> Then, why in the world would you (a) bid $100 for it, and then (b) complain when you didn't get outbid?!?!?!
If the current price is A and you bid B, technically you should be able to buy the product for a price X such that A < X <= B. With shilling, X = B. Quite simply, if shilling is the norm, the earlier policy becomes moot. Now if Ebay officially makes it a policy that X = B, it'd be one thing, but to say one thing and not have policies against the opposite happening is clearly Ebay's fault.
OK, pseudo-algebra aside, are you claiming that eBay does _not_ have policies against shill bidding, or what point are you trying to make here? Because if that's your point, you're wrong. I don't see how my post could have been so widely misunderstood. My point was and is, the guy saying "I bid 100 dollars because it's worth 50 so I got ripped off", presented a _HORRIBLE_ example. eBay has mechanisms in place to stop shill bidding, mechanisms in place to report same, and mechanisms in place so you can retract your bid if you suspect a fradulent auction is going down that you're involved in. Blaming eBay for someone calling their buddy to bid on their stuff so it doesn't go low? Sorry, not buying that. Blame the seller and his shill, not the venue. HOW specifically can or could they detect that, exactly? Please show how you can differentiate between that and legitimate bidding patterns. Show your work; due Tuesday.
My question is, how does the buyer KNOW that the person who ran up the price was the seller and not another buyer? If the shill bidder used the actual login name of the seller then the bidder was under no obligation to pay. If it was a different login name then this person may just be complaining about the legitimate auction process.
OK sorry but, at this point, you've pretty much shown here that you're not familiar with what you're talking about. You _can't_ bid on your own auctions on eBay, period. If joe1234 is listing the item, joe1234 can't bid on it. I've tested that, it's an obvious thing for them to check for at bid time, and they do. And, just because personA buys from personB a lot, doesn't mean they're the same person. I've got a few sellers who I've bought from literally dozens of times. I bid on most of their auctions, because what they sell and what I buy are the same thing. I lowball every one of one guy's listings, and get about 10% of them. (this is on a commodity with an established value - I bid 10 or 15% back and get them sometimes). I figure if someone is going to get his goods on the cheap, it might as well be me.
Now, to an outside observer, they might see my ID bidding on most or all of his auctions, always near the end price, and think I'm a shill. I'm pretty sure he's not me and I'm not him, what with us being about 1200 miles apart. But how is an outside observer going to differentiate my buying pattern in regards to him, as me not being his shill? "Joe keeps bidding on Tim's stuff, always near the max bid, so Joe must be Tim" doesn't cut it. Yet it seems to be how some people think they're recognizing a shill bidder.
Then, why in the world would you (a) bid $100 for it, and then (b) complain when you didn't get outbid?!?!?!
(a) Because it is worth $100?
(b) Because you are no longer participating in an auction. Instead of paying the lowest price that no one else is willing to pay, you are paying the highest price you are willing to pay. This is fraud. You either missed my point, or intentionally snipped out the part where the OP was complaining it was only worth 50 bucks. His example stinks, and makes whatever point he's trying to make basically sound like whining.
The damage is that this is fraud. And it does inflate prices on things you are trying to purchase. For example, if I want a something on eBay, and I put a bid of $100 on that. But the going rate is only $50, so my bid sits at $50. Then right before the auction ends, a shill bidder comes in, and jacks the price up to $95. I am now paying $95 for a product I should have rightly only paid $50 for!
Then, why in the world would you (a) bid $100 for it, and then (b) complain when you didn't get outbid?!?!?!
In the end, I care. I occasionally buy stuff on eBay, and I want to know I paid the lowest price for what I want to buy. At the very least I want to know that I am not being cheated. If you really mean this as an example of being cheated, I'd suggest that perhaps you could modify your bid strategy to not include bidding $100 for something worth $50.
Not defending shill bidders, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying do your research of what something is worth before you set the number, _or_, overbid and know you're going to be highest. But don't complain about it if you use the latter approach.
Glock has been using a coating called "Tenifer" for nearly 20 years. Can be given a nice finish, very durable in my experience, and quite hard. Obviously that technology is mature by now, if scuff-proof metal things in your pocket is important I wonder if that would be suitable. Anyone have the low-down on Glock's Tenifer coating, what it is, and how it is or isn't like this stuff?
I've seen sites with a one or two minutes flood control, but this is the only site I know of that's longer than that. Awhile ago, I kept getting bit by that, so I changed my sig. I've seen your sig and got a chuckle out of it. I really can't believe that just now, I started to see it, where previously I never have.
Well I would certainly hope so; a G3 Mac is, let's see, 4 hardware generations old now?
Yes, it will be slow on a G3, no doubt about that. Hardly a fair evaluation.
Funny I knew someone would do that. You either 1) read my post poorly 2) don't know pc hardware 3) are intentionally being an ass.
Actually, it's 4) I'm pointing out that you're complaining about slowness on ancient farking hardware. The fact that this seems to be a chronic problem in your hardware choices doesn't change that basic truth.
In the hopes that either 1 or 2 is correct, let me point out and clarify: I said my main computer is an Athlon 1200. Those were released in Oct. 2000 Yes, yes, that's very nice, good for you. I'm familiar with computing history.
(snip pompous/condescending posting of links)
I switched from a Mac to a PC 3 years older partially because of speed. But if you read my post you would have seen my main complaints with OS X were that it was awkward and unintuitive, and I wasn't clear, but the speed I complained of was primarily the inability to fluidly execute a task... Mac OSX on a G3 is not going to give you good performance. Period. This shouldn't be surprising to anybody. As far as the usability problems; you're trying to do things just like a PC and they're not working that way. Yes, I _got_ that. Lecturing me like I'm the one missing something, when in fact you're pointing out that _you_ are the one missing something, is somewhat silly. Add your condescending attitude and it goes down to "pathetic".
ie with windows it's trivial to practice a task learn the key shortcuts and repeat the task very quickly, with OS X even routine tasks are awkward everytime. To you. Have you asked for help or do you just like to complain? Frankly, your presentation isn't such that you're likely to inspire people to want to help you, if this post is a typical example of your technical interacions.
I realize I won't change your opinion, and don't really care to. However that attitude that OS X is clearly better and only ignorance could blind a person, is offensive and stupid. I've never heard someone with OS X and PC experience argue persuasively why/how a Mac is better. I suppose it's possible that you either weren't listening, or disregarded real differences because you don't want to hear them, or that people just didn't want to spend time on you because of your tone. In this case, the latter is it. Enjoy your PC, looks like you're meant for each other.
On a side note - what the heck is this "slow down cowboy, you just posted 4 minutes ago" crap all the sudden?
It's called "slashdot."
Ja, I'm familiar with the site, but 4 minutes? I've never seen that before, in years. I can't imagine that all of the sudden, today, my typing speed dramatically increased or that I've never actually tried to post two messages on a topic while going through a thread? I thought the time interval thing was for AC's, not for people posting as a person?
Or it could be that my memory just isn't what it used to be. That's possible; my memory isn't what it used to be.
I've yet to see someone who has used a Mac for a year straight give a compelling argument for Windows's superiority.
Well can't say we've actually met, but I have a G3 iBook and a G4 Tower that have had every OS X upgrade applied within weeks of being released. The iBook was my only laptop for about 2 years.
I've been using them less and less.
Well I would certainly hope so; a G3 Mac is, let's see, 4 hardware generations old now?
I find OS X awkward, slow and unintuitive. Yes, it will be slow on a G3, no doubt about that. Hardly a fair evaluation.
I said a general rule. Not a universal truth. That's true that it's what you said. But I agree with the other guy here - as a general truth, mac/unix people also _know_ windows, and are more qualified to evaluate it than the average windows fanboi who bashes Mac out of ignorance.
On a side note - what the heck is this "slow down cowboy, you just posted 4 minutes ago" crap all the sudden?
OK - to the mod who said this is "redundant". Look at the timestamps. My post says the same thing that the AC's post says - this is true. We posted at the same time. Mine has more detail. I think you're a bit to quick on the "redundant" button there sparky.
Maybe it's just me but I save "redundant" for posts made much later or many many times.
-Reliability: Windows Oh really? My last Mac crash was, um. I'll have to get back to you, I can't actually remember one. My last windows crash? Yesterday. So our experience differs. (you do _have_ experience with Mac, I assume?)
-User interface: Windows If you're finding it difficult to do something in MacOSX, it's quite likely that you are trying do do something in an un-needed complicated way.
-Cost: Windows (MacOS has to be updated every year) It does? This is news to me. Sure, you _can_ upgrade it every year or so when new version of the OS comes out, but nobody is forcing you to. Old versions still get support, patches, and all that. Nothing mandatory about upgrades. And unlike windows, OS upgrades tend to make the system run _faster_, rather than slower.
-Compatibility: Windows (15 years old programs still work fine) Couple thoughts there... 1: Who cares? Are you telling me that you've got some mission critical software from 15 years ago, that nobody has ever improved and released for a modern OS? And, 2: How is that good? How much effort do you want your OS vendor to put into supporting old crap for people too lazy to upgrade every decade or so? At a certain point, backwards compatibility costs forward development. And, it could be argued that much of the problem with Windows is that they want to pretend to have backwards compatibility, so they keep horrible design flaws in place throughout versions. (and yet, today's MS Office can't read files made in MS Office 15 years ago...you have to find a windows-98'ish box to do an interim translation).
-Open architecture: Windows (Millions of applications are available) Nothing much more open than Unix...certainly not Windows with it's hidden APIs and closed source. And I have _yet_ to find a need I haven't been able to find an app for. Can I run Microsoft Flight Simulator? No. But there's 2 or 3 Mac ones that are at least as good. There's more beers out there than Bud and Miller too, you know?
-Vulnerability: MacOS (more viruses on Windows) -Bugs: Tie Cite please? On what basis are you making this incredible claim? And are you counting bug counts, or weighting them somehow to compare them for severity, impact, security risk, and so on?
TOTAL: Windows wins.
Windows Vista is expected to have big market share than MacOS in just the next few months. That's great. So tell us all what your actual experience is with Mac please. Because it seems that you are speaking out of ignorance and assumptions.
I imagine he's thinking of "repair permissions" in the disk utility. If you read Mac forums, you'll see it's considered as the first thing to try whenever someone asks for help with a strange problem. And no, it doesn't always help. Ah. So it's the level 1 helpdesk equivalent of "delete all your cookies, empty your browser cache, and reboot" in other words.
Sadly, most Windows fanboys never used anything but Windows. Well, that's the thing. Usually, Mac folks, when they complain about windows, are doing so from a position of "I use both, I know what I'm talking about". However, so many windows folks bashing Mac, don't use them, or haven't in years, and completely disregard that OS9 and previous has _nothing_ to do with OSX, so complaints from 5 years ago aren't relevant. I mean, appletalk? Maybe it's there, maybe it's in use, but I don't think it is...in 5 years or so, I haven't had to care about it. And what is this "fixing permissions" thing he's talking about? Seriously, what does he mean?
I would like to get all riled up over his flamebait... but I mostly just feel sorry for the poor, confused person writing this nonsense. Yup. Typical of a "I am going to dislike (thing) based on a lack of understanding of same". People who argue from that point of view can safely be ignored; they have nothing to add to the conversation. Obviously whoever wrote the summary is, they don't have any current OSX experience.
Acoustic 'fingerprints' can be used to accurately identify a number of things that even the pros (who just haven't given the concept some thought) don't readily recognize. This was also was thought about accoustic signatures of ships and submarines. Yet we've been able to identify various targets down the the hull number.
Indeed we can. I work with a guy who used to do just that. From what he tells me (of what he can tell me, I suppose), the "knowing which hull number" thing is in recognizing specific anomalies in a very small population of boats. It's a winnowing down process - there's a noise. Biological or mechanical? If mechanical, what type of prop? What rate is it turning at? What sound signature from a _known sample_ do you have?
I'm completely untrained in the accoustic signature of fire arms yet I can tell the difference between a hand gun, shot gun and rifle shot. Oh, absolutely. The audio difference between those 3 classes of firearms is dramatic and obvious. My dad lives a half mile away, and I can usually tell which caliber he's firing based on the sound, when he's out shooting. And based on that, I can give you make and model. But again, like a fleet of 100 submarines to compare against, it's because I know that he just bought, let's say, a.30-06, and is working up the most accurate loads for it. So I hear a rifle shot or series of them. In groups of 3, then delay. Another group of 3, delay. It's a known pattern and some inductive reasoning. "So how did that Marlin work out this morning, Dad?", is a perfectly logical and reasonable and correct deduction.
I don't think it's at all beyond the abilities to identify various gun characteristics accousticly. To some extent, right. But what you won't be able to do, is say from any given gunshot sound, "That was a Ruger Mark II with a 6 inch barrel, in.22 Long Rifle". Not gonna happen. The sound that that Ruger makes, compared to say a Colt Woodsman with a 6 inch barrel, is going to be damn similar. And then, if I change from a high velocity round to a target round, the sound is going to change more than the difference between two different guns. At the ballistic level, it's a 6 inch tube open on one end; the sound is mostly generated by the bullet going through the air itself (no difference between models), and the "pop" when the gasses escape out of the muzzle when the bullet leaves. The crown of the muzzle isn't going to differ enough between makes and models, to change the sound signature to the point where you can diffentiate them. The volume of gas behind the bullet will be the same, the hole they're coming out will be the same - from a sound perspective you're just uncorking a bottle. Sure, the _mechanism_ has a sound signature which differs but, unless you can get criminals to carry around microphones so you can sample that, that won't help. Especially when ammo (velocity) changes are going to be so huge compared to all the other variables. It's an interesting problem, from an engineering perspective, but I think we just have the usual case where a journalist doesn't understand something and, well, makes shit up.
differentiating the make and model of a rifle fired a mile away simply by analyzing the sound of the distant blast. Sorry, bzzzt, no. There is NO way to distinguish one, let's say, 22 Long Rifle muzzle blast signature from another, reliably. You can't pretend to tell me that muzzle crowning of one model vs the other can be that specific. Location, yeah, OK, maybe, triangulation and all that. Sound signature based on make and model? Bullshiat. There's about 4 different muzzle crown profiles used, and the sound signature is going to vary a hell of a lot more by brand and type of ammo, than shape and "make and model" of the firearm.
Ha ha, man, you republicans are hilarious. It went like this: proposal goes to the house to vote to "authorize the United States to use military force". The democrats have two options: 1) Vote no. Do this and they're painted as cowards, leftist peaceniks, weak on national security, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11! 2) Vote yes, with the caveat
Sorry, I don't see a category for "Yes, but..." in the vote listing.
that force only be used if there is an "imminent threat" (as per Kerry's speech), and they're painted as "people... saying one thing while doing the opposite".
Yes, it's very very good, I must admit. And, hey, it worked in the end, didn't it? It's a shame the democrats aren't as good at the low-down dirty politicking... but, hey, at least after thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis died, the US public finally clued in.
What the democrats are good at, is, as I said, saying one thing, doing the other, and deciding later which they meant. This disgusts me. But you know what? I'm obviously not going to change your mind, and you're obviously not going to change mine. Have a great day.
Apparently you can't recognize when someone is trying to play both sides of the fence, so later, they can decide what side they were on at the time.
Wait wait... so saying "yes, Iraq may have WMDs, but no, I don't believe war is the right solution at this time" is "playing both sides"?
It certainly is, when they then vote for it anyway while pretending they didn't want it to happen. They voted to authorize the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Now, I know it's a long-standing leftist tactic to debate the meanings of common words (see: "is"), but if you vote to authorize the use of military force, well, seems to me, you voted to authorize the use of military force. Wordgames and bullshit don't cut it; they voted for it.
Frankly, I think you just recognize what you want to recognize. But that's nothing new, especially for republicans blinded by partly loyalty.
Oh, there's blinding going on, that's for sure. When your dislike for Bush and his party is so intense that you can't see when your own people are saying one thing while doing the opposite, well, it's pretty sad. Those of us who can see the tactic are disgusted by it.
Tell me again how the authorization to use force vote went? Here, I'll save you some googling. The name of the law is "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)". The wikipedia article is here.
The only person in the list of quoted individuals I wrote above who voted against it, is Kennedy. It's fine if you don't like the war. Really. It is. But statements like you make show that you're operating out of ignorance rather than with the facts. So that kind of invalidates the basis for your opinion, if you're basing it on something that isn't true, if you think about it. And yet people still blame Bush, when all those people, on both sides of the aisle (see detailed vote breakdown in the wikipedia article), voted that they authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Unless you have data showing that the voting record as presented on wikipedia is wrong? I'm sure we can find it on some congressional record site. Feel free. Or just go on lying or um, "working from bad intel". It's up to you.
If that's not simple enough for you, I'll summarize: dems == suspected WMDs, rejected war. reps == suspected WMDs, insisted upon war, manufactured danger of imminent threat to it's neighbours and the united states in order to justify said war. Make sense now?
Posting opinion, in a condescending way, is rarely an effective rhetorical tactic. Just so you know. Apparently you can't recognize when someone is trying to play both sides of the fence, so later, they can decide what side they were on at the time. I _can_ recognize it, and do, in those quotes. "I voted for that, before I voted against that", you see.
Slashdot Mirror
If the current price is A and you bid B, technically you should be able to buy the product for a price X such that A < X <= B. With shilling, X = B. Quite simply, if shilling is the norm, the earlier policy becomes moot. Now if Ebay officially makes it a policy that X = B, it'd be one thing, but to say one thing and not have policies against the opposite happening is clearly Ebay's fault.
OK, pseudo-algebra aside, are you claiming that eBay does _not_ have policies against shill bidding, or what point are you trying to make here? Because if that's your point, you're wrong. I don't see how my post could have been so widely misunderstood. My point was and is, the guy saying "I bid 100 dollars because it's worth 50 so I got ripped off", presented a _HORRIBLE_ example. eBay has mechanisms in place to stop shill bidding, mechanisms in place to report same, and mechanisms in place so you can retract your bid if you suspect a fradulent auction is going down that you're involved in. Blaming eBay for someone calling their buddy to bid on their stuff so it doesn't go low? Sorry, not buying that. Blame the seller and his shill, not the venue. HOW specifically can or could they detect that, exactly? Please show how you can differentiate between that and legitimate bidding patterns. Show your work; due Tuesday.
OK sorry but, at this point, you've pretty much shown here that you're not familiar with what you're talking about. You _can't_ bid on your own auctions on eBay, period. If joe1234 is listing the item, joe1234 can't bid on it. I've tested that, it's an obvious thing for them to check for at bid time, and they do. And, just because personA buys from personB a lot, doesn't mean they're the same person. I've got a few sellers who I've bought from literally dozens of times. I bid on most of their auctions, because what they sell and what I buy are the same thing. I lowball every one of one guy's listings, and get about 10% of them. (this is on a commodity with an established value - I bid 10 or 15% back and get them sometimes). I figure if someone is going to get his goods on the cheap, it might as well be me.
Now, to an outside observer, they might see my ID bidding on most or all of his auctions, always near the end price, and think I'm a shill. I'm pretty sure he's not me and I'm not him, what with us being about 1200 miles apart. But how is an outside observer going to differentiate my buying pattern in regards to him, as me not being his shill? "Joe keeps bidding on Tim's stuff, always near the max bid, so Joe must be Tim" doesn't cut it. Yet it seems to be how some people think they're recognizing a shill bidder.
(a) Because it is worth $100?
(b) Because you are no longer participating in an auction. Instead of paying the lowest price that no one else is willing to pay, you are paying the highest price you are willing to pay. This is fraud. You either missed my point, or intentionally snipped out the part where the OP was complaining it was only worth 50 bucks. His example stinks, and makes whatever point he's trying to make basically sound like whining.
Then, why in the world would you (a) bid $100 for it, and then (b) complain when you didn't get outbid?!?!?! In the end, I care. I occasionally buy stuff on eBay, and I want to know I paid the lowest price for what I want to buy. At the very least I want to know that I am not being cheated.
If you really mean this as an example of being cheated, I'd suggest that perhaps you could modify your bid strategy to not include bidding $100 for something worth $50. Not defending shill bidders, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying do your research of what something is worth before you set the number, _or_, overbid and know you're going to be highest. But don't complain about it if you use the latter approach.
MOAB == WMD.
Y Um, no. WMD has been defined, for quite some time, as chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons. But by all means, do carry on.
Glock has been using a coating called "Tenifer" for nearly 20 years. Can be given a nice finish, very durable in my experience, and quite hard. Obviously that technology is mature by now, if scuff-proof metal things in your pocket is important I wonder if that would be suitable. Anyone have the low-down on Glock's Tenifer coating, what it is, and how it is or isn't like this stuff?
Yes, it will be slow on a G3, no doubt about that. Hardly a fair evaluation.
Funny I knew someone would do that. You either 1) read my post poorly 2) don't know pc hardware 3) are intentionally being an ass.
Actually, it's 4) I'm pointing out that you're complaining about slowness on ancient farking hardware. The fact that this seems to be a chronic problem in your hardware choices doesn't change that basic truth. In the hopes that either 1 or 2 is correct, let me point out and clarify: I said my main computer is an Athlon 1200. Those were released in Oct. 2000
Yes, yes, that's very nice, good for you. I'm familiar with computing history. (snip pompous/condescending posting of links) I switched from a Mac to a PC 3 years older partially because of speed. But if you read my post you would have seen my main complaints with OS X were that it was awkward and unintuitive, and I wasn't clear, but the speed I complained of was primarily the inability to fluidly execute a task... Mac OSX on a G3 is not going to give you good performance. Period. This shouldn't be surprising to anybody. As far as the usability problems; you're trying to do things just like a PC and they're not working that way. Yes, I _got_ that. Lecturing me like I'm the one missing something, when in fact you're pointing out that _you_ are the one missing something, is somewhat silly. Add your condescending attitude and it goes down to "pathetic". ie with windows it's trivial to practice a task learn the key shortcuts and repeat the task very quickly, with OS X even routine tasks are awkward everytime. To you. Have you asked for help or do you just like to complain? Frankly, your presentation isn't such that you're likely to inspire people to want to help you, if this post is a typical example of your technical interacions.
I realize I won't change your opinion, and don't really care to. However that attitude that OS X is clearly better and only ignorance could blind a person, is offensive and stupid. I've never heard someone with OS X and PC experience argue persuasively why/how a Mac is better. I suppose it's possible that you either weren't listening, or disregarded real differences because you don't want to hear them, or that people just didn't want to spend time on you because of your tone. In this case, the latter is it. Enjoy your PC, looks like you're meant for each other.It's called "slashdot."
Ja, I'm familiar with the site, but 4 minutes? I've never seen that before, in years. I can't imagine that all of the sudden, today, my typing speed dramatically increased or that I've never actually tried to post two messages on a topic while going through a thread? I thought the time interval thing was for AC's, not for people posting as a person?Or it could be that my memory just isn't what it used to be. That's possible; my memory isn't what it used to be.
Well can't say we've actually met, but I have a G3 iBook and a G4 Tower that have had every OS X upgrade applied within weeks of being released. The iBook was my only laptop for about 2 years.
Well I would certainly hope so; a G3 Mac is, let's see, 4 hardware generations old now? I find OS X awkward, slow and unintuitive. Yes, it will be slow on a G3, no doubt about that. Hardly a fair evaluation.I've been using them less and less.
On a side note - what the heck is this "slow down cowboy, you just posted 4 minutes ago" crap all the sudden?
OK - to the mod who said this is "redundant". Look at the timestamps. My post says the same thing that the AC's post says - this is true. We posted at the same time. Mine has more detail. I think you're a bit to quick on the "redundant" button there sparky. Maybe it's just me but I save "redundant" for posts made much later or many many times.
Level I is just "Shut up and reboot"
Overanalysis kills humor, you know that right?-Reliability: Windows Oh really? My last Mac crash was, um. I'll have to get back to you, I can't actually remember one. My last windows crash? Yesterday. So our experience differs. (you do _have_ experience with Mac, I assume?)
-User interface: Windows If you're finding it difficult to do something in MacOSX, it's quite likely that you are trying do do something in an un-needed complicated way.
-Cost: Windows (MacOS has to be updated every year) It does? This is news to me. Sure, you _can_ upgrade it every year or so when new version of the OS comes out, but nobody is forcing you to. Old versions still get support, patches, and all that. Nothing mandatory about upgrades. And unlike windows, OS upgrades tend to make the system run _faster_, rather than slower.
-Compatibility: Windows (15 years old programs still work fine) Couple thoughts there... 1: Who cares? Are you telling me that you've got some mission critical software from 15 years ago, that nobody has ever improved and released for a modern OS? And, 2: How is that good? How much effort do you want your OS vendor to put into supporting old crap for people too lazy to upgrade every decade or so? At a certain point, backwards compatibility costs forward development. And, it could be argued that much of the problem with Windows is that they want to pretend to have backwards compatibility, so they keep horrible design flaws in place throughout versions. (and yet, today's MS Office can't read files made in MS Office 15 years ago...you have to find a windows-98'ish box to do an interim translation).
-Open architecture: Windows (Millions of applications are available) Nothing much more open than Unix...certainly not Windows with it's hidden APIs and closed source. And I have _yet_ to find a need I haven't been able to find an app for. Can I run Microsoft Flight Simulator? No. But there's 2 or 3 Mac ones that are at least as good. There's more beers out there than Bud and Miller too, you know?
-Vulnerability: MacOS (more viruses on Windows)
-Bugs: Tie Cite please? On what basis are you making this incredible claim? And are you counting bug counts, or weighting them somehow to compare them for severity, impact, security risk, and so on?
TOTAL: Windows wins.
Windows Vista is expected to have big market share than MacOS in just the next few months.
That's great. So tell us all what your actual experience is with Mac please. Because it seems that you are speaking out of ignorance and assumptions.
Indeed we can. I work with a guy who used to do just that. From what he tells me (of what he can tell me, I suppose), the "knowing which hull number" thing is in recognizing specific anomalies in a very small population of boats. It's a winnowing down process - there's a noise. Biological or mechanical? If mechanical, what type of prop? What rate is it turning at? What sound signature from a _known sample_ do you have?
I'm completely untrained in the accoustic signature of fire arms yet I can tell the difference between a hand gun, shot gun and rifle shot.
Oh, absolutely. The audio difference between those 3 classes of firearms is dramatic and obvious. My dad lives a half mile away, and I can usually tell which caliber he's firing based on the sound, when he's out shooting. And based on that, I can give you make and model. But again, like a fleet of 100 submarines to compare against, it's because I know that he just bought, let's say, a
I don't think it's at all beyond the abilities to identify various gun characteristics accousticly.
To some extent, right. But what you won't be able to do, is say from any given gunshot sound, "That was a Ruger Mark II with a 6 inch barrel, in
differentiating the make and model of a rifle fired a mile away simply by analyzing the sound of the distant blast. Sorry, bzzzt, no. There is NO way to distinguish one, let's say, 22 Long Rifle muzzle blast signature from another, reliably. You can't pretend to tell me that muzzle crowning of one model vs the other can be that specific. Location, yeah, OK, maybe, triangulation and all that. Sound signature based on make and model? Bullshiat. There's about 4 different muzzle crown profiles used, and the sound signature is going to vary a hell of a lot more by brand and type of ammo, than shape and "make and model" of the firearm.
Sorry, I don't see a category for "Yes, but..." in the vote listing. that force only be used if there is an "imminent threat" (as per Kerry's speech), and they're painted as "people
Yes, it's very very good, I must admit. And, hey, it worked in the end, didn't it? It's a shame the democrats aren't as good at the low-down dirty politicking... but, hey, at least after thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis died, the US public finally clued in.
What the democrats are good at, is, as I said, saying one thing, doing the other, and deciding later which they meant. This disgusts me. But you know what? I'm obviously not going to change your mind, and you're obviously not going to change mine. Have a great day.
Wait wait... so saying "yes, Iraq may have WMDs, but no, I don't believe war is the right solution at this time" is "playing both sides"?
It certainly is, when they then vote for it anyway while pretending they didn't want it to happen. They voted to authorize the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Now, I know it's a long-standing leftist tactic to debate the meanings of common words (see: "is"), but if you vote to authorize the use of military force, well, seems to me, you voted to authorize the use of military force. Wordgames and bullshit don't cut it; they voted for it. Frankly, I think you just recognize what you want to recognize. But that's nothing new, especially for republicans blinded by partly loyalty.
Oh, there's blinding going on, that's for sure. When your dislike for Bush and his party is so intense that you can't see when your own people are saying one thing while doing the opposite, well, it's pretty sad. Those of us who can see the tactic are disgusted by it.
Whew. Good thing GNU is Not Unix.
I'm not seeing what your point is, can you explain? Or am I trying to overanalyze a throw-away comment? I do that sometimes...
Tell me again how the authorization to use force vote went? Here, I'll save you some googling. The name of the law is "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)". The wikipedia article is here.
The only person in the list of quoted individuals I wrote above who voted against it, is Kennedy. It's fine if you don't like the war. Really. It is. But statements like you make show that you're operating out of ignorance rather than with the facts. So that kind of invalidates the basis for your opinion, if you're basing it on something that isn't true, if you think about it. And yet people still blame Bush, when all those people, on both sides of the aisle (see detailed vote breakdown in the wikipedia article), voted that they authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Unless you have data showing that the voting record as presented on wikipedia is wrong? I'm sure we can find it on some congressional record site. Feel free. Or just go on lying or um, "working from bad intel". It's up to you.
Posting opinion, in a condescending way, is rarely an effective rhetorical tactic. Just so you know. Apparently you can't recognize when someone is trying to play both sides of the fence, so later, they can decide what side they were on at the time. I _can_ recognize it, and do, in those quotes. "I voted for that, before I voted against that", you see.