I would assert that Slashdot is actually being MORE biased here by being selectively "unbiased." Microsoft gets irrational crap about everything, while Apple gets rational behavior? That hardly seems unbiased. I would much prefer equal journalistic integrity across the board.
I'm not sure, but here's my theory. They can make OLED displays that are transparent when switched off, but emit light when on. Perhaps they just put some silvering behind the display, and voila! Instant mirror when the device is off.
Here's an interesting idea for the magicbikes. So let's say you get a bunch of these guys driving around. They already have Internet access. So let's say you're in the park, and you decide you'd like to browse Slashdot. You call up the dispatch office, and they use GPS to determine the location of the nearest magicbike. Then they send a message to the guy and tell him to bike to such and such a place. Bam, you've got Internet anywhere you want in New York.
Or bam, you've just stolen a bike with a bunch of technology strapped onto it, but let's think about this naively.
You're right. But to be fair, you must note that Windows can indeed connect to the Internet right out of the box (well, assuming you have drivers for your NIC, but same goes for Linux).
To be fair, if you count server OSs, you must count each of Microsoft's operating systems separately. That is:
Windows 2000 Professional Windows 2000 Server Windows 2000 Advanced Server Windows 2000 Datacenter Windows XP Home Windows XP Professional Windows 2003 Server Windows 2003 Advanced Server etc. (I may have some of the details wrong here, but you get the idea.)
Once again, not to mention the various functionality updates through service packs and related updates (Windows Media Player, etc.)
Besides, is this constant updating of OS X a good thing? Each update sets one back yet another $120! It would be one thing if they continued to provide useful updates to the older versions and just left the bells and whistles for the new ones, but no. Example: want 802.1x authentication, but you're still on Jaguar? Well, sorry, but you'll have to pay to upgrade to Panther. Same goes for WPA. Hope you didn't plan on upgrading your wireless network without buying new licenses for all your Macs!
Well, yes, of course. It was just an attempt at humor.
I remember well the days of QBASIC and its compilable older brother, QuickBasic. I was quite the avid QB coder in my day. VB too, around version 3.0. Then I met C, and we've been together ever since.
On a related note, does anyone remember Microsoft QuickC? I had a copy, but I don't think I ever used it.
Then VB came, and a language was created that was muscular enough to script Word macro viruses, but simple enough to enfuriate good programmers (I mean, really, no short circuit boolean operators? It makes me weep.)
When the non-government document relates to copyright. From article I, section 8:
The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
Thus, GPL must agree with copyright law, which derives its power from the constituion. (Of course, they were really just trying to make people lose confidence in Free Software.)
Yeah. They'll probably drop the current ad program, which is much more effective than any banner or popup advertising programs today, and annoy customers so much that they'll switch to Yahoo. I'm sure shareholders will just love that.
Google's current ad program is text based and unintrusive because it makes money, not because Google is benevolent. Google is not a public work, it is a company that competes in the market.
Yes, the thirst for high numbers each quarter can change the way a company operates for the worse sometimes. This certainly applied during the bubble. But look at IBM, 3m, HP, and other solid corporations. They make use of long-term strategies and R&D. They don't just try to make a quick buck and then crash. I look forward to Google taking the same route.
This is only feasible if you use one time pads to encrypt important documents. Then you could just hand them a one time pad that made the message say whatever you wanted. Otherwise, I don't believe it would be computationally feasible to generate a key that would produce a decoy plaintext. And OTPs are not very useful for email encryption, for example.
What? Do you have any idea how economics works? Look, you calculate the relative expected cost and expected value of stuff when you make economic decisions. Piracy's cost is not $0, of course, but some larger value due to the risk of being caught and the inconvenience of downloading. Furthermore, you don't get the added value of support, printed manuals (well not these days), etc.
So piracy really is competition to the real product. Let's say I decide that pirating Photoshop has a "cost" of $200 due to the relatively low probability of being caught (of course, there are big fines, etc. if I do get caught, so $200 might not be unreasonable). Now let's say Photoshop retail costs $700. If I am rational, I will download Photoshop rather than buy. So if Adobe wants me to stop pirating, they should lower the cost for Photoshop or attempt to raise the cost of piracy by increasing fines and cracking down on copyright infringement.
Of course, if I'm in Adobe's target market, the cost for piracy is much greater; my business could tank, I have employees that might snitch, etc. So maybe it would "cost" me $2000 per copy. Clearly I am better off with Photoshop retail.
Interestingly enough, with this analysis we might come to the conclusion that piracy actually helps consumers. We end up with lower prices since software makers no longer have monopoly power over their individual products. If Adobe suddenly raised the price for Photoshop to $3000 and piracy was not an option, many people would be forced to pay the new price. But Adobe knows that even businesses would begin to pirate if they raised the price high enough.
He's saying that people USED to refer to all vacuum cleaners as Hoovers (I don't actually know if this is true) and people USED to say Xerox when they meant photocopy. This seems to be true; the older generations in particular seem to say Xerox, while younger generations tend toward "make a copy" and "copying machine."
I find it interesting that you insult the parent as having unsubstantiated views and then proceed to express your own unbstantiated views.
First of all, it is NOT clear that a reduction in emissions would have a significant positive effect on global warming. YOU are the one that must prove that, not the parent. Writing it off as "plain-old-stupid" does nothing to help your case. You are making an assumption that humans have caused the recent global warming, an assumption you must prove or at least support with evidence. Scientists are not "sure we are screwing up the climate," they're merely sure that we have experienced global warming over the past 18 years.
And we can't just experiment by reducing emissions, etc. like other posters advocate. We WILL lose jobs if we do this. The reasons for this? Reductions in emissions are costly. This increase in cost will result in reduced output, since supply decreases while demand stays the same. The reduced output will force some firms to shut down rather than keep up with the high costs. As a result -- massive layoffs. Yes, there will be some new job openings for new equipment for factories, etc., but the huge increases in cost to all firms will dwarf this.
Sorry, but your argument does not hold water, polluted or no.
Slashdot Mirror
I would assert that Slashdot is actually being MORE biased here by being selectively "unbiased." Microsoft gets irrational crap about everything, while Apple gets rational behavior? That hardly seems unbiased. I would much prefer equal journalistic integrity across the board.
I'm not sure, but here's my theory. They can make OLED displays that are transparent when switched off, but emit light when on. Perhaps they just put some silvering behind the display, and voila! Instant mirror when the device is off.
Huh. I just read those definitions earlier today. That's kind of creepy.
Unless someone points out that they were linked to in another Slashdot article, of course.
Here's an interesting idea for the magicbikes. So let's say you get a bunch of these guys driving around. They already have Internet access. So let's say you're in the park, and you decide you'd like to browse Slashdot. You call up the dispatch office, and they use GPS to determine the location of the nearest magicbike. Then they send a message to the guy and tell him to bike to such and such a place. Bam, you've got Internet anywhere you want in New York.
Or bam, you've just stolen a bike with a bunch of technology strapped onto it, but let's think about this naively.
That's incorrect. 10.2 and 10.3 both cost $120. We shall see the price of 10.4, but I am betting yet another $120.
You're right. But to be fair, you must note that Windows can indeed connect to the Internet right out of the box (well, assuming you have drivers for your NIC, but same goes for Linux).
Oh. Thanks. I didn't know that.
or slow death from a polluted atmosphere
Yeah, at this rate most of us will be dead by 2100! Damn!
To be fair, if you count server OSs, you must count each of Microsoft's operating systems separately. That is:
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Windows 2000 Datacenter
Windows XP Home
Windows XP Professional
Windows 2003 Server
Windows 2003 Advanced Server
etc.
(I may have some of the details wrong here, but you get the idea.)
Once again, not to mention the various functionality updates through service packs and related updates (Windows Media Player, etc.)
Besides, is this constant updating of OS X a good thing? Each update sets one back yet another $120! It would be one thing if they continued to provide useful updates to the older versions and just left the bells and whistles for the new ones, but no. Example: want 802.1x authentication, but you're still on Jaguar? Well, sorry, but you'll have to pay to upgrade to Panther. Same goes for WPA. Hope you didn't plan on upgrading your wireless network without buying new licenses for all your Macs!
Thank you for correcting the parent. I was about to go frickin' nuts.
There is no such thing as $1000 bills today. They've been out of circulation since 1946.
But then again, it's kind of sad that I'm replying to a troll that's responding to a troll. Ah well.
I guess two of the three Canadian moderators are upset.
There goes the karma.
In Canada, when they say 9 out of 10, they mean 9 out of THE 10 developers.
True, Tycho liked it. But read on to what Gabe had to say in his post. He elaborates.
I think not. Penny Arcade, as usual, puts it best.
Well, yes, of course. It was just an attempt at humor.
I remember well the days of QBASIC and its compilable older brother, QuickBasic. I was quite the avid QB coder in my day. VB too, around version 3.0. Then I met C, and we've been together ever since.
On a related note, does anyone remember Microsoft QuickC? I had a copy, but I don't think I ever used it.
Then VB came, and a language was created that was muscular enough to script Word macro viruses, but simple enough to enfuriate good programmers (I mean, really, no short circuit boolean operators? It makes me weep.)
When the non-government document relates to copyright. From article I, section 8:
... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
The Congress shall have power
Thus, GPL must agree with copyright law, which derives its power from the constituion. (Of course, they were really just trying to make people lose confidence in Free Software.)
Yeah. They'll probably drop the current ad program, which is much more effective than any banner or popup advertising programs today, and annoy customers so much that they'll switch to Yahoo. I'm sure shareholders will just love that.
Google's current ad program is text based and unintrusive because it makes money, not because Google is benevolent. Google is not a public work, it is a company that competes in the market.
Yes, the thirst for high numbers each quarter can change the way a company operates for the worse sometimes. This certainly applied during the bubble. But look at IBM, 3m, HP, and other solid corporations. They make use of long-term strategies and R&D. They don't just try to make a quick buck and then crash. I look forward to Google taking the same route.
You mean two machines, right?
"IMHO If the ideas in your software are original enough, you should publish it openly and enjoy the fame and respect this will bring you."
Hahahaha. That's a good one. Have fun making a living, chump.
This is only feasible if you use one time pads to encrypt important documents. Then you could just hand them a one time pad that made the message say whatever you wanted. Otherwise, I don't believe it would be computationally feasible to generate a key that would produce a decoy plaintext. And OTPs are not very useful for email encryption, for example.
What? Do you have any idea how economics works? Look, you calculate the relative expected cost and expected value of stuff when you make economic decisions. Piracy's cost is not $0, of course, but some larger value due to the risk of being caught and the inconvenience of downloading. Furthermore, you don't get the added value of support, printed manuals (well not these days), etc.
So piracy really is competition to the real product. Let's say I decide that pirating Photoshop has a "cost" of $200 due to the relatively low probability of being caught (of course, there are big fines, etc. if I do get caught, so $200 might not be unreasonable). Now let's say Photoshop retail costs $700. If I am rational, I will download Photoshop rather than buy. So if Adobe wants me to stop pirating, they should lower the cost for Photoshop or attempt to raise the cost of piracy by increasing fines and cracking down on copyright infringement.
Of course, if I'm in Adobe's target market, the cost for piracy is much greater; my business could tank, I have employees that might snitch, etc. So maybe it would "cost" me $2000 per copy. Clearly I am better off with Photoshop retail.
Interestingly enough, with this analysis we might come to the conclusion that piracy actually helps consumers. We end up with lower prices since software makers no longer have monopoly power over their individual products. If Adobe suddenly raised the price for Photoshop to $3000 and piracy was not an option, many people would be forced to pay the new price. But Adobe knows that even businesses would begin to pirate if they raised the price high enough.
He's saying that people USED to refer to all vacuum cleaners as Hoovers (I don't actually know if this is true) and people USED to say Xerox when they meant photocopy. This seems to be true; the older generations in particular seem to say Xerox, while younger generations tend toward "make a copy" and "copying machine."
I find it interesting that you insult the parent as having unsubstantiated views and then proceed to express your own unbstantiated views.
First of all, it is NOT clear that a reduction in emissions would have a significant positive effect on global warming. YOU are the one that must prove that, not the parent. Writing it off as "plain-old-stupid" does nothing to help your case. You are making an assumption that humans have caused the recent global warming, an assumption you must prove or at least support with evidence. Scientists are not "sure we are screwing up the climate," they're merely sure that we have experienced global warming over the past 18 years.
And we can't just experiment by reducing emissions, etc. like other posters advocate. We WILL lose jobs if we do this. The reasons for this? Reductions in emissions are costly. This increase in cost will result in reduced output, since supply decreases while demand stays the same. The reduced output will force some firms to shut down rather than keep up with the high costs. As a result -- massive layoffs. Yes, there will be some new job openings for new equipment for factories, etc., but the huge increases in cost to all firms will dwarf this.
Sorry, but your argument does not hold water, polluted or no.