Presumably it's the same reason why typewriters were so strictly controlled in the 'good old days'; so they can send the secret police around to whoever is found accessing an evil foreign web site and arrest the owner of the computer.
The first time I saw this 'new look' page on Google I wondered what the heck was going on. Then I realised that it just fscking sucked.
So now that Google is a steaming pile of useless 'features' that spews out millions of results that have nothing to do with the query I entered, what search engine should I switch to?
Businesses can update the code, or get new applications, or hire someone to create the applications they need. No, it does not "needs to remain compatible"
If Windows won't run their apps, why would the company stick with Windows?
Microsoft's biggest fear is that if they break WhizzyWriter '93 then companies who are no longer tied to Windows by crappy old software might look at other operating systems instead.
There are only two reliable ways for a government to create jobs - either pay for people to do work or provide stability
You forgot: massively cutting taxes and regulation... which is the only reliable way to create long-term jobs.
I don't really see how cutting a mission that cost $500,000,000 is supposed to make a big difference to a budget that's over-spending by more than $1,000,000,000,000 a year, particularly when most of the money was spent months to years ago, but ultimately if you want a viable economy you need to slash government spending so you can slash taxes and encourage new start-up companies.
Despite this, planes have crashed in classic stall / spin accidents.
It's quite possible that AF447 crashed _because_ of such a system, as the stall warning apparently turns off when the airspeed is too low, so when the pilot stalled and then pushed the stick forward, airspeed increased until the stall warning came on and he then pulled the stick back again so it went off, ensuring that they were going to die. Any pilot in such a situation without a stall warning should have figured out that the plane was stalled and pushed forward until it recovered.
Automation has made 'easy' flying safer at the risk of making complex flying more dangerous.
99 in every 100 pieces of legislation are already written by government with only a few dozen Acts per year actually resulting from Bills passed through Parliament.
Don't forget that 80 of those 99 are written by the EU and just rubber-stamped in Parliament.
Or core-dumping in a situation they never tested, or corrupting memory on an error condition, or claiming to be multi-thread safe but not locking data properly in a rare case while two threads are in the library, or...
Around 80% of the crashes in our released software over the last few years have been caused by buggy third-party libraries. Yes, I'd like to have source code to them so I didn't have to wait for the third-party to fix it.
One of the big problems with the TSA is that they scare people into taking more dangerous forms of transportation out of a misplaced sense of fear.
Don't worry. If Obama wins the election they'll be setting up random grope-points on the highways next year; can't risk terrorists hijacking a car and crashing it into a school full of kids.
So they're unsuccessful because they have no support, and they have no support because their complaints are so common that they're not interesting?
Many of the bankers are evil scum, everyone knows that.
The '99%' are unsuccessful because they're bunch of smelly, clueless Marxists complaining that they can't get jobs, when anyone of clue can see precisely why no-one would want to hire them. Their solutions to this problem all involve taking everything that people with jobs make and giving it to the government so the government can give it to them.
And now it's getting cold and wet and snowy and they're going home to live in their parents' basement and rant to each other about how they're going to start the revolution, man.
China's space program has already made major breakthroughs in a relatively short time
NASA went from the first manned spaceflight to walking on the moon in around seven years. China first flew a manned spaceflight eight years ago; what major breakthroughs have they made in comparison?
Nearly everything runs on oil and if something happened in the middle east and we lost our main oil supply it would only be a matter of time before our economy collapsed when gas prices go through the roof.
Considering that country that America imports the most oil from is Canada, perhaps as an alternative you could just not prevent them from building new pipelines to supply more oil to you?
The only way to solve this problem and much of the problem with Washington is to thoughtfully and radically remove money from politics.
No, the way to fix it is to remove _POWER_ from politics. If government is limited to things that only government can do (e.g. courts, military, etc) then you don't need to worry about it making crazy laws that will destroy things it knows nothing about; if government interferes in every aspect of your life, you can guarantee it will fsck things up.
To Intel,, perception is everything, reality is nothing -- as proven by their continuous predominance in the desktop despite AMD's frequent performance-per-dollar and performance-per-watt lead, and occasional absolute performance lead.
Ah, yes. No-one ever buys Intel chips because they're the best option, poor old AMD keep building the best x86 chips on the planet but stoopid consumers keep buying Intel anyway.
Back in the real world, at the time when AMD were the best choice you could hardly find anyone at all knowledgeable who was recommending Intel Pentium-4 space-heaters, and now that Intel is the best choice for desktop systems the only people recommending AMD CPUs are the dedicated fanboys. And in the low-power space, no-one uses Intel x86 CPUs because that would be absurd; even a 2W CPU can't compete against ARM.
I was just countering the earlier assertion that it's easier to get to the moon than the bottom of the deepest ocean, because we did the latter a full decade before the former, with a much smaller budget too. And our moon missions didn't exactly cover a lot of territory on the moon, either
Lunar Orbiter surveyed pretty much the entire moon in the mid-60s. The resolution wasn't enough to see alien footprints, but that was limited by the camera technology of the time.
I don't think so. It takes ~1970 technology to reach the moon, along with a monstrous budget, yet it only takes a small budget and 1960 technology to reach the deepest point in the ocean:
And how long do you think you'd take to survey the entire sea-bed that way?
I'm not saying it would be a bad idea; if nothing else it would probably find some interesting old wrecks, but I'd be surprised if it was as fast and cheap as surveying the lunar surface at resolutions high enough to spot any kind of alien prescence. That said, I very much doubt there's anything to see up there.
The ads aren't quite cutting it, and tend to be (IMHO) full of snafus. For instance, the latest sends the subtle message that only whipped boyfriends willing to wear yoga tights will use a Windows Phone.
That probably explains why they called their new UI 'Metro'.
People who aren't addicted to 'apps' and want a phone to give them what they want to know with a consistent interface and do what they want to do with a consistent interface.
In that case, why would they want to run Windows on it?
In short, no one who will ever post on Shashdot.
I think 'smart' phones are a dumb idea for most people and wouldn't even have a cell-phone if I didn't get one free with my job. So I'm guessing that there are plenty of people here who want a phone that 'just works' and don't give a crap about 'apps'... I still don't see why that would make them pick a phone that runs a crappy OS like Windows.
The work is vetted in peer reviewed papers. You can read them and publish corrections if you find errors in these papers.
Even in the best case, 'peer review' merely shows that the paper doesn't include blatant errors; many, if not most, peer reviewed papers turn out to be wrong in the end. And that's assuming that the whole peer review process isn't captured by a cabal who keep opposing papers out.
Ultimately 'peer review' is just another attempt to push 'consensus science' over actual, real science. If the science is wrong, it doesn't matter how many people have reviewed it or how many people believe it... it's still wrong.
Remember, a hundred years ago you could find plenty of scientists saying that we should sterilise the lower orders so they don't out-breed their betters. Eugenics was popular among 'scientific socialists' at that time and only became unpopular after Hitler followed it to its logical conclusion.
The Canadian conservative government pulled out of Kyoto not because they hate science but because they don't care.
Alternatively, because they don't want to destroy their economy for the sake of a socialist fairy-tale. Not only does Canada absorb far more CO2 than it emits, but even if it did destroy its economy to keep the global socialists happy, the population is so small that it would have a negligible effect on a global scale.
If you want to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions you have to convince China and India to destroy their economies in the name of global socialism. Good luck with that.
The funny part is that the people I know who rant the most about 'climate change' also rant about how companies are shipping manufacturing jobs to China, which is driven in no small part by the increasing cost of energy due to 'CO2 reduction' crap. But I guess if they were smart, they wouldn't be lefties.
If you ask me, this is a perfectly rational response to the current state of scientific "research".
Bingo. This is not a 'turn from science' but a turn from politically-motivated science. Scientists have proven untrustworthy and then complain that people don't trust them.
It's odd that Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex is widely quoted, but no-one mentions his warning about government-funded science:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Really? How does a living wage have fuck all to do with "North Korea"?
It's where you end up once you start down that route.
If I could get a 'living income' for just sitting around the house doing nothing, why would I do anything else? Who's going to do the work to generate that 'living income'? And why would they volunteer to be slaves to people who do nothing other than watch soap operas and porn all day? Once they down tools you send out thugs to force them to work and pretty soon you're all cheering for Great Leader Obama because if you don't you'll be sent to the camps.
The whole idea is just as nonsensically utopian as all the other socialist claptrap.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason for this is not as clear.
Presumably it's the same reason why typewriters were so strictly controlled in the 'good old days'; so they can send the secret police around to whoever is found accessing an evil foreign web site and arrest the owner of the computer.
Windows Phone 7 is actually the only current phone with no exploits.
And as the Microsoft astroturfers keep telling us, that's only because the market share is so low that no-one cares enough to try to exploit it.
The first time I saw this 'new look' page on Google I wondered what the heck was going on. Then I realised that it just fscking sucked.
So now that Google is a steaming pile of useless 'features' that spews out millions of results that have nothing to do with the query I entered, what search engine should I switch to?
Businesses can update the code, or get new applications, or hire someone to create the applications they need. No, it does not "needs to remain compatible"
If Windows won't run their apps, why would the company stick with Windows?
Microsoft's biggest fear is that if they break WhizzyWriter '93 then companies who are no longer tied to Windows by crappy old software might look at other operating systems instead.
There are only two reliable ways for a government to create jobs - either pay for people to do work or provide stability
You forgot: massively cutting taxes and regulation... which is the only reliable way to create long-term jobs.
I don't really see how cutting a mission that cost $500,000,000 is supposed to make a big difference to a budget that's over-spending by more than $1,000,000,000,000 a year, particularly when most of the money was spent months to years ago, but ultimately if you want a viable economy you need to slash government spending so you can slash taxes and encourage new start-up companies.
Despite this, planes have crashed in classic stall / spin accidents.
It's quite possible that AF447 crashed _because_ of such a system, as the stall warning apparently turns off when the airspeed is too low, so when the pilot stalled and then pushed the stick forward, airspeed increased until the stall warning came on and he then pulled the stick back again so it went off, ensuring that they were going to die. Any pilot in such a situation without a stall warning should have figured out that the plane was stalled and pushed forward until it recovered.
Automation has made 'easy' flying safer at the risk of making complex flying more dangerous.
99 in every 100 pieces of legislation are already written by government with only a few dozen Acts per year actually resulting from Bills passed through Parliament.
Don't forget that 80 of those 99 are written by the EU and just rubber-stamped in Parliament.
Or core-dumping in a situation they never tested, or corrupting memory on an error condition, or claiming to be multi-thread safe but not locking data properly in a rare case while two threads are in the library, or...
Around 80% of the crashes in our released software over the last few years have been caused by buggy third-party libraries. Yes, I'd like to have source code to them so I didn't have to wait for the third-party to fix it.
One of the big problems with the TSA is that they scare people into taking more dangerous forms of transportation out of a misplaced sense of fear.
Don't worry. If Obama wins the election they'll be setting up random grope-points on the highways next year; can't risk terrorists hijacking a car and crashing it into a school full of kids.
The left only understand central planning, so the idea of a popular movement organised at local level is entirely alien to them.
So they're unsuccessful because they have no support, and they have no support because their complaints are so common that they're not interesting?
Many of the bankers are evil scum, everyone knows that.
The '99%' are unsuccessful because they're bunch of smelly, clueless Marxists complaining that they can't get jobs, when anyone of clue can see precisely why no-one would want to hire them. Their solutions to this problem all involve taking everything that people with jobs make and giving it to the government so the government can give it to them.
And now it's getting cold and wet and snowy and they're going home to live in their parents' basement and rant to each other about how they're going to start the revolution, man.
From TFA:
China's space program has already made major breakthroughs in a relatively short time
NASA went from the first manned spaceflight to walking on the moon in around seven years. China first flew a manned spaceflight eight years ago; what major breakthroughs have they made in comparison?
Nearly everything runs on oil and if something happened in the middle east and we lost our main oil supply it would only be a matter of time before our economy collapsed when gas prices go through the roof.
Considering that country that America imports the most oil from is Canada, perhaps as an alternative you could just not prevent them from building new pipelines to supply more oil to you?
The only way to solve this problem and much of the problem with Washington is to thoughtfully and radically remove money from politics.
No, the way to fix it is to remove _POWER_ from politics. If government is limited to things that only government can do (e.g. courts, military, etc) then you don't need to worry about it making crazy laws that will destroy things it knows nothing about; if government interferes in every aspect of your life, you can guarantee it will fsck things up.
Most all laws over the last few decades have been deeply flawed in some way. That's what you get when you elect idiots.
No, it's what you get when you let a bloated central government interfere with every aspect of your life.
Central planners almost always fsck up, even when they're acting with good intentions; when they get something right it's almost always by chance.
To Intel,, perception is everything, reality is nothing -- as proven by their continuous predominance in the desktop despite AMD's frequent performance-per-dollar and performance-per-watt lead, and occasional absolute performance lead.
Ah, yes. No-one ever buys Intel chips because they're the best option, poor old AMD keep building the best x86 chips on the planet but stoopid consumers keep buying Intel anyway.
Back in the real world, at the time when AMD were the best choice you could hardly find anyone at all knowledgeable who was recommending Intel Pentium-4 space-heaters, and now that Intel is the best choice for desktop systems the only people recommending AMD CPUs are the dedicated fanboys. And in the low-power space, no-one uses Intel x86 CPUs because that would be absurd; even a 2W CPU can't compete against ARM.
I was just countering the earlier assertion that it's easier to get to the moon than the bottom of the deepest ocean, because we did the latter a full decade before the former, with a much smaller budget too. And our moon missions didn't exactly cover a lot of territory on the moon, either
Lunar Orbiter surveyed pretty much the entire moon in the mid-60s. The resolution wasn't enough to see alien footprints, but that was limited by the camera technology of the time.
I don't think so. It takes ~1970 technology to reach the moon, along with a monstrous budget, yet it only takes a small budget and 1960 technology to reach the deepest point in the ocean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste
And how long do you think you'd take to survey the entire sea-bed that way?
I'm not saying it would be a bad idea; if nothing else it would probably find some interesting old wrecks, but I'd be surprised if it was as fast and cheap as surveying the lunar surface at resolutions high enough to spot any kind of alien prescence. That said, I very much doubt there's anything to see up there.
The ads aren't quite cutting it, and tend to be (IMHO) full of snafus. For instance, the latest sends the subtle message that only whipped boyfriends willing to wear yoga tights will use a Windows Phone.
That probably explains why they called their new UI 'Metro'.
People who aren't addicted to 'apps' and want a phone to give them what they want to know with a consistent interface and do what they want to do with a consistent interface.
In that case, why would they want to run Windows on it?
In short, no one who will ever post on Shashdot.
I think 'smart' phones are a dumb idea for most people and wouldn't even have a cell-phone if I didn't get one free with my job. So I'm guessing that there are plenty of people here who want a phone that 'just works' and don't give a crap about 'apps'... I still don't see why that would make them pick a phone that runs a crappy OS like Windows.
The work is vetted in peer reviewed papers. You can read them and publish corrections if you find errors in these papers.
Even in the best case, 'peer review' merely shows that the paper doesn't include blatant errors; many, if not most, peer reviewed papers turn out to be wrong in the end. And that's assuming that the whole peer review process isn't captured by a cabal who keep opposing papers out.
Ultimately 'peer review' is just another attempt to push 'consensus science' over actual, real science. If the science is wrong, it doesn't matter how many people have reviewed it or how many people believe it... it's still wrong.
Remember, a hundred years ago you could find plenty of scientists saying that we should sterilise the lower orders so they don't out-breed their betters. Eugenics was popular among 'scientific socialists' at that time and only became unpopular after Hitler followed it to its logical conclusion.
The Canadian conservative government pulled out of Kyoto not because they hate science but because they don't care.
Alternatively, because they don't want to destroy their economy for the sake of a socialist fairy-tale. Not only does Canada absorb far more CO2 than it emits, but even if it did destroy its economy to keep the global socialists happy, the population is so small that it would have a negligible effect on a global scale.
If you want to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions you have to convince China and India to destroy their economies in the name of global socialism. Good luck with that.
The funny part is that the people I know who rant the most about 'climate change' also rant about how companies are shipping manufacturing jobs to China, which is driven in no small part by the increasing cost of energy due to 'CO2 reduction' crap. But I guess if they were smart, they wouldn't be lefties.
If you ask me, this is a perfectly rational response to the current state of scientific "research".
Bingo. This is not a 'turn from science' but a turn from politically-motivated science. Scientists have proven untrustworthy and then complain that people don't trust them.
It's odd that Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex is widely quoted, but no-one mentions his warning about government-funded science:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Really? How does a living wage have fuck all to do with "North Korea"?
It's where you end up once you start down that route.
If I could get a 'living income' for just sitting around the house doing nothing, why would I do anything else? Who's going to do the work to generate that 'living income'? And why would they volunteer to be slaves to people who do nothing other than watch soap operas and porn all day? Once they down tools you send out thugs to force them to work and pretty soon you're all cheering for Great Leader Obama because if you don't you'll be sent to the camps.
The whole idea is just as nonsensically utopian as all the other socialist claptrap.