Presumably the energy is absorbed by it turning solid. Similar in principle (in vague terms) to how the bonnet of a car (hood to USA people) is designed to crumple so that it absorbs the energy of a crash. Afterwards the bonnet is more condensed - harder - but the energy went into making it so, rather than getting transferred on to the rest of the car and the passengers.
Well the front of normal cars is designed to do that. SUVs are designed to kill people.
I think the perception is that everyone is aware that Microsoft is evil, so there's no need to muster up that much hate any more.
I think more the reason is that the majority of people got tired of hysterical anti-Microsoft slant that so many comments and even stories took on and reacted against it. Microsoft has done some pretty dastardly things in its time, but this isn't a Hollywood movie where we only cut away to a villain does nothing but carry out evil acts all day long. Even when Microsoft does something good, some people here try to twist it into the most heinous acts. And basically, we're all pretty tired of it. Bias and double-standards are the same regardless of which side they're applied to. Even this story, with its incendiary headline, is sensationalistic partisanship. So businesses are discussing what they can do about the biggest threat to their product lines and somebody decided to characterise those meetings as "screw Google meetings". Big deal. It's incredible that Google hasn't held meetings about how to take turf away from Microsoft. So if we can find someone to call one of them a "Screw Microsoft meeting", then can we have another dazzlingly interesting story about that?
This whole story is flamebait, and regardless of people's feelings about Microsoft, I think everyone is tired of being baited for the sake of Cowboy Neal's advertising revenues.
For someone who claims not to know what Google is doing, you sure claim to know a lot about what Google is doing.
Can you get me a copy of Windows 7 on your employee discount?
If you want to read about Google paying money to hire former senators or the son of the Speaker of the House (and they're not hired to do "work" in the sense that you or I would think of it, they're hired for their influence), then such information is documented, undisputed and easily found.
As to accusations of bias in lieu of being able to dispute anything I've ever said, I am not nor have I been, employed by Microsoft. At best, they were one of several purchasers of software I worked on years ago that a former employer produced. I have no financial stake in this, just a distaste for hypocrisy and / or naivety. And I can't get you a copy of Windows 7, but I can send you a link to the Gentoo website which is my preferred OS, if that helps?:)
Notice that Google is not having "Screw Microsoft" meetings in DC, and if they did, everyone would be shocked.
I don't notice that, actually. I'm not in a position to know what high level strategy meetings Google holds and with who so just because I'm not privy to them, doesn't mean I assume they can't be happening (or would be shocked if I found out that they were). After all, given that Google is clearly not run by idiots, then it's implausible to think that they don't have meetings to plan how they'll take profit away from Microsoft. And if they did have such meetings, and somebody somewhere decided to call it a "screw Microsoft" meeting, then how would that be different to what we're seeing now, except that the actors would be different. Google throws plenty of money around in Washington, hiring former senators, lobbying firms and sons of politicians. What do you think that money goes toward? It's not buying office supplies, it's buying the "friendships" of people. There's a word for that, and the word smells as bad whether its Google or Microsoft footing the bill.
Well you play dirty then, and I'll play clean, and we'll see who feels better about themselves in the morning.;) And I reckon I'll still come out on top. My life experience frequently contradicts what you say is the case. I very often see the self-interested and manipulative at work and socially end up disliked and distrusted.
You can say that you'll lie and cheat and backstab your way to the top and then suddenly try to enforce good behaviour, but I don't believe you. Firstly, you'll never get to such a "position of power" that you can change the system like that. Your power by that point is based on and derived from the system you're immersed in. You're not in charge of it. You're part of it. Ever heard the expression "riding the tiger"?
No. If you want to change the system, you don't give into it at the first opportunity. Look at any great and underhanded behaviour and 99/100, you'll find it preceded by lesser evils. Agree with that? Then take my advice and avoid getting started on that.
Our aim is not beating the dirty player, but beating dirty tricks. If we descend to the same level, the game never changes. If we stick to our principles, we attract others that share them. And the player that plays dirty loses.
Never confuse winning the battle with winning the war.
But it has also benefited greatly by simply not being anywhere near as worthwhile a target as Windows platforms due to (a) market share and (b) being used mainly by people who are technologically capable.
And this is what you quoted:
...near as worthwhile a target as Windows platforms due to (a) market share...
My point is a combination of the vastly larger market share Windows has (which you can't deny makes a successful exploit on Windows far more valuable than one on Linux) and that Linux is used by a demographic that has a far smaller proportion of inexpert users. Alongside my Ubuntu and Gentoo systems, I also have an XP installation. I know what I'm doing with it and it has never yet (touch wood) been compromised. A properly administered Windows system (of XP onwards), that is kept updated and is used by someone who doesn't click run stupid attachments called BrtneyNekk1d.exe is a completely different scenario to the vast majority of Windows users. You have to compare like with like.
Linux is better than Windows as far as security goes. I believe this to be the case and you'll find that's what I said in the original post you are replying to. But don't tell me that "someone always trots out the market share argument" and that "it's a weak argument". Swarm Ubuntu with the same army of non-updating, over-trusting users that Windows has, and add on the sudden massive motivation for exploiting Linux machines that is currently absent from the virus writers of the world, and then make the comparisons.
This doesn't relate to clinical depression, but just personal development. But I think people can start out happy and unaware, and then when they become more aware, become dissatisfied with mundane accomplishments, whatever, then it knocks their happiness out of kilter. And there they get stuck. But becoming more aware is a necessary step in one's development. The trick is to get to the stage beyond that which is aware and happy. That usually comes about through action on the things you've become aware of and changing your behaviour.
I actually agree with your belief that positive campaigning trumps negative in the general case. However, I think some of your logic is wonky. You ignore the reasons why an entity will go to negative campaigning - i.e. they're being beaten. If you're on top, if you are the best, then you have a lot to be positive about and to sell yourself on. If someone is beating you on the positive, then you have much more pressure on you to try and undermine your opponent's strong points. Correlation and causation and all that cliché, but there may well be a case that losing pushing people towards negative. You can see that in the instances where campaigns don't go negative until they find they're at risk of losing.
You make a good counter-argument. I think there are some flaws in it. For a start, you'd have a weaker case if you picked France or Germany or Belgium for examples. However, I'll think over your points. I try to form my opinions based on a wide range of evidence, so I'll dig further myself rather than just take someone on the Internet's careful selection. But I am open-minded and will think over what you've said. I'm glad at least that you accept the high cost of the US health care system. A great deal of that cost is the profit of the companies involved, which in theory can be cut by socialised models as used in Europe. You could logically have a better system for less money were it also socialised.
Well some of the points are good ones. For example, the DRM part is relevant and worth raising awareness about. Some points certainly require more support to stand (e.g. the part about how Microsoft violates my privacy by scanning my hard drive, which makes it sound like they're grabbing all my personal files for analysis) and some of the points are either very tangential issues on their own, e.g. "Poisoning Education", or really scraping the barrel, e.g. "Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities."
That last one is particularly bad. It's not like Linux doesn't have a long history of security vulnerabilities. It has historically been much better because of the account privileges system has been better on Linux. But it has also benefited greatly by simply not being anywhere near as worthwhile a target as Windows platforms due to (a) market share and (b) being used mainly by people who are technologically capable. That there are a very large number of people out there that don't keep their computer systems up to date or well-administered would not much change if, say, Ubuntu were the market leader. Bear in mind that Windows now has the capability for real differentiation of accounts and centralized "package management" will appear sooner or later, no doubt.
But the EFF isn't saying positive things about how the situation has come across. They're mixing up serious issues like the DRM with what has the appearance of "we hate Microsoft and will find as many arguments against them as we can, even weak ones" and, at least to me, creating a very poor impression of themselves. The outside world (by which I mean people who haven't aligned themselves with either Microsoft or the EFF, but just want to get on with their own things), don't appreciate seeing someone attack someone else.
If a Linux company contacts these Fortune 500 companies and says "Our product is better because...", that sounds natural and healthy enough. If the EFF come out with a statement saying "Windows 7 contains DRM technology that will adversely affect us all like so..." then that sounds rational and interesting and respectable. But if, as they have with this, they come out with a slew of whatever arguments they can find clearly motivated by a dislike of the company, it looks bad. That's all I'm saying, really. Some of the arguments are good ones, some are weak or even flawed, but the whole campaign looks bad because the motive is clearly not constructive, but an attempt to slate a company they don't like. It's very hard to fling mud without getting it on yourself.
(3) There are only 8 million or about 2% of U.S. citizens who *want* health insurance but are not currently-covered by private or government plans. That's it. So why is it necessary the punish the other 98% with a government monopoly takeover of healthcare? Since the problem is minor, the solution should also be minor. Leave the current system alone, but merely extend Medicare to that small 2% of citizens who desire healthcare but are not covered. Problem solved. And the remaining 98% can keep their current setups - everybody will be happy.
If you compare what the USA pays per capita for that health care, compared to developed European countries, you'll find that the cost is through the roof. That a majority of US citizens may manage to stay on the treadmill whilst only a small number actually fall off, is not the issue. The issue is the effort put into staying on that treadmill in the first place. The USA has been like one of those rich people that doesn't mind getting ripped off a bit, because they're rich. That might change however, in which case they might want to take a good look at their health care system. (And if they could keep their companies from trying to buy out the British NHS (National Health Service) while they're at it, we'd appreciate that, thankyouverymuch.;)
Agreed. However, unfortunately, there are specific verbal communications channels that are legally forbidden: alerting people to an imaginary fire, inside a theatre, for instance.
That's communications content, rather than communications channel. The GP is saying that no channel should have a legal status. E.g. in your example, it's not shouting that is an illegal act, but what you are shouting. In short, if action is to be taken against the illegitimate sharing of copyrighted material, then the target should be the content, not the protocol itself.
Okay, I can believe in insider trading, it happens. But why on Earth would stocks rise on the news of such a numbskulled idea as buying the The Pirate Bay. Are investors that daft that they think this is a good idea? The Pirate Bay made money, not huge amounts but enough to make it worthwhile, by selling advertising without having to charge for product (they co-ordinated the downloading of other people's). How can this potential buyer possibly expect to make money from the site when they're no longer facillitating the downloading of copyrighted material? If they try to charge for their service, which is what elsewhere has been said is the intention, then they'll find the users of the Pirate Bay vanish in short order. People used it because they got stuff for free that they'd otherwise have had to pay for. That's not a market that you can suddenly slap a paid service on top of.
Buying the Pirate Bay is a terrible business decision. They're better off being blocked from it by the courts if they don't have the sense not to themselves!;)
Hmmm. Looks quite nice actually and I like that it is actually an AMD system. Unfortunately, the prices are a bit off-putting. The US$799 price isn't too bad (or at least in comparison to other laptops), but when you see it in the UK for £799, there is no way I'm putting up with that sort of price-hiking. Still, you've given me something interesting to consider. Cheers,
H.
It's really just a matter of deciding which surface is going to have all of the boogers on it. Is a booger on a touch surface all that much worse that a booger stuck to a key?
Well I can touch-type so in the former case I'll find myself looking at the bogey whereas in the latter case I wont need to. Although personally, tend not to smear snot on surfaces anyway.;)
Out of curiosity, what model was that? Last time I looked at tablets, they were expensive. I'd like to see one that isn't. (not sarcasm - might buy one).
Assuming that the ships in Star Wars have cheap power to spare (which there's a lot of evidence for), then it makes sense to keep accelerating until you reach the point that you need to decelerate, so yes, you could see them running all the time. Of course, half the time, they'd be pointing into the direction they're travelling in order to slow down and I don't know Star Wars well enough to say if that's ever been shown, but it wouldn't have to have been.
As to why you'd bank instead of just rotate in place, well it's not a universal argument but at the speeds they're sometimes going, banking might impose less stress on a person that simply snapping round so that your body thinks it's going in a different direction? Okay - that one might be a bit of a stretch. How about it's harder for people to shoot you if you're varying your flight path all the time. Most of the space ship scenes in Star Wars involve combat, yes?
Anyway, I think this whole thread is just the Slashdot editors realising their page hits and ad-revenues are down a bit today and so deciding to run yet another piece of Star Wars flamebait, so I'm going to leave it there. A lot of justifications can be made up for a lot of the behaviour that seems illogical at first. It's just an exercise in scientific consideration.:)
Having said that, there wouldn't be a soundtrack in a 100% realistic movie either, but I don't see too many people complaining about that particular flaw in movies...
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably the energy is absorbed by it turning solid. Similar in principle (in vague terms) to how the bonnet of a car (hood to USA people) is designed to crumple so that it absorbs the energy of a crash. Afterwards the bonnet is more condensed - harder - but the energy went into making it so, rather than getting transferred on to the rest of the car and the passengers.
Well the front of normal cars is designed to do that. SUVs are designed to kill people.
What software patents does Microsoft make money from?
I think more the reason is that the majority of people got tired of hysterical anti-Microsoft slant that so many comments and even stories took on and reacted against it. Microsoft has done some pretty dastardly things in its time, but this isn't a Hollywood movie where we only cut away to a villain does nothing but carry out evil acts all day long. Even when Microsoft does something good, some people here try to twist it into the most heinous acts. And basically, we're all pretty tired of it. Bias and double-standards are the same regardless of which side they're applied to. Even this story, with its incendiary headline, is sensationalistic partisanship. So businesses are discussing what they can do about the biggest threat to their product lines and somebody decided to characterise those meetings as "screw Google meetings". Big deal. It's incredible that Google hasn't held meetings about how to take turf away from Microsoft. So if we can find someone to call one of them a "Screw Microsoft meeting", then can we have another dazzlingly interesting story about that?
This whole story is flamebait, and regardless of people's feelings about Microsoft, I think everyone is tired of being baited for the sake of Cowboy Neal's advertising revenues.
If you want to read about Google paying money to hire former senators or the son of the Speaker of the House (and they're not hired to do "work" in the sense that you or I would think of it, they're hired for their influence), then such information is documented, undisputed and easily found.
:)
As to accusations of bias in lieu of being able to dispute anything I've ever said, I am not nor have I been, employed by Microsoft. At best, they were one of several purchasers of software I worked on years ago that a former employer produced. I have no financial stake in this, just a distaste for hypocrisy and / or naivety. And I can't get you a copy of Windows 7, but I can send you a link to the Gentoo website which is my preferred OS, if that helps?
Regards,
H.
Sorry if that comes across as a bit strident, btw. It's just how I see the situation.
I don't notice that, actually. I'm not in a position to know what high level strategy meetings Google holds and with who so just because I'm not privy to them, doesn't mean I assume they can't be happening (or would be shocked if I found out that they were). After all, given that Google is clearly not run by idiots, then it's implausible to think that they don't have meetings to plan how they'll take profit away from Microsoft. And if they did have such meetings, and somebody somewhere decided to call it a "screw Microsoft" meeting, then how would that be different to what we're seeing now, except that the actors would be different. Google throws plenty of money around in Washington, hiring former senators, lobbying firms and sons of politicians. What do you think that money goes toward? It's not buying office supplies, it's buying the "friendships" of people. There's a word for that, and the word smells as bad whether its Google or Microsoft footing the bill.
Ooops. Apologies.
Well you play dirty then, and I'll play clean, and we'll see who feels better about themselves in the morning.
You can say that you'll lie and cheat and backstab your way to the top and then suddenly try to enforce good behaviour, but I don't believe you. Firstly, you'll never get to such a "position of power" that you can change the system like that. Your power by that point is based on and derived from the system you're immersed in. You're not in charge of it. You're part of it. Ever heard the expression "riding the tiger"?
No. If you want to change the system, you don't give into it at the first opportunity. Look at any great and underhanded behaviour and 99/100, you'll find it preceded by lesser evils. Agree with that? Then take my advice and avoid getting started on that.
Regards,
H.
Our aim is not beating the dirty player, but beating dirty tricks. If we descend to the same level, the game never changes. If we stick to our principles, we attract others that share them. And the player that plays dirty loses.
Never confuse winning the battle with winning the war.
And this is what you quoted:
My point is a combination of the vastly larger market share Windows has (which you can't deny makes a successful exploit on Windows far more valuable than one on Linux) and that Linux is used by a demographic that has a far smaller proportion of inexpert users. Alongside my Ubuntu and Gentoo systems, I also have an XP installation. I know what I'm doing with it and it has never yet (touch wood) been compromised. A properly administered Windows system (of XP onwards), that is kept updated and is used by someone who doesn't click run stupid attachments called BrtneyNekk1d.exe is a completely different scenario to the vast majority of Windows users. You have to compare like with like.
Linux is better than Windows as far as security goes. I believe this to be the case and you'll find that's what I said in the original post you are replying to. But don't tell me that "someone always trots out the market share argument" and that "it's a weak argument". Swarm Ubuntu with the same army of non-updating, over-trusting users that Windows has, and add on the sudden massive motivation for exploiting Linux machines that is currently absent from the virus writers of the world, and then make the comparisons.
This doesn't relate to clinical depression, but just personal development. But I think people can start out happy and unaware, and then when they become more aware, become dissatisfied with mundane accomplishments, whatever, then it knocks their happiness out of kilter. And there they get stuck. But becoming more aware is a necessary step in one's development. The trick is to get to the stage beyond that which is aware and happy. That usually comes about through action on the things you've become aware of and changing your behaviour.
Just some thoughts.
H.
I actually agree with your belief that positive campaigning trumps negative in the general case. However, I think some of your logic is wonky. You ignore the reasons why an entity will go to negative campaigning - i.e. they're being beaten. If you're on top, if you are the best, then you have a lot to be positive about and to sell yourself on. If someone is beating you on the positive, then you have much more pressure on you to try and undermine your opponent's strong points. Correlation and causation and all that cliché, but there may well be a case that losing pushing people towards negative. You can see that in the instances where campaigns don't go negative until they find they're at risk of losing.
Have we ever respected the people who tried that trick, though?
You make a good counter-argument. I think there are some flaws in it. For a start, you'd have a weaker case if you picked France or Germany or Belgium for examples. However, I'll think over your points. I try to form my opinions based on a wide range of evidence, so I'll dig further myself rather than just take someone on the Internet's careful selection. But I am open-minded and will think over what you've said. I'm glad at least that you accept the high cost of the US health care system. A great deal of that cost is the profit of the companies involved, which in theory can be cut by socialised models as used in Europe. You could logically have a better system for less money were it also socialised.
Well some of the points are good ones. For example, the DRM part is relevant and worth raising awareness about. Some points certainly require more support to stand (e.g. the part about how Microsoft violates my privacy by scanning my hard drive, which makes it sound like they're grabbing all my personal files for analysis) and some of the points are either very tangential issues on their own, e.g. "Poisoning Education", or really scraping the barrel, e.g. "Windows has a long history of security vulnerabilities."
That last one is particularly bad. It's not like Linux doesn't have a long history of security vulnerabilities. It has historically been much better because of the account privileges system has been better on Linux. But it has also benefited greatly by simply not being anywhere near as worthwhile a target as Windows platforms due to (a) market share and (b) being used mainly by people who are technologically capable. That there are a very large number of people out there that don't keep their computer systems up to date or well-administered would not much change if, say, Ubuntu were the market leader. Bear in mind that Windows now has the capability for real differentiation of accounts and centralized "package management" will appear sooner or later, no doubt.
But the EFF isn't saying positive things about how the situation has come across. They're mixing up serious issues like the DRM with what has the appearance of "we hate Microsoft and will find as many arguments against them as we can, even weak ones" and, at least to me, creating a very poor impression of themselves. The outside world (by which I mean people who haven't aligned themselves with either Microsoft or the EFF, but just want to get on with their own things), don't appreciate seeing someone attack someone else.
If a Linux company contacts these Fortune 500 companies and says "Our product is better because...", that sounds natural and healthy enough. If the EFF come out with a statement saying "Windows 7 contains DRM technology that will adversely affect us all like so..." then that sounds rational and interesting and respectable. But if, as they have with this, they come out with a slew of whatever arguments they can find clearly motivated by a dislike of the company, it looks bad. That's all I'm saying, really. Some of the arguments are good ones, some are weak or even flawed, but the whole campaign looks bad because the motive is clearly not constructive, but an attempt to slate a company they don't like. It's very hard to fling mud without getting it on yourself.
If you compare what the USA pays per capita for that health care, compared to developed European countries, you'll find that the cost is through the roof. That a majority of US citizens may manage to stay on the treadmill whilst only a small number actually fall off, is not the issue. The issue is the effort put into staying on that treadmill in the first place. The USA has been like one of those rich people that doesn't mind getting ripped off a bit, because they're rich. That might change however, in which case they might want to take a good look at their health care system. (And if they could keep their companies from trying to buy out the British NHS (National Health Service) while they're at it, we'd appreciate that, thankyouverymuch. ;)
That's under 9,000ths!
What obvious reasons? What is wrong with a customer posting information about their service?
That's communications content, rather than communications channel. The GP is saying that no channel should have a legal status. E.g. in your example, it's not shouting that is an illegal act, but what you are shouting. In short, if action is to be taken against the illegitimate sharing of copyrighted material, then the target should be the content, not the protocol itself.
Okay, I can believe in insider trading, it happens. But why on Earth would stocks rise on the news of such a numbskulled idea as buying the The Pirate Bay. Are investors that daft that they think this is a good idea? The Pirate Bay made money, not huge amounts but enough to make it worthwhile, by selling advertising without having to charge for product (they co-ordinated the downloading of other people's). How can this potential buyer possibly expect to make money from the site when they're no longer facillitating the downloading of copyrighted material? If they try to charge for their service, which is what elsewhere has been said is the intention, then they'll find the users of the Pirate Bay vanish in short order. People used it because they got stuff for free that they'd otherwise have had to pay for. That's not a market that you can suddenly slap a paid service on top of.
Buying the Pirate Bay is a terrible business decision. They're better off being blocked from it by the courts if they don't have the sense not to themselves!
Hmmm. Looks quite nice actually and I like that it is actually an AMD system. Unfortunately, the prices are a bit off-putting. The US$799 price isn't too bad (or at least in comparison to other laptops), but when you see it in the UK for £799, there is no way I'm putting up with that sort of price-hiking. Still, you've given me something interesting to consider. Cheers,
H.
Well I can touch-type so in the former case I'll find myself looking at the bogey whereas in the latter case I wont need to. Although personally, tend not to smear snot on surfaces anyway. ;)
Out of curiosity, what model was that? Last time I looked at tablets, they were expensive. I'd like to see one that isn't. (not sarcasm - might buy one).
Assuming that the ships in Star Wars have cheap power to spare (which there's a lot of evidence for), then it makes sense to keep accelerating until you reach the point that you need to decelerate, so yes, you could see them running all the time. Of course, half the time, they'd be pointing into the direction they're travelling in order to slow down and I don't know Star Wars well enough to say if that's ever been shown, but it wouldn't have to have been.
As to why you'd bank instead of just rotate in place, well it's not a universal argument but at the speeds they're sometimes going, banking might impose less stress on a person that simply snapping round so that your body thinks it's going in a different direction? Okay - that one might be a bit of a stretch. How about it's harder for people to shoot you if you're varying your flight path all the time. Most of the space ship scenes in Star Wars involve combat, yes?
Anyway, I think this whole thread is just the Slashdot editors realising their page hits and ad-revenues are down a bit today and so deciding to run yet another piece of Star Wars flamebait, so I'm going to leave it there. A lot of justifications can be made up for a lot of the behaviour that seems illogical at first. It's just an exercise in scientific consideration.
Regards,
H.
Very good point.