They're not out to make friends. They're out to make money.
They're making a big effort to become the de facto software company in Asia, like they are in the U.S. and Europe. That's why they're making their software available at lower prices in stripped-down versions. In most parts of Asia, you don't have to justify NOT buying MS software - as you do here. That's what MS is trying to build in Asia. They are trying to make "friends" among businesses like they have here. That is the best way for them to make money.
But, as I wrote in my previous post, I think this tactic may be too aggressive and backfire by putting people off. At least I hope people won't buckle to a show of trumped-up muscle. If they truly decided MS software is what's best for them, more power to them. But I hope they won't be scared into buying it. And I don't think they will.
This should go over really well. At least MS is entrenched in most business environments here in the U.S. so they can get away with a lot of this stuff. But in Asia (especially in places where they are pushing the stripped-down edition of Windows) this is going to alienate them even more than just having high prices.
"Buy our expensive software... or try the alternative and we'll sue you."
Actions like this (trying to help another) are what really make a community. The fact that people pull together to help another person, whom they probably don't know, proves incorrect those who criticize this community as many takers feeding off of a few givers.
At times, I can see their point. Many people download software/use manuals written by other people, while relatively few contribute actual code (guilty myself). But actions like this allay my concerns and show there really is a true community here.
It's pretty obvious that Microsoft doesn't like Linux. Linux is giving away what Microsoft sells. Microsoft sees an opportunity to help an enemy of an enemy... and acts on it.
I don't see any sneaky or suspicious stuff going on here. I think Microsofts actions are underhanded and not above-the-board. But I don't think there are any smoke and mirrors/conspiracies to be uncovered.
That really depends if you are talking about industrial computers, or your grandma's computer.
In the case of your grandma, the computer should be secure enough to not be infected or hacked, and that's about it. There's no national security information on her hard drive, and no one will be particularly interested in stealing her grandson's birthday pictures. Too much security at the user level will get in her way. Security below the user level is just what she needs.
On the other end of the spectrum you've got a team of trained tech staff. They have a data vault with really important information. Their security precautions should be extreme. But that doesn't hurt usability, because these guys are trained to work in this environment, and don't mind it. To them security tools enhance usability.
I understand the point of the article, and I can see the point. I think they should be looking at making security happen "under the hood". That's what they're really getting at, I think.
If Osama were out there and we could kill him, do you expect us to stay our hands because we've not had his trial?
You said: YES! Yes yes yes! That's EXACTLY what we should do, because THAT is what makes us DIFFERENT to them!
You are missing an important part of this discussion. We adhere to due process and the like with our citizens. In peace time we apply those principles to foreigners as much as possible. But we are NOT in peace time. And that is a very big distinction. When someone has openly said they are fighting a holy war against you, the rules are all different.
Can you imagine a battlefield where one army tries to arrest every member of the opposing force - and only uses deadly force after all other options have been exhausted? Absolutely rediculous!
Why should a soldier put himself in a situation of extreme risk (he's got a wife and kids who'd like to see him again) in order to aprehend a member of a foreign army who will kill him if he has the chance? We hold the ideals of our democracy very near. They are not just a cute idea. But you are misapplying them.
Wow! I had no idea the average IQ was so low. Here I'd been under the impression that GWB was dumber than the average American.
That statement doesn't make sense. The average IQ can never be low or high. It is always 100. It is DEFINED as 100. The IQ scale is not an absolute one, but a comparitive one. If everyone in the world got smarter by some fixed amount, their IQ's would not change (even though their intelligence did), and the average IQ would still be 100.
Nothing like criticizing people for being dumb - then making a big error while you're doing it.
It's far more efficient to just use electricity to do stuff than to use electricity to create hydrogen and then use than hydrogen to do stuff, because the more steps and conversions you have the more energy is going to be lost.
I agree with you somewhat - in that we can't afford a lot of conversions. But consider the amount of energy wasted in transmission through long power lines. This offsets some of the wasted energy.
Secondly, so what if it takes more hydrogen than oil to run your home? Take the case where we're turning solar rays -> heat -> electricity -> hydrogen. This is a lot of conversions (not the best process) as you noted. Lets say we waste 90% of the energy we collect. Well, before it was 100% wasted. We've just had a 10% increase in energy production!
Furthermore, there are other, more efficient methods to get hydrogen. There are certainly many we haven't thought of yet. Think of the progression from the first gas engine to today. There are biological ways to produce hydrogen. The list goes on and on. We should just be skeptical and shut down the idea without really looking into it. 90% of histories nay-sayers end up embarrassed and proven wrong.
Assuming a limited amount of available oil, this should work itself out. The more oil we use, the less there is available. Decreased supply means higher prices (we're already seeing this). Nobody wants a hydrogen car when it costs twice as much to drive a mile. But when the price of gasoline surpasses an alternative fuel - its back in the game.
Here are some important facts that they apparantly did not teach you in 9-12.
Maybe I know a little more than you give me credit for.
A solar plant the size of a large city would be required to match the power output of a single oil plant. We don't even have enough material to build all the solar plants we would need to power the country, let alone enough land to put it on.
You are probably talking about big arrays of solar panels, right? There are alternative ways of gathering solar power that have shown to be very promising. Setting up arrays of mirrors to focus radiation on a central heat collector (molten salt) is quite efficient, and all you need is a shiny thing -anything shiny- to reflect the sun. That's pretty easy material to come by.
The land issue is overcome by the portability of hydrogen. It is impossible to effectively generate power in the desert and use it thousands of miles away in the city. BUT, if you use your power on the spot to make hydrogen, you can ship the hydrogen a long way without wasting too much in the process.
BioChemical power? Even less practical than any of the above options.
Wrong. There are small organizms that live in water and produce hydrogen. All you need is a big vat of water and a culture. Then you sit back and collect the hydrogen. This is VERY practical.
The biggest drawback is not having an infrastructure to use hydrogen fuel. If there were a safe, easy, readily available way to by hydrogen for your car, for example, you would see a growing industry. Like any infant industry, it would require a lot of research, trial and error to mature, but it would happen.
Solor power
Wind power
Hydroelectric power
BioChemical power
(insert others)
...will all be used to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen will become the new gasoline. I've thought this since I was in 8th grade. I'm still waiting for it to happen on a large scale.
I'm often baffled by people who can't conceive of anyone seeing issues differently than themselves, and who can't understand why someone might have different priorities than they do.
Here you've got 51% of the population who wants George Bush to be president. You voted against him. So all those people (51%) must be stupid right? After all they don't agree with you. If you honestly think like this, you probably stopped developing mentally at the tender age of 6.
There are a lot of issues that people disagree on vehemently. Your first step should be to understand why the people you disagree with see things differently than you do. Is it because they are stupid/crazy/bastards/wackos?... possibly, but probably not. If you assume they are just stupid and there can't be a good reason to disagree with you, then you alienate yourself.
I've noticed this trend a lot here on slashdot. And if you'd like to keep thinking this way, by all means continue. But if you do, you'll see the next election decided by 4-5% instead of 3%. People don't like it when you look down on them because of disagreement. And that is enough to influence a vote.
Thanks! That's really interesting. I've never heard of Parrot before. I wonder to what lengths the languages will be interoperable. It is a noble goal (and I'm just imagining how great it would be to switch back and forth between languages within a program) but it's also a lofty goal. What about languages that treat data differently? There must be some level beyond which you cannot interleave languages. Lines, or at least functions would have to have uniformity wouldn't they?
I'm not a nay-sayer. But I am very curious about this project. Perhaps I'll read more about it when I get a chance.
Thanks, I just looked at that page, and it has a lot of info. I still can't decide which to use though. The page suggests Python is easier to learn if you like C (which I do), and Ruby makes more sense if you like Perl (which I do also).
I hope I don't have to learn them both before I can make a decision, but maybe I'll have to.
I have to admit I've never tried Ruby. I use C++, Perl and PHP all the time. I just got started learning Python because of a book review I saw here on Slashdot. In fact, I also got interested in Python because someone suggested I use it to solve a problem that needs extensive parsing (Perl strength, nightmare in C++) and large, pointer-addressable arrays of objects(C++ strength, Perl weakness).
Anyway, I was told Python was a good compromise. I've just started into it, but maybe Ruby is a better fit for this problem? I can only learn so many languages at once, and still have time for my projects.
Can I get any advice? Is Ruby really "more powerful than Perl and more object oriented than Python" - is this what I'm looking for, or should I put it off and learn Python first?
The problem here is many of the peices they would use to track the printers are integral parts of the replacable toner cartridges and printer ink kits. Only printers that have perm drums and heads will be easily traceable.
Not only that, but they would have to have a library of characteristics to match against. They can't match you to your fingerprint unless it's on file. And they can't match your document to your printer unless your printer's "fingerprint" is on file. They can keep fingerprints on file because they don't change. It would be next to impossible to keep a current database of printers. You would definitely have to have a suspect in mind before matching a document to a printer.
The best use of this is to match to documents to the same printer - as when two bomb threats go to different buildings. Are they related? Well, they came from the same printer, so Yes.
And they should! Why should I, and others who agree with me, not be able to pool our money and buy an ad? Even if it is within 30 days of the election and says something that the political class doesn't like?
First off, I agree with you. I think much of the effort to curtail political speech (and money) is B.S.
However, the people breaking the rules are the very people who write the rules and expect us to follow them. If THEY can't even do it, why should anyone be expected to. That's why I'm troubled.
I've already seen ads designed to walk a fine line on campaign finance. They go something like this:
Candidate B is a bad man! Click here to help us raise money to stop him by donating to Candidate A.
The message is clearly intended to sway the viewer, but they technically are fund raisers, not advertisements. In other words, campaign laws shouldn't apply to them in the same way they apply to TV or print ads.
I've seen these come out of both parties and their respective PACs. It is the same argument used to defend Michael Moore. "This is different because we're making money... not spending it."
I'm embarassed that our politicians and political organizations are so willing to follow the letter rather than the spirit of the law. And I'm sure we'll see many more laws trying to reign in abusers. And we are just as likely to see a lot of new creativity to skirt the laws that are implimented.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not out to make friends. They're out to make money.
They're making a big effort to become the de facto software company in Asia, like they are in the U.S. and Europe. That's why they're making their software available at lower prices in stripped-down versions. In most parts of Asia, you don't have to justify NOT buying MS software - as you do here. That's what MS is trying to build in Asia. They are trying to make "friends" among businesses like they have here. That is the best way for them to make money.
But, as I wrote in my previous post, I think this tactic may be too aggressive and backfire by putting people off. At least I hope people won't buckle to a show of trumped-up muscle. If they truly decided MS software is what's best for them, more power to them. But I hope they won't be scared into buying it. And I don't think they will.
This should go over really well. At least MS is entrenched in most business environments here in the U.S. so they can get away with a lot of this stuff. But in Asia (especially in places where they are pushing the stripped-down edition of Windows) this is going to alienate them even more than just having high prices.
"Buy our expensive software... or try the alternative and we'll sue you."
Good way to make friends.
Actions like this (trying to help another) are what really make a community. The fact that people pull together to help another person, whom they probably don't know, proves incorrect those who criticize this community as many takers feeding off of a few givers.
At times, I can see their point. Many people download software/use manuals written by other people, while relatively few contribute actual code (guilty myself). But actions like this allay my concerns and show there really is a true community here.
It's pretty obvious that Microsoft doesn't like Linux. Linux is giving away what Microsoft sells. Microsoft sees an opportunity to help an enemy of an enemy ... and acts on it.
I don't see any sneaky or suspicious stuff going on here. I think Microsofts actions are underhanded and not above-the-board. But I don't think there are any smoke and mirrors/conspiracies to be uncovered.
That really depends if you are talking about industrial computers, or your grandma's computer.
In the case of your grandma, the computer should be secure enough to not be infected or hacked, and that's about it. There's no national security information on her hard drive, and no one will be particularly interested in stealing her grandson's birthday pictures. Too much security at the user level will get in her way. Security below the user level is just what she needs.
On the other end of the spectrum you've got a team of trained tech staff. They have a data vault with really important information. Their security precautions should be extreme. But that doesn't hurt usability, because these guys are trained to work in this environment, and don't mind it. To them security tools enhance usability.
I understand the point of the article, and I can see the point. I think they should be looking at making security happen "under the hood". That's what they're really getting at, I think.
If Osama were out there and we could kill him, do you expect us to stay our hands because we've not had his trial?
You said: YES! Yes yes yes! That's EXACTLY what we should do, because THAT is what makes us DIFFERENT to them!
You are missing an important part of this discussion. We adhere to due process and the like with our citizens. In peace time we apply those principles to foreigners as much as possible. But we are NOT in peace time. And that is a very big distinction. When someone has openly said they are fighting a holy war against you, the rules are all different.
Can you imagine a battlefield where one army tries to arrest every member of the opposing force - and only uses deadly force after all other options have been exhausted? Absolutely rediculous!
Why should a soldier put himself in a situation of extreme risk (he's got a wife and kids who'd like to see him again) in order to aprehend a member of a foreign army who will kill him if he has the chance? We hold the ideals of our democracy very near. They are not just a cute idea. But you are misapplying them.
Wow! I had no idea the average IQ was so low. Here I'd been under the impression that GWB was dumber than the average American.
That statement doesn't make sense. The average IQ can never be low or high. It is always 100. It is DEFINED as 100. The IQ scale is not an absolute one, but a comparitive one. If everyone in the world got smarter by some fixed amount, their IQ's would not change (even though their intelligence did), and the average IQ would still be 100.
Nothing like criticizing people for being dumb - then making a big error while you're doing it.
There should be a huge blue spike in New York City
You know it's sort of strange that those big spikes look like skyscrapers...
It's far more efficient to just use electricity to do stuff than to use electricity to create hydrogen and then use than hydrogen to do stuff, because the more steps and conversions you have the more energy is going to be lost.
I agree with you somewhat - in that we can't afford a lot of conversions. But consider the amount of energy wasted in transmission through long power lines. This offsets some of the wasted energy.
Secondly, so what if it takes more hydrogen than oil to run your home? Take the case where we're turning solar rays -> heat -> electricity -> hydrogen. This is a lot of conversions (not the best process) as you noted. Lets say we waste 90% of the energy we collect. Well, before it was 100% wasted. We've just had a 10% increase in energy production!
Furthermore, there are other, more efficient methods to get hydrogen. There are certainly many we haven't thought of yet. Think of the progression from the first gas engine to today. There are biological ways to produce hydrogen. The list goes on and on. We should just be skeptical and shut down the idea without really looking into it. 90% of histories nay-sayers end up embarrassed and proven wrong.
Assuming a limited amount of available oil, this should work itself out. The more oil we use, the less there is available. Decreased supply means higher prices (we're already seeing this). Nobody wants a hydrogen car when it costs twice as much to drive a mile. But when the price of gasoline surpasses an alternative fuel - its back in the game.
Here are some important facts that they apparantly did not teach you in 9-12.
Maybe I know a little more than you give me credit for.
A solar plant the size of a large city would be required to match the power output of a single oil plant. We don't even have enough material to build all the solar plants we would need to power the country, let alone enough land to put it on.
You are probably talking about big arrays of solar panels, right? There are alternative ways of gathering solar power that have shown to be very promising. Setting up arrays of mirrors to focus radiation on a central heat collector (molten salt) is quite efficient, and all you need is a shiny thing -anything shiny- to reflect the sun. That's pretty easy material to come by.
The land issue is overcome by the portability of hydrogen. It is impossible to effectively generate power in the desert and use it thousands of miles away in the city. BUT, if you use your power on the spot to make hydrogen, you can ship the hydrogen a long way without wasting too much in the process.
BioChemical power? Even less practical than any of the above options.
Wrong. There are small organizms that live in water and produce hydrogen. All you need is a big vat of water and a culture. Then you sit back and collect the hydrogen. This is VERY practical.
The biggest drawback is not having an infrastructure to use hydrogen fuel. If there were a safe, easy, readily available way to by hydrogen for your car, for example, you would see a growing industry. Like any infant industry, it would require a lot of research, trial and error to mature, but it would happen.
And what'll wean us from nuclear power?
...will all be used to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen will become the new gasoline. I've thought this since I was in 8th grade. I'm still waiting for it to happen on a large scale.
Solor power
Wind power
Hydroelectric power
BioChemical power
(insert others)
You'll notice that the Beagle 3 does NOT have the auto-triggered cloaking device equipped on the last version of the rover.
This is estimated to save billions of dollars of lost operations budget and tylenol.
I'm often baffled by people who can't conceive of anyone seeing issues differently than themselves, and who can't understand why someone might have different priorities than they do.
... possibly, but probably not. If you assume they are just stupid and there can't be a good reason to disagree with you, then you alienate yourself.
Here you've got 51% of the population who wants George Bush to be president. You voted against him. So all those people (51%) must be stupid right? After all they don't agree with you. If you honestly think like this, you probably stopped developing mentally at the tender age of 6.
There are a lot of issues that people disagree on vehemently. Your first step should be to understand why the people you disagree with see things differently than you do. Is it because they are stupid/crazy/bastards/wackos?
I've noticed this trend a lot here on slashdot. And if you'd like to keep thinking this way, by all means continue. But if you do, you'll see the next election decided by 4-5% instead of 3%. People don't like it when you look down on them because of disagreement. And that is enough to influence a vote.
Thanks or the advice. I'm starting to think I might like Ruby a little better than Python. The jury's still out, but I'm leaning that way.
Thanks! That's really interesting. I've never heard of Parrot before. I wonder to what lengths the languages will be interoperable. It is a noble goal (and I'm just imagining how great it would be to switch back and forth between languages within a program) but it's also a lofty goal. What about languages that treat data differently? There must be some level beyond which you cannot interleave languages. Lines, or at least functions would have to have uniformity wouldn't they?
I'm not a nay-sayer. But I am very curious about this project. Perhaps I'll read more about it when I get a chance.
Thanks, I just looked at that page, and it has a lot of info. I still can't decide which to use though. The page suggests Python is easier to learn if you like C (which I do), and Ruby makes more sense if you like Perl (which I do also).
I hope I don't have to learn them both before I can make a decision, but maybe I'll have to.
I have to admit I've never tried Ruby. I use C++, Perl and PHP all the time. I just got started learning Python because of a book review I saw here on Slashdot. In fact, I also got interested in Python because someone suggested I use it to solve a problem that needs extensive parsing (Perl strength, nightmare in C++) and large, pointer-addressable arrays of objects(C++ strength, Perl weakness).
Anyway, I was told Python was a good compromise. I've just started into it, but maybe Ruby is a better fit for this problem? I can only learn so many languages at once, and still have time for my projects.
Can I get any advice? Is Ruby really "more powerful than Perl and more object oriented than Python" - is this what I'm looking for, or should I put it off and learn Python first?
Am I the only one who thinks the Wampa (ice creature) looks an awful lot like the abonimable snowman from the children's Christmas special?
The problem here is many of the peices they would use to track the printers are integral parts of the replacable toner cartridges and printer ink kits. Only printers that have perm drums and heads will be easily traceable.
Not only that, but they would have to have a library of characteristics to match against. They can't match you to your fingerprint unless it's on file. And they can't match your document to your printer unless your printer's "fingerprint" is on file. They can keep fingerprints on file because they don't change. It would be next to impossible to keep a current database of printers. You would definitely have to have a suspect in mind before matching a document to a printer.
The best use of this is to match to documents to the same printer - as when two bomb threats go to different buildings. Are they related? Well, they came from the same printer, so Yes.
He plans one for Empire Strikes Back & Return of the Jedi, but they're not out yet.
I think he just misunderstood the confusing numbering system since they started with Episode IV.
By chance, I'm also 6'.
I checked out the game in your sig. It looks fun, but I won't play if it doesn't have Kamchatka and Irkutsk.
OK, my fault for not using better words to make my point more clearly.
And I apologize for being a bit short.
And they should! Why should I, and others who agree with me, not be able to pool our money and buy an ad? Even if it is within 30 days of the election and says something that the political class doesn't like?
First off, I agree with you. I think much of the effort to curtail political speech (and money) is B.S.
However, the people breaking the rules are the very people who write the rules and expect us to follow them. If THEY can't even do it, why should anyone be expected to. That's why I'm troubled.
I've already seen ads designed to walk a fine line on campaign finance. They go something like this:
Candidate B is a bad man! Click here to help us raise money to stop him by donating to Candidate A.
The message is clearly intended to sway the viewer, but they technically are fund raisers, not advertisements. In other words, campaign laws shouldn't apply to them in the same way they apply to TV or print ads.
I've seen these come out of both parties and their respective PACs. It is the same argument used to defend Michael Moore. "This is different because we're making money... not spending it."
I'm embarassed that our politicians and political organizations are so willing to follow the letter rather than the spirit of the law. And I'm sure we'll see many more laws trying to reign in abusers. And we are just as likely to see a lot of new creativity to skirt the laws that are implimented.