I will not use any product / current product updates of this union.
If that means dropping PHP as my primary web-based app. development language and turning to ruby / rails / (jesus even) cfusion / perl etc. so be it...simply on general principle.
How in the world could Zend even consider this?
The whole point of open source is to get away from this kind of hegemony...now they're buying into it?...Did I miss something? Why do they have to 'partner' with M$oft to ensure better performance? What is this, the mafia?
Electronic voting is just a side-affect of the attitude that we need to apply technology to every single aspect of our lives for it to be considered truly 'efficient'...which IMHO, is idiotic and dangerous.
There is just way too many holes, complications and 'black-boxed' elements of electronic voting for it to be reliable and trustworthy at this point.
Im honestly in shock and awe that no one from Diebold is in jail at this point, given what happened during the last election and what took place afterwards as well, as far as evidence of machine tampering and malfunction / errant voter black-listing etc.
Voting is suppose to be simple, not brain surgery.
Why is it so difficult to match the number of registered voters in a district, with the number of recieved votes (to fight ballot stuffing) and to ensure locked ballot box security when voting is done (to avoid tampering)?
I think this is a smart move on the part of Quebec.
...you mean to tell me these people are openly admitting to spam a network with unsolicited advertising?
and I'm suppose to see the difference between this kind of activity, and the kind of activity that dumps billions of spam in people's email inboxes every day?
From a perspective of PRINCIPLE this is horrendous bullshit...
Actually, those references support my contention. I didn't claim there were never any accidents, I claimed people worry too much about them. First, notice that you probably can't find a comparable list of accidents involving pesticides or agricultural chemicals. Do you think that's because they don't happen? No, it's because we're much more concerned / careful with nuclear materials. One thing all those accidents, except Chernobyl, have in common is "xxx people were exposed" -- but almost no deaths, or small numbers of death.
Ok, I can accept that. Point understood, although I don't agree with the numbers of deaths being the only marker for something not being safe. Also, I don't agree with having a more relaxed attitude towards a technology that has the ability to remove an entire population from a patch of land in minutes, simply because more people haven't died from it than they already have. My original underlying point was about keeping a healthy leavel of 'fear' towards the dangers that nuclear power can present as it becomes more and more common use.
For that matter, compare the death rates from Chernobyl and Bhopal -- both of which probably come close to representing worst case scenarios for their class.
Do you think that there are no "invisible particles flying through the air" downwind from a farmer applying pesticides to his field? Do you think they can't unravel/destroy / mutate the genetic code in your cells?
Agricultural chemicals and pesticides are far less harmful than radioactive matter...I hope you're not trying to convince me of it being the other way around the above statement...I'm not buying it.
Admitting that the danger from being in the vicinity of a single reactor accident is far higher than that from a single exposure to too much sunshine, you are much more likely to be exposed to too much sunshine than to a reactor accident.
...until nuclear reactors are widespread across the globe. You're working from a very small sample as times are now, as am I, but our points weigh in on different areas.
Unless you're employed at a reactor plant, how could you "stand next to a nuclear reactor core after meltdown"?
I made that statement to draw an illustration, what I should have said was "if you are adversely affected by radioactive matter as a result of a nuclear accident".
If you realistically assess the probabilities associated with getting cancer from nuclear accidents in any reasonable projection of the use of nuclear reactors, and compare them with the probabilities associated with getting cancer from exposure to sunshine, I suspect you'll find the sunshine is more dangerous.
Again, you're looking at this particular point from a perspective of the number of nuclear reactors we have present day, I'm speaking from a future of nuclear power proliferation in the future.
Personally, as an ex nuclear submariner == radiation worker, I know more people who have died from cancer due to sun exposure than from exposure to nuclear power -- probably you do too. joe
Again, current date / number of nuclear p.plants analyzation, I believe that in the next 10 years, you wont be able to make this statement.
If you investigate, you'll find you probably face the same risks from agricultural chemicals and household pesticides, and probably to a greater level than any likely radiation
I totally disagree with you.
Nuclear power has the potential to beincredibly dangerous, far more dangerous than risks aggregated from using agricultural chemicals and household pesticides. It may be clean and efficient and cheaper in the long run than many of our current energy solutions, but at what price?:
I'd like to see you pull some sources that show as many incidental damages and as much loss of life through the use of agricultural chemicals and household pesticides.
Not only that, the adverse effects of radiation exposure can span over many generations of people, affecting unborn children and their children as well.
I don't think the question should be why are people so afraid of nuclear power but instead, why shouldn't people be absolutely paranoid and overzealous about possible problems that nuclear power / accidents could create in the future, due to the materials used, and the insanely poisonous waste it produces.
Human nature seems to show that attitude depicts altitude (I apologize for using such a horrible saying) and the less respect and 'healthy-fear' you give to the possibilities of damage that a creation can cause, the more lax you get as the years go by with it's operation, and as a global society we simply can not afford to do that with Nuclear Power, not when radioactive clouds can float from a busted reactor to another country and poison its residents (Chernobyl)...not when people today are still having malformed children from having a bomb dropped 'near' their families over 61 years ago (Hiroshima) and it can go on and on...
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty fucking scared of invisible particles flying through the air that can unravel / destroy / mutate the genetic code in my cells...and don't give me that 'the sun and uv radiation / cosmic radiation' rap either, because there's a huge difference in the degree of relativity between standing next to a reactor core after melt down, and getting a sunburn.
The issue here isn't what 'happens', but the horrendous pictures of what 'can' happen if something goes wrong.
...I'm willing to use more inconvenient and lengthy modes of travel to avoid such a ridiculously dehumanizing practice such as this.
If I am in need of travel to the USA from another country and the given airport employs this method, I will travel by boat and adjust my schedule as needed.
If I am in need of travel within the USA and the given airport/s employ this method, I will travel by bus.
I will not accept this kind of treatment from any organization for simply for the sake of safer / lower risk travel.
I would much rather just die in a hijacked plane crash, or a boat sinking, or a train derailing, than be treated like a tagged animal.
I was quite happy with the level of risk involved with flying prior to this kind of nonsense.
I think that the government should of course have access to these kinds of systems, given that they acquired the necessary warrants etc, but the records should be safeguarded by some kind of human element that would oversee the use of the records and what is done with them. Someone working for the data center that that contains the node wishing to be accessed by law enforcement personnel.
I do not think it is right for the government to be able to just directly' tap into the system themselves and collect this data without any oversight from an employee or director of the sip / datacenter / network or what have you.
We all know the drill, nothing to see here, drive though...
If developers / designers make these systems so incredibly vulnerable over a network such as the Internet that you'd be able to do all that hogwash, the users deserve to have their cars blown up over a week and their medication formulas changed.
This is another clear-cut illustration of a bunch of ego driven chess pieces in suits, pretending to know what they're doing, when in fact they have little or no knowledge whatsoever of the working technology involved / that will be affected by such bills. DMCA ring a bell?
I keep seeing people post about how they feel it would be ok to charge providers more money for faster access, I don't have a problem with that either, but that's not the only issue on the table here:
a. how is this speed / data-throughput quality going to be monitored and enforced? Is my company going to get money back when speed drops for a certain duration of time?
b. this is going to end up with scenarios like google / amazon / other high volume sites becoming paid member services so they can subsidize the new bandwidth costs introduced through this new business model.
c. this isn't only about paying for faster throughput, but being STRONG ARMED into paying more for DESCENT speeds to begin with.
I am not impressed with the republican agenda, never have been. They will continue to strut like peacocks, providing zero functionality and 100 percent stage show.
This is going to change the way the Internet fundamentally works, which is going to have a ripple effect of such a great magnitude in my opinion, that hey, wait a minute, new backbones / networks may even be funded, and then what happens you have inter-network crossing charges and god knows what else...call me a pessimist, but I see very little positive surrounding this.
My point was that sometimes it isn't worthwhile to learn how to do something if there is a tool that will do a better job for less effort.
IMHO, taking this approach when it comes to social development is the reason we have so many socially inept individuals now.
Somethings are better learned through direct experience instead of using tools to make it 'more efficient' i.e. the subject content of this posts' parent. Just because something makes doing something easier, does that mean it is the 'best' way to go about getting it done? This is a whole separate discussion I know, but food for thought...
PGP encrypt your data if the issue of it's privacy is that critical to you. I've been doing it for years and showing others how to use PGP / it's benefits.
You can only protect yourself, and educate others how to do the same.
Heh, I think someone mentioned this already but the DoD, seeing that they are the 'inventors' of the internet, should have been up on this a long time ago. I guess a lot of people never really expected this kind of growth and dependency of such an infrastructure.
Obviously one has to keep the statement in it's context.
I didn't say all tools of this nature are crutches and stifle development, this 'particular' tool and it's 'application' IMO when it comes to autism (because there is a giant difference between growth and development when it pertains to autism....and growth and development when it pertains to using a computer...obviously).
I don't use my computer to try and understand people's facial expressions / for social growth and development because I supposedly lack the ability to recognize when someone is "bored" or "aggravated", I use my computer to write software and develop graphics. We're dealing with two totally different situations here.
Just like eye glasses make a person worse by changing how they see the world, rather than having them get used to the blury world they deserve to see.
There are eye exercises that increase vision quality over time with reference to certain types of vision problems. Your point is moot.
Then you have no idea what autism is. There is a wide range, and you are thinking of autism as a very narrow subset of what is classified as autism. Most autistics are not any better at numbers/letters/shapes than most people. There are some specific cases of savants seen only in those with autism, but that doesn't mean that all, most, or even just more than a trivial number of autistic people will have such extraordinary abilities.
I never said 'all autistics'. I only stated my opinion, which can only be based on my experience with the individual that I cared for. Sorry for the lack of clarification.
I'd like to see some statistics on the accuracy of this device.
Sounds like a horrible idea, the subject matter is so incredibly subjective, and human emotions are so incredibly fickle, laced with an infinite and exponential number of variables that determine what anything 'means' from someone, to someone else.
Plus, does this help the autistic person learn more about people, or make them more dependent upon a machine?
In my mind, something like this only worsens autism because it prevents the individual from having to 'learn how to understand alien stimuli' by interpreting it for them.
I use to baby sit / care for one of my friends little brother, he was diagnosed with severe autism at an early age. Watching him grow older, in my eyes, he learned how to understand new things on his own (just sometimes it took a little longer than it does for most kids his age), like how the rest of us learn things (cause & effect / trial and error) it's not impossible for autistic individuals to perceive and comprehend this kind of stimuli, they just receive it on a different wavelength than we do, and in turn process it in a different manner.
A device like this isn't going to 'teach' anyone anything, it's simply a crutch that IMHO, will stifle development and learning.
As a side note, to me autism is a type of genius, that we just don't know how to comprehend as a society, this kid could do some of the most AMAZING things with number letter combinations / geometrical shapes I've ever seen.
"Voting machines should print human-readable paper ballots, verifiable by the voter, that can also be counted by machine, and those ballots should be put in a locked metal box and then counted under supervision of all the major political parties to produce the official tallies."
I think this is the perfect solution to all of this electronic black box voting nonsense. I can't believe Diebold wasn't forced to implement this feature into all of the electronic voting machines produced. How could such a simple paper trail / objective proof mechanism be overlooked?
When I ask myself questions like that, and realize that there is no excuse for their not to be, I can't help but believe something is definitely going on behind the scenes with the software that tallies the votes.
There is no reason for this not to be mandatory on all existing machines, no reason what so ever.
I'm really not impressed either.
- Insane system requirements (to power a...)
- Overly dumbed-down interface that makes even a five year old feel like an idiot
- Useless functions (3d flippage of windows? What an incredible waste of system resources)
- They're obviously trying (once again) to copy the style of the Macintosh desktop (and doing a poor job of it)
- Once again another windows xp replicant: a product that seems to be more about appearance and style that form and functionality
- I've learned not to hate Microsuck as much as I use to, but their game seems to no longer be about innovation and progress, instead it is now fashion and trend-tracking, moreso than ever before.:(
My two cents.
I totally agree with you. This only illustrates our ignorance and stupidity as a species, in thinking that we know so much about everything, when in fact we know almost nothing when it's put into perspective.
Arrogance will drive science and society into absolute madness.
Slashdot Mirror
I will not use any product / current product updates of this union.
...Did I miss something? Why do they have to 'partner' with M$oft to ensure better performance? What is this, the mafia?
If that means dropping PHP as my primary web-based app. development language and turning to ruby / rails / (jesus even) cfusion / perl etc. so be it...simply on general principle.
How in the world could Zend even consider this?
The whole point of open source is to get away from this kind of hegemony...now they're buying into it?
Pen and paper voting works fine and worked fine.
Electronic voting is just a side-affect of the attitude that we need to apply technology to every single aspect of our lives for it to be considered truly 'efficient'...which IMHO, is idiotic and dangerous.
There is just way too many holes, complications and 'black-boxed' elements of electronic voting for it to be reliable and trustworthy at this point.
Im honestly in shock and awe that no one from Diebold is in jail at this point, given what happened during the last election and what took place afterwards as well, as far as evidence of machine tampering and malfunction / errant voter black-listing etc.
Voting is suppose to be simple, not brain surgery.
Why is it so difficult to match the number of registered voters in a district, with the number of recieved votes (to fight ballot stuffing) and to ensure locked ballot box security when voting is done (to avoid tampering)?
I think this is a smart move on the part of Quebec.
...you mean to tell me these people are openly admitting to spam a network with unsolicited advertising?
and I'm suppose to see the difference between this kind of activity, and the kind of activity that dumps billions of spam in people's email inboxes every day?
From a perspective of PRINCIPLE this is horrendous bullshit...
Actually, those references support my contention. I didn't claim there were never any accidents, I claimed people worry too much about them. First, notice that you probably can't find a comparable list of accidents involving pesticides or agricultural chemicals. Do you think that's because they don't happen? No, it's because we're much more concerned / careful with nuclear materials. One thing all those accidents, except Chernobyl, have in common is "xxx people were exposed" -- but almost no deaths, or small numbers of death.
/destroy / mutate the genetic code in your cells?
...until nuclear reactors are widespread across the globe. You're working from a very small sample as times are now, as am I, but our points weigh in on different areas.
Ok, I can accept that. Point understood, although I don't agree with the numbers of deaths being the only marker for something not being safe. Also, I don't agree with having a more relaxed attitude towards a technology that has the ability to remove an entire population from a patch of land in minutes, simply because more people haven't died from it than they already have. My original underlying point was about keeping a healthy leavel of 'fear' towards the dangers that nuclear power can present as it becomes more and more common use.
For that matter, compare the death rates from Chernobyl and Bhopal -- both of which probably come close to representing worst case scenarios for their class.
Do you think that there are no "invisible particles flying through the air" downwind from a farmer applying pesticides to his field? Do you think they can't unravel
Agricultural chemicals and pesticides are far less harmful than radioactive matter...I hope you're not trying to convince me of it being the other way around the above statement...I'm not buying it.
Admitting that the danger from being in the vicinity of a single reactor accident is far higher than that from a single exposure to too much sunshine, you are much more likely to be exposed to too much sunshine than to a reactor accident.
Unless you're employed at a reactor plant, how could you "stand next to a nuclear reactor core after meltdown"?
I made that statement to draw an illustration, what I should have said was "if you are adversely affected by radioactive matter as a result of a nuclear accident".
If you realistically assess the probabilities associated with getting cancer from nuclear accidents in any reasonable projection of the use of nuclear reactors, and compare them with the probabilities associated with getting cancer from exposure to sunshine, I suspect you'll find the sunshine is more dangerous.
Again, you're looking at this particular point from a perspective of the number of nuclear reactors we have present day, I'm speaking from a future of nuclear power proliferation in the future.
Personally, as an ex nuclear submariner == radiation worker, I know more people who have died from cancer due to sun exposure than from exposure to nuclear power -- probably you do too. joe
Again, current date / number of nuclear p.plants analyzation, I believe that in the next 10 years, you wont be able to make this statement.
If you investigate, you'll find you probably face the same risks from agricultural chemicals and household pesticides, and probably to a greater level than any likely radiation
l ear_accidents
i ation_accidents
l ear_accidents
I totally disagree with you.
Nuclear power has the potential to be incredibly dangerous, far more dangerous than risks aggregated from using agricultural chemicals and household pesticides. It may be clean and efficient and cheaper in the long run than many of our current energy solutions, but at what price?:
Civilian Nuclear Accidents - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuc
Civilian Radiation Accidents - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_rad
Military Nuclear Accidents - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuc
I'd like to see you pull some sources that show as many incidental damages and as much loss of life through the use of agricultural chemicals and household pesticides.
Not only that, the adverse effects of radiation exposure can span over many generations of people, affecting unborn children and their children as well.
I don't think the question should be why are people so afraid of nuclear power but instead, why shouldn't people be absolutely paranoid and overzealous about possible problems that nuclear power / accidents could create in the future, due to the materials used, and the insanely poisonous waste it produces.
Human nature seems to show that attitude depicts altitude (I apologize for using such a horrible saying) and the less respect and 'healthy-fear' you give to the possibilities of damage that a creation can cause, the more lax you get as the years go by with it's operation, and as a global society we simply can not afford to do that with Nuclear Power, not when radioactive clouds can float from a busted reactor to another country and poison its residents (Chernobyl)...not when people today are still having malformed children from having a bomb dropped 'near' their families over 61 years ago (Hiroshima) and it can go on and on...
I don't know about you, but
I'm pretty fucking scared of invisible particles flying through the air that can unravel / destroy / mutate the genetic code in my cells...and don't give me that 'the sun and uv radiation / cosmic radiation' rap either, because there's a huge difference in the degree of relativity between standing next to a reactor core after melt down, and getting a sunburn.
The issue here isn't what 'happens', but the horrendous pictures of what 'can' happen if something goes wrong.
Of course it is.
Protecting your born-right to feel like a living human being and not a machine in these times marks you as a radical / terrorist.
...I'm willing to use more inconvenient and lengthy modes of travel to avoid such a ridiculously dehumanizing practice such as this. If I am in need of travel to the USA from another country and the given airport employs this method, I will travel by boat and adjust my schedule as needed. If I am in need of travel within the USA and the given airport/s employ this method, I will travel by bus. I will not accept this kind of treatment from any organization for simply for the sake of safer / lower risk travel. I would much rather just die in a hijacked plane crash, or a boat sinking, or a train derailing, than be treated like a tagged animal. I was quite happy with the level of risk involved with flying prior to this kind of nonsense.
I think that the government should of course have access to these kinds of systems, given that they acquired the necessary warrants etc, but the records should be safeguarded by some kind of human element that would oversee the use of the records and what is done with them. Someone working for the data center that that contains the node wishing to be accessed by law enforcement personnel. I do not think it is right for the government to be able to just directly' tap into the system themselves and collect this data without any oversight from an employee or director of the sip / datacenter / network or what have you.
...and what will follow?
We all know the drill, nothing to see here, drive though...
If developers / designers make these systems so incredibly vulnerable over a network such as the Internet that you'd be able to do all that hogwash, the users deserve to have their cars blown up over a week and their medication formulas changed.
*rolls eyes*
ENCRYPT YOUR DATA
Exactly.
This is another clear-cut illustration of a bunch of ego driven chess pieces in suits, pretending to know what they're doing, when in fact they have little or no knowledge whatsoever of the working technology involved / that will be affected by such bills. DMCA ring a bell?
I keep seeing people post about how they feel it would be ok to charge providers more money for faster access, I don't have a problem with that either, but that's not the only issue on the table here:
a. how is this speed / data-throughput quality going to be monitored and enforced? Is my company going to get money back when speed drops for a certain duration of time?
b. this is going to end up with scenarios like google / amazon / other high volume sites becoming paid member services so they can subsidize the new bandwidth costs introduced through this new business model.
c. this isn't only about paying for faster throughput, but being STRONG ARMED into paying more for DESCENT speeds to begin with.
I am not impressed with the republican agenda, never have been. They will continue to strut like peacocks, providing zero functionality and 100 percent stage show.
This is going to change the way the Internet fundamentally works, which is going to have a ripple effect of such a great magnitude in my opinion, that hey, wait a minute, new backbones / networks may even be funded, and then what happens you have inter-network crossing charges and god knows what else...call me a pessimist, but I see very little positive surrounding this.
There's a federal backdoor in their TOS, if the government wants access to their records, they have it by default.
:(
A great idea, but faulted from a fundamental perspective
I liken this experiment to searching for a lost sock in a drawer with a metal detector...
So, because the test comes up negative, it automatically includes the assumption that the correct testing method was used in the first place?
Am I the only person who thinks that using the scientific method to prove the validity of religion / spirituality...retarded?
My point was that sometimes it isn't worthwhile to learn how to do something if there is a tool that will do a better job for less effort.
IMHO, taking this approach when it comes to social development is the reason we have so many socially inept individuals now.
Somethings are better learned through direct experience instead of using tools to make it 'more efficient' i.e. the subject content of this posts' parent. Just because something makes doing something easier, does that mean it is the 'best' way to go about getting it done? This is a whole separate discussion I know, but food for thought...
PGP encrypt your data if the issue of it's privacy is that critical to you. I've been doing it for years and showing others how to use PGP / it's benefits.
:\
You can only protect yourself, and educate others how to do the same.
Heh, I think someone mentioned this already but the DoD, seeing that they are the 'inventors' of the internet, should have been up on this a long time ago. I guess a lot of people never really expected this kind of growth and dependency of such an infrastructure.
Hindsight is always 20/20 I guess
Obviously one has to keep the statement in it's context.
I didn't say all tools of this nature are crutches and stifle development, this 'particular' tool and it's 'application' IMO when it comes to autism (because there is a giant difference between growth and development when it pertains to autism....and growth and development when it pertains to using a computer...obviously).
I don't use my computer to try and understand people's facial expressions / for social growth and development because I supposedly lack the ability to recognize when someone is "bored" or "aggravated", I use my computer to write software and develop graphics. We're dealing with two totally different situations here.
What was the point of your comparison again?
I thought the whole purpose of the buzzer even being utilized is because the autistic person doesn't notice / can not notice the facial expression...?
Just like eye glasses make a person worse by changing how they see the world, rather than having them get used to the blury world they deserve to see.
There are eye exercises that increase vision quality over time with reference to certain types of vision problems. Your point is moot.
Then you have no idea what autism is. There is a wide range, and you are thinking of autism as a very narrow subset of what is classified as autism. Most autistics are not any better at numbers/letters/shapes than most people. There are some specific cases of savants seen only in those with autism, but that doesn't mean that all, most, or even just more than a trivial number of autistic people will have such extraordinary abilities.
I never said 'all autistics'. I only stated my opinion, which can only be based on my experience with the individual that I cared for. Sorry for the lack of clarification.
I'd like to see some statistics on the accuracy of this device.
Sounds like a horrible idea, the subject matter is so incredibly subjective, and human emotions are so incredibly fickle, laced with an infinite and exponential number of variables that determine what anything 'means' from someone, to someone else.
Plus, does this help the autistic person learn more about people, or make them more dependent upon a machine?
In my mind, something like this only worsens autism because it prevents the individual from having to 'learn how to understand alien stimuli' by interpreting it for them.
I use to baby sit / care for one of my friends little brother, he was diagnosed with severe autism at an early age. Watching him grow older, in my eyes, he learned how to understand new things on his own (just sometimes it took a little longer than it does for most kids his age), like how the rest of us learn things (cause & effect / trial and error) it's not impossible for autistic individuals to perceive and comprehend this kind of stimuli, they just receive it on a different wavelength than we do, and in turn process it in a different manner.
A device like this isn't going to 'teach' anyone anything, it's simply a crutch that IMHO, will stifle development and learning.
As a side note, to me autism is a type of genius, that we just don't know how to comprehend as a society, this kid could do some of the most AMAZING things with number letter combinations / geometrical shapes I've ever seen.
...we developers as a community, just stop coding to support internet explorer, and make this known to our users.
United we stand, divided we fall.
I personally, tell all of my development clients, and tag my sites stating that I do not code with IE support as my primary focus.
Sorry if that makes me a prick / cost me business, but personally I can accept that cost for not supporting the borg collective.
It has to start somewhere.
"Voting machines should print human-readable paper ballots, verifiable by the voter, that can also be counted by machine, and those ballots should be put in a locked metal box and then counted under supervision of all the major political parties to produce the official tallies."
I think this is the perfect solution to all of this electronic black box voting nonsense. I can't believe Diebold wasn't forced to implement this feature into all of the electronic voting machines produced. How could such a simple paper trail / objective proof mechanism be overlooked?
When I ask myself questions like that, and realize that there is no excuse for their not to be, I can't help but believe something is definitely going on behind the scenes with the software that tallies the votes.
There is no reason for this not to be mandatory on all existing machines, no reason what so ever.
I'm really not impressed either. - Insane system requirements (to power a...) - Overly dumbed-down interface that makes even a five year old feel like an idiot - Useless functions (3d flippage of windows? What an incredible waste of system resources) - They're obviously trying (once again) to copy the style of the Macintosh desktop (and doing a poor job of it) - Once again another windows xp replicant: a product that seems to be more about appearance and style that form and functionality - I've learned not to hate Microsuck as much as I use to, but their game seems to no longer be about innovation and progress, instead it is now fashion and trend-tracking, moreso than ever before. :(
My two cents.
Too bad the dreaded 2012 solar storms will to fry it to bits, four years after it's launch.
Heh.
The XBox is a PC -_-
I totally agree with you. This only illustrates our ignorance and stupidity as a species, in thinking that we know so much about everything, when in fact we know almost nothing when it's put into perspective.
Arrogance will drive science and society into absolute madness.