I was thinking the same thing. Apple's stuff from a hardware perspective is pretty, and the UI is... well thought out certainly. But overall I haven't seen Apple's software to be quite so orgasmatronical as the headline seems to assert.
Of course, MS' offerings are indeed bloated and underwhelming in everything but size.
Yeah, I occasionally use hyperbole to make a point too.
I didn't specify this, but this guy has totally turned around from previous points of view he was passionate about; for example, software patents were as infuriating as hitting his thumb with a hammer.... unnnnntil he got to MS. Now they're ok, IF they're MS patents. There are other examples, but stuff like that and the whorish girlschool gushing (which is not like him, so I'm fairly sure it's enforced in some way, and not genuine), makes me distrustful of the company and how it treats people and/or forces them to act.
I don't actually DISLIKE Bing, but I haven't found it to be... good. It's got a pretty background, but the services it offers just aren't that much (if at all) better than Google's. It's irrational I'm sure, but when my buddy just gushes like a schoolgirl over it I have an immediate disgust and distrust of it. But again, that's just me.
> Looks like someone turned off their logical thinking skills.
> I google for things on Bing.
Indeed.
Re:In the End...
on
Why Microsoft?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Well, yes and no. It'd be interesting, but I have a friend in the Bing group and he's turned so totally fanboy about it that it's sickening on the level of listening to a true believer evangelist. Perhaps he always was and I never saw it, and perhaps it's more him than the company, but if working there turns off your critical thinking so wholly... no thanks.
I have not found this to be true; at least in the last 12 years or so. They'd much rather have it quickly. If it's accurate, that's great too, but not if it comes at the expense of quickly. The usual grind is that management asks development how long something will take. Once given an answer, they make up the number they wanted to hear and use that. Then push the devs relentlessly to get it out by then. Quality slips. QA gets end-run (end-ran?). The product gets put out in SOME form on time, with a conference call or press release that almost always has "high quality" and "on time" in it. The manager moves on, after having received accolades.
Then, as the bug reports come rolling in, the support team does what it can since the original developers have moved to another project, and/or knowing what fate awaited them with the crap they were forced to put out, moved out of the company.
I understand your point here, but I'm not sure this claim is exceptional. I think one of the points was that although this is the first (assuming it's true), this sort of thing is probably pretty common in the context of the size of the universe.
> Even if MSFT has a basically credible mobile phone OS, what do they have to draw people away from Apple, Android, or Blackberry?
1. Have more than a "basically credible" mobile phone OS. 2. To displace RIM, have complete, seamless, reliable and robust integration with the Office suite; mainly Outlook. That includes all the enterprisey stuff like remote wipe, complete security, etc. And make the integration free to entice companies to get rid of that RIM server crap that needs to be installed. Give phones away to high visibility companies that are already on the RIM solution. 3. To displace Android, lighten up on the walled garden crap. Open up a bit and really lower the barrier to entry for developers. (To be fair, I don't know what their stance is now, so maybe this is already the case.) 4. To displace Apple, fire Ballmer and/or spin off Mobile to not be under his domain, and hire someone as much a visionary and with the force of will and sense of style as Jobs. Even this won't displace Apple, but it would help.
First big issue for me: the sync credentials page use some non-Android text box, so I can't copy my username/password from my password keeper and paste them in. I use large ugly generated passwords for stuff like that and I REALLY don't want to have to type them.
Waze does this crap too; why program *AROUND* the interface provided!? Seriously, your text boxes aren't precious snowflakes that are so special as to not use what the OS gives you (and supports).
I'm only playing devil's advocate here, and I disagree with your "troll" mod; clearly someone doesn't understand the question (or is embarrassed about their own answer).
That said, there are reasons to do things other than economic. People value different things, and for some going solar isn't about the money; it's about making a statement, raising awareness, being the first or hippest on the block, reducing their carbon emissions, or any of a host of other reasons. I'd be one of those people too, if the economics were considerably more in my favor, but I have a family to support so I can't think of just my reasons.
> as well as what government subsidies for solar installations are offered, it is possible... So you're not actually spending money out of pocket... it pays for itself and then some.
No, it's money out of everyone else's pocket.
I'm not arguing your main point here; sometimes for the individual it does make economic sense, but only because everyone else is paying for it. If you could get the taxpayers to fund my mortgage, buying a much bigger house than I have would make economic sense too.
That said, sometimes people do this for reasons other than economic. Sadly I can't afford to go solar in a big way, but if I could come *CLOSE* to breaking even in the next decade, I'd probably do it.
I understand your point here, but "buying new hardware to run Win 7" is only half the battle; the other half is "buying win 7 so my new hardware [drivers] will work". I've had a number of new peripherals; which really are commodities these days; that don't provide XP drivers or anything that will run on XP. It's a sad state of affairs, truly.
For what it's worth, I haven't found Win 7 to be any better than XP in terms of stability. It's no worse in that regard, although the user experience is some better. The learning curve isn't something that should throw you if you've already enough knowledge to admin XP.
"Exponential growth (including exponential decay) occurs when the growth rate of a mathematical function is proportional to the function's current value. In the case of a discrete domain of definition with equal intervals it is also called geometric growth or geometric decay (the function values form a geometric progression)."
Or is this not a discrete domain of definition with equal intervals?
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
> Obviously if you try to do that, you'll never finish. It's infinite
No, its crude representation using one of our standard numbering systems is infinite. In my "base pi" numeric system, it's exactly represented as "10".
I guess I haven't studied it enough and I don't have the requisite background. I understand what you're saying from a mathematical point of view, but I guess my gut just doesn't understand why something that expanded from ~the size of a proton can't show homogeneity without a hyper inflationary phase. I'll keep reading the comments here to try and get a sense of it. Thanks for your patience!
> They appear to have come into thermal equilibrium (same temperature) yet this shouldn't be possible if they were never in contact.
This has always bothered me, and I'm certainly not trained in these disciplines so that may be the sole reason, but... why should 2 areas *NOT* be the same temperature simply because they haven't "met"? It's impossible that 2 things in the early universe can't have *independently* arrived at the same state?
It could be the same study; I didn't RTFA; but I've read at least one study recently that was bemoaning the use of "=" as an instruction to "do something" (like "evaluate what you saw on the left"), rather than a statement of fact. The study goes on to say this causes the thought process of actually finding equalities to be less developed so trying to do basic algebra requires some RE-training.
I think the people latching on to the use of parenthesis are missing the point. Then again, maybe I am.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm being a dick here, but making a point. You say the definition is smart while simultaneously *NOT* using it correctly.
> There are solar systems ... rocky planets.
No, they're not planets. According to this "smart" definition.
I was thinking the same thing. Apple's stuff from a hardware perspective is pretty, and the UI is... well thought out certainly. But overall I haven't seen Apple's software to be quite so orgasmatronical as the headline seems to assert.
Of course, MS' offerings are indeed bloated and underwhelming in everything but size.
Yes, I'm sure you are correct. Perhaps between his perception and mine somewhere the truth actually lay... =)
Yeah, I occasionally use hyperbole to make a point too.
I didn't specify this, but this guy has totally turned around from previous points of view he was passionate about; for example, software patents were as infuriating as hitting his thumb with a hammer.... unnnnntil he got to MS. Now they're ok, IF they're MS patents. There are other examples, but stuff like that and the whorish girlschool gushing (which is not like him, so I'm fairly sure it's enforced in some way, and not genuine), makes me distrustful of the company and how it treats people and/or forces them to act.
I don't actually DISLIKE Bing, but I haven't found it to be ... good. It's got a pretty background, but the services it offers just aren't that much (if at all) better than Google's. It's irrational I'm sure, but when my buddy just gushes like a schoolgirl over it I have an immediate disgust and distrust of it. But again, that's just me.
> Looks like someone turned off their logical thinking skills.
> I google for things on Bing.
Indeed.
Well, yes and no. It'd be interesting, but I have a friend in the Bing group and he's turned so totally fanboy about it that it's sickening on the level of listening to a true believer evangelist. Perhaps he always was and I never saw it, and perhaps it's more him than the company, but if working there turns off your critical thinking so wholly... no thanks.
> They want the work to be accurate.
I have not found this to be true; at least in the last 12 years or so. They'd much rather have it quickly. If it's accurate, that's great too, but not if it comes at the expense of quickly. The usual grind is that management asks development how long something will take. Once given an answer, they make up the number they wanted to hear and use that. Then push the devs relentlessly to get it out by then. Quality slips. QA gets end-run (end-ran?). The product gets put out in SOME form on time, with a conference call or press release that almost always has "high quality" and "on time" in it. The manager moves on, after having received accolades.
Then, as the bug reports come rolling in, the support team does what it can since the original developers have moved to another project, and/or knowing what fate awaited them with the crap they were forced to put out, moved out of the company.
I understand your point here, but I'm not sure this claim is exceptional. I think one of the points was that although this is the first (assuming it's true), this sort of thing is probably pretty common in the context of the size of the universe.
> Even if MSFT has a basically credible mobile phone OS, what do they have to draw people away from Apple, Android, or Blackberry?
1. Have more than a "basically credible" mobile phone OS.
2. To displace RIM, have complete, seamless, reliable and robust integration with the Office suite; mainly Outlook. That includes all the enterprisey stuff like remote wipe, complete security, etc. And make the integration free to entice companies to get rid of that RIM server crap that needs to be installed. Give phones away to high visibility companies that are already on the RIM solution.
3. To displace Android, lighten up on the walled garden crap. Open up a bit and really lower the barrier to entry for developers. (To be fair, I don't know what their stance is now, so maybe this is already the case.)
4. To displace Apple, fire Ballmer and/or spin off Mobile to not be under his domain, and hire someone as much a visionary and with the force of will and sense of style as Jobs. Even this won't displace Apple, but it would help.
What's the point of the wing when it's completely obscured by the driver?
First big issue for me: the sync credentials page use some non-Android text box, so I can't copy my username/password from my password keeper and paste them in. I use large ugly generated passwords for stuff like that and I REALLY don't want to have to type them.
Waze does this crap too; why program *AROUND* the interface provided!? Seriously, your text boxes aren't precious snowflakes that are so special as to not use what the OS gives you (and supports).
Yes, that's a good point. I hope the subsidies do in fact drop over time.
I'm only playing devil's advocate here, and I disagree with your "troll" mod; clearly someone doesn't understand the question (or is embarrassed about their own answer).
That said, there are reasons to do things other than economic. People value different things, and for some going solar isn't about the money; it's about making a statement, raising awareness, being the first or hippest on the block, reducing their carbon emissions, or any of a host of other reasons. I'd be one of those people too, if the economics were considerably more in my favor, but I have a family to support so I can't think of just my reasons.
> as well as what government subsidies for solar installations are offered, it is possible ... So you're not actually spending money out of pocket... it pays for itself and then some.
No, it's money out of everyone else's pocket.
I'm not arguing your main point here; sometimes for the individual it does make economic sense, but only because everyone else is paying for it. If you could get the taxpayers to fund my mortgage, buying a much bigger house than I have would make economic sense too.
That said, sometimes people do this for reasons other than economic. Sadly I can't afford to go solar in a big way, but if I could come *CLOSE* to breaking even in the next decade, I'd probably do it.
I understand your point here, but "buying new hardware to run Win 7" is only half the battle; the other half is "buying win 7 so my new hardware [drivers] will work". I've had a number of new peripherals; which really are commodities these days; that don't provide XP drivers or anything that will run on XP. It's a sad state of affairs, truly.
For what it's worth, I haven't found Win 7 to be any better than XP in terms of stability. It's no worse in that regard, although the user experience is some better. The learning curve isn't something that should throw you if you've already enough knowledge to admin XP.
And talking is so much faster than typing. Sometimes, it's not about you.
Wikipedia lists them as the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
"Exponential growth (including exponential decay) occurs when the growth rate of a mathematical function is proportional to the function's current value. In the case of a discrete domain of definition with equal intervals it is also called geometric growth or geometric decay (the function values form a geometric progression)."
Or is this not a discrete domain of definition with equal intervals?
Because for so many years, WalMart dictated what the consumer wanted.
> Tell me what pi is.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
> Obviously if you try to do that, you'll never finish. It's infinite
No, its crude representation using one of our standard numbering systems is infinite. In my "base pi" numeric system, it's exactly represented as "10".
I guess I haven't studied it enough and I don't have the requisite background. I understand what you're saying from a mathematical point of view, but I guess my gut just doesn't understand why something that expanded from ~the size of a proton can't show homogeneity without a hyper inflationary phase. I'll keep reading the comments here to try and get a sense of it. Thanks for your patience!
> They appear to have come into thermal equilibrium (same temperature) yet this shouldn't be possible if they were never in contact.
This has always bothered me, and I'm certainly not trained in these disciplines so that may be the sole reason, but ... why should 2 areas *NOT* be the same temperature simply because they haven't "met"? It's impossible that 2 things in the early universe can't have *independently* arrived at the same state?
You say this as if you think the Federal Gov't cares one whit about hypocrisy.
It could be the same study; I didn't RTFA; but I've read at least one study recently that was bemoaning the use of "=" as an instruction to "do something" (like "evaluate what you saw on the left"), rather than a statement of fact. The study goes on to say this causes the thought process of actually finding equalities to be less developed so trying to do basic algebra requires some RE-training.
I think the people latching on to the use of parenthesis are missing the point. Then again, maybe I am.
Sarah Palin, is that you?