has issued a series of threats, including one to 'destroy the earth'"5 094,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,86
http://nuclearno.com/text.asp?4681
It was on a couple television channels etc. It was hysterical for awhile (I think either Dennis Miller or Jon Stewart had a particularly witty comment on it but I can't remember it). The point was taht due to the fact that they routinely threaten to destory the world anyway, they wouldn't get much symapthy if ti suddenly turned out that they themselves were about to get destroyed. Sort of like the bully who suddenly is begging for protection from a bigger bully - most people even if they had an obligation wouldn't go out of their way to protect them.
But since you're ten times smarter, you were probably using incorrect English as some sort of masterfully sublime witticism which is beyond mere humans.
Yep.
If you can't forgive yourself, I'll forgive you... as soon as I recieve your sister-in-law's email address.
Okay. Fast forward twenty years: war is common, afterall its like a video game - their lives aren't nearly worth ours so why not kill them. Women and children - like a video game, a few die? That's life. Don't like a country? Declare war - you can only lose money and afterall they are the enemy, right? Don't like our neighbor? Send a robot to kill him. Anothers life? It isn't worth yours...
See the danger. Once you reduce a casuality to a statistic and you no longer see the human on the other side you begin to lose a part of the humanity on your side. Once one life no longer has value, what value is your neighbors or our own? Now I am not saying don't kill terrorists, afterall if anyone should be killed it is those who destroy other life. But it needs to be remebered that there is not just some nameless enemy on the other side, not just a number on sheet. That person had dreams and hopes, friends and family. When you look through a gun sight and see another person just like you before you pull that trigger, you understand that your action means a lot more than just killing an 'enemy'. Do you get the same from walking in an office and geting a newspaper with a casuality list in it? Of course not. It is important to remember that their is a huamn side to war, that your not just killing numbers on a page but real flesh and blood people a lot like you. It makes war something you don't enter into lightly, something of last resort.
That is why the continued mechanization of war is not something that should be rushed into. Do you want your life afforded a value in a computer? If the computer decides it can win a world war but it will cost 100 million american lives, what is to stop it from doing so? If your enemy is just a number on a page, so are you. Once you devalue one human life, you devalue all human life. That is the danger. You will stop seeing your enemies as other people, then you will stop seeing people you dislike as not being fully human, then you see everyone as not being worth you. And once you lose that respect, you lose what makes you human to begin with. War is no game, it is quite real and we must not forget that. If you do, you end up with the arm chair generals of war world 1 who saw only the glory and not the gore. You end up with the Nazi's of war world 2 who saw only themselves as worthy of life. You end up with a people who place no value on human life cause to them it is only a number on a page. When its people killing people, at least someone recognizes that. They can see not only the numbers and statistics but the horror of it all. As Robert E. Lee put it, "It is good that war is so terrible lest we should grow too fond of it."
The episode was "A Taste of Armaggedon" and they never actually went to war. Kirk's point was that they had made war nice, clean, and something they could live with so they had little motivation to stop it. By destroying their incinerators and then the computer that controlled the simulation on that world, he forced them to choose between going into a real war with real death and real destruction or to turn to peace. When the Enterpise left orbit, the planets had decided to start peace negotations with a situation rating "hopeful".
As far as the prime directive was concerned, the people seemed to have already had contact with other interstellar species (even indicating they themselves had reached the technological point were the prime directive no longer applied forbidden contact with them.) They did not seem at all suprised the Eneterprise was entering orbit. If I am not mistaken the mission was to stop the war in order to establish trade relations with them as opposed situations like "Patterns of Force" were they did not reveal themselves as aliens until the had little choice in their attempted to prevent further damage from Gill. The real interesting move in "...Taste..." was when he ordered Scotty to carry out General Order 17(?) directing him to level every city on the planet. His point was the same - make the alternative to peace so frightening that they would be forced to go towards peace.
You do know that the money isn't just going to suddenly be dropped form the budget. They will just move to other programs like UAV's (which in 15 or 20 yrs will probably look like the HK's from terminator). You really have to look at the moral significance of such a choice. We can no sends machines in to kill people with almsot zero risk to oursleves. We send a machine up, if it's destroyed its a finicial loss. What happens in a couple years if all our weapons become automated? Will we be more willing to go to war (assuming they don't overthrow us)? I would mnuch rather have a $8 billion flying machine than a million UAV's. Wars will end up liek video games in our present course and we all know where that is going to lead.
That's:
You, sir, are an idiot.
You're right about the cfc's. My bad. Btw, you shouldn't go around calling people idiots when you cannot even correctly write in english.
Disclaimer: I am still ten times smarter than you.
1) Legally no. Morally yes. Legally, its like Missle Command when the missle wasn't aimed at one of the cities. You didn't waste your ammo. Now, the UN would probably be legally bound to do something (assuming their members) but we don't have any obligation what-so-ever to save North Korea (which routinely threatens to destroy the world) or Cuba (though the cigars would be dearly missed) from any threat. That's why Cuba and North Korea have armies: so they can defend themselves. We have no alliance and no obligation to save their asses. Morally, though, we do. It's like walking down the street and seeing someone screaming for help. Your morally obligated to do something. You see some woman getting raped on the street, it is your moral obligation to kick the rapist's ass.
2) Yes, but why would you want to? It would be like having a shotgun aimed at yourself and your enemy and your constantly running behind each other. If you time it right, your enemy will egt blown away but if you screw up your screwed. In addition, the energy it would take and the fact that everyone would be aware your doing it makes it wortless. Nukes take less energy and do more damage.
Your thinking Missle Command, not Asteroids...
Well, if your worried about pollution what we really need to do is to stop volcanos from erupting. After all, one volcano disperses more pollutants like CFC into the air than the sum of all the industries on Earth in all of history...
The truth is we can't ignore any problem. We can't bury our heads in the sand while dealing with one probelm and then end up getting kicked in the ass. We as a siociety and as a civilization must deal with these problems, all these problems.
No, it will probably be liek "This island Earth" where the aliens use asteroids to attack other planets. Go to asteroid belt, get big rock, throw at planet, return to belt to get more. We are defending oursleves from alien invaders when we prevent asteroid strikes. Of course, any alien race that can get here will probably just kick our asses the odl fashioned way when asteroids fail anyway. DOn't believe me? Think Gort x 1,000,000...
"ya but who would take credit for saving the planet ?"
You know its going to be Bush... He'll claim to have saved the planet from rogue asteroids...
"I'm sorry but worrying about asteroids is downright silly. Instead of spending money on something as fanciful as this, it would be much better to spend our energies on real problems: enviromental degradation, nuclear proliferation and such.
We may as well worry about the boogyman as far as issues that are likely to affect us."
Flashback 65 million years ago to the the late cretaceous: I'm sorry but worrying about asteroids is downright silly. Instead of spending time on something as fanicful as this, it would be much better to spend out energies on real problems: dropping stegasaurus populations, longer teeth and such.
We may as well worry about another protozoan extinction as far as issues that are likely to affect us...
He who failes to plan is dogmeat. What happens if we do nothing and say five years from now we find an asteroid coming towards us to wipe us out? You'll probably be the first to bitch and moan "why didn't we do something when we had time?"
They name it Nightshade? Mandrake is part of the family of nightshade plants, so that would not only seem appropraite but a promotion.
Actually from what I understand, trying to break into the x86 market woudl be a disaster for apple since they supposedly make most of their money not ont eh oS but on the hardware. Plus, with only apple certified devices (namely apple computers) to keep in mind, Mac OS is a lot more stable than say releasing it to the intel family of chips. By keeping Mac OSX limited to proprietary hardware, they don't have to deal with a lot of the satbility issues that plague windows. In other words, the systems greatest benefits come from a stability granted by limiting the computers it can run on and not having to worry about hardware form 3rd party vendors.
You also have to look at stock value. If this gets their stock to go up, it might be overall a good thing to pay it off just so you can say you did and then immediately go back into debt (by dumping cash in something.)
by ripping off the Woz. $300 million, that's what, a couple 1,000,000 Breakout machines...