Yeah, so let's not lower the prices then. Without money to buy the software there won't be a need of expertise. Yet another problem solved at Microsoft.
That has nothing to do with how serious the source is. Obviously articles at Wikipedia will have more depth in the subjects that interests people that write them. To me, that bias doesn't seem to bad since anybody can be an author there. Oh, by the way, www.google.com says:
"george washington carver" - 498.000 hits,
"robocop" - 2.230.000 hits
I think it's hilarious that so many companies still use Windows but I'm fine with that as long as goverments don't. I mean if company W spends thousands of dollars on "securing" their Windows environment, that's fine, since they will eventually get pushed out of the market by company X that doesn't have to face the same direct costs and maybe most of all; indirect costs in terms of wasted time. So just let the Windows guys be for a while. I believe in natural selection.
Since you capitalize the word "only" I'm afraid you actually mean that. Do you also think that the ONLY reason IE has more security holes then Mozilla is because more people run IE? I'm quite certain that there's more then one reason why Macs don't have as much viruses as the Windows world and the market share being one of the reasons.
And how does the email address tell wheter you're on a Mac or PC so Macs don't get spam? I thought people were the targets of spam, not computers.
Slashdot Mirror
So this means that 4/5 of the research projects does not feel hampered by patents. Wow! Now that's a suprising fact!
Yeah, so let's not lower the prices then. Without money to buy the software there won't be a need of expertise. Yet another problem solved at Microsoft.
The RFID-shredder®, "Increasing the entropy since 2006"
Umm...nope, not really. The price is there but how are they superior?
So change it!
That has nothing to do with how serious the source is. Obviously articles at Wikipedia will have more depth in the subjects that interests people that write them. To me, that bias doesn't seem to bad since anybody can be an author there. Oh, by the way, www.google.com says: "george washington carver" - 498.000 hits, "robocop" - 2.230.000 hits
I think it's hilarious that so many companies still use Windows but I'm fine with that as long as goverments don't. I mean if company W spends thousands of dollars on "securing" their Windows environment, that's fine, since they will eventually get pushed out of the market by company X that doesn't have to face the same direct costs and maybe most of all; indirect costs in terms of wasted time. So just let the Windows guys be for a while. I believe in natural selection.
It isn't legal and it isn't moral. Neither is spamming.
Since you capitalize the word "only" I'm afraid you actually mean that. Do you also think that the ONLY reason IE has more security holes then Mozilla is because more people run IE? I'm quite certain that there's more then one reason why Macs don't have as much viruses as the Windows world and the market share being one of the reasons. And how does the email address tell wheter you're on a Mac or PC so Macs don't get spam? I thought people were the targets of spam, not computers.