"I'm not sure why Apple should want to make you happy with their actions. They're offering some products. Your choice is to take them or leave them."
It sounds to me like you need an obvious lesson in capitalism and business 101. Incidentally, the iPhone did not sell out at stores like many thought it would (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2193213/iphone- abundance-frustrates). I was actually convinced I was going to buy an iPhone in the next year before I started reading about all the Apple-created problems associated with it.
Who is stupid enough to go through a page of identical results and claim one is better than the other? That is why the design of the experiment is so important - it would answer WHY people did that, and how valid the results are.
"Google became first because it delivered beter results, and generally still does."
But Yahoo did better in the survey than Google. I think it's a combination of the two; brand reputation, especially in something as obvious as search results, is often influenced by performance.
"Despite the results pages being identical in content and presentation, participants indicated that Yahoo! and Google outperformed MSN Live Search and the in-house search engine."
I don't understand, did people see the identical results and rate them differently? Or did they show Group A the google results of one query and the MSN results of another, and Group B vise versa?
This is the first boycott I have EVER been behind. Read up on the issue, and you will understand why this boycott actually makes sense. Basically, a lot of small business owners are being bullied to death by larger cororations.
Kind of ironic that an organization that is all about openness and freedom is trying to restrict a common phrase that it doesn't even have legal control over.
Well, it is really "at earliest" April 2008. But, as we all know, deadlines are usually made unreasonably optimistic for political reasons. And, the more a game gets pushed back, the more chances one of the following will happen: -it will get pushed back another time -it will never even come out -it will be disappointing
This perception is why I think optimistic deadlines are a bad idea. When a game ships earlier than expected, people only love it more.
It may not be part of the kernel, but AFAIK everything that comes with Ubuntu is the operating system. Either way, this is becoming a semantic discussion while my original point was that my video card is top of the line, has both open and closed sourced linux drivers, and works wonderfully in Windows.
Probably not, because the common solution is to modify the xorg.conf file, which is an OS file. I know the drivers I had installed could handle the monitor and its resolution - it was the OS refusing to believe that.
I tried to install Ubuntu last week, and it couldn't figure out my monitor's resolution of 1920x1200 (a pretty common one nowadays). After an hour of fiddling with it and reading technical advice on forums, I accidentally crashed the X-server and could no longer log into the GUI.
He may be able to understand what we have, but I think he would be amazed with what we have done with it, and how refined it is now.
If you show him a highway during rush hour, I think he would be amazed. If you told him that we can get a man from New York to London in 2 hours, he would be very amazed. And we shouldn't downplay computers - they have revolutionized our society just as much as transportation.
Finally, and perhaps most relevant to this discussion, if you told him that we have probed other planets, sent a man to the moon, and have people permanently living in space, he would be beyond amazed.
"The problem is, while we have many ideas; they get shot down left and right."
Advances in a specific technologies often lull for a while, and then quickly jump forward in leaps and bounds. This is usually limited to pure luck (the need of an innovation or a set of innovations that open the flood gates). There is no reason why this can't happen in energy in the next 20 years.
But it is still comparing apples to oranges. It is very hard to find a single prototypical American city, especially because 5% of the population should not represent an entire nation. Why use New York instead of Baltimore, for example? I would argue that New York is a very unique city in the USA, that far from represents the nation.
Yes, I think this would be a good measure: # of people with broadband / # of people who live in "urban" areas
This takes into account how rural a population is, and assumes that it is much harder for them to get broadband (a number greater than 1 indicates that the rural population has already started being penetrated in the broadband market).
Problem with this is that the urban population of the USA is quite high. There's no real excuse for a lot of these people to not have broadband.
That's not a fair comparison. For example, Alaska has a tiny population in a huge area. Even if 5% of Alaskans have broadband, your formula would say they are doing incredibly well in broadband penetration.
This would unfairly bias towards countries with wealthier cities - cities in the USA are proportionally less wealthy than cities in most of the rest of the world. I think most Americans would prefer to live in suburban areas, where broadband penetration is pretty high.
I guess it would be more convincing if there is a pattern - e.g. 10 villages entirely burned in a 100 mile radius. Obviously, there were not 10 individual fires, but some underlying cause.
Also, I would guess whoever is burning down the villages is not burning down much of the surrounding trees and shrubs, which would indicate man-made causes
I think at that point ROMS simply work better. Many cartridges have some sort of magnetic data loss over time - a ROM is a perfect digital copy of the game. I see no legal or moral problem with using a ROM of a game you already paid 50 dollars for 20 years ago. Now if only Nintendo had a way of allowing us to do this (e.g. somehow proving you own the game to get an encrypted ROM that works on only your console would even be fine.)
Until game companies make it easier to do stuff like this, I don't feel bad about doing it myself. The dreamcast was my favorite console of recent time because I could play all my nintendo games on it without cracking the system.
It's kind of like how the USA spends 4% of its GDP on the military - for many people, that is worth the comfort of living their lives without worrying all the time. (please don't respond to the previous paragraph, it was merely trying to create an analogy, not trying to spark a political debate...)
In the case of computers, there is *no* easy way to stop malware without a strong defense. The problem stems from the fact that malware is usually a social engineering problem. Despite what many people think, majority of malware problems were caused by the stupidity of the user. Even a well-secured Linux computer can be tricked by a program requesting sudo access. The typical computer user doesn't understand the nuances of computer security like the typical Slashdot user; even I have been tricked by spoofed websites and malware programs.
If malware can't be stopped at the source, it certainly can be defended against. If someone is willing to give up 4% of their CPU (or whatever) for the peace of mind that all their data won't be erased, that seems like a rational decision.
"Now, look at the "Los Angeles Times". Every bit of news and opinion at the "Times" is free. Why would anyone subscribe to the "Times" when she can get the news for free?"
My friend has an online account to the Economist, and offered me his username/password. I love the Economist, and chose to subscribe to the print edition. Why? Not for moral reasons (that's a nice side effect), but because I like to read the newspaper in print. I don't want to stare at a computer more than I have to, and it's much harder to find what you are interested in. The economist is a weekly newspaper, I can only imagine how much more pronounced this is with a daily. Imagine looking through 50 articles on the computer every day
"That's sort of like saying that Google is destroying Microsoft by building a better desktop OS. "
No, it's like saying Google isn't destroying Microsoft. All they did was block Microsoft from expanding more, but Microsoft is still a healthy company that is bigger than it was when Google was founded.
"Cringely suggests looking no further than the thousands of entrepreneurial geniuses currently working for Google, who will inevitably be driven to leave the company to realize the dreams of their rejected ideas. "
To destroy Google, someone would have to beat them at what they make their money on - search and ads. First off, 95% of the people in the company probably do not work in this division, and don't have the background and aren't surrounded by it enough to get ideas about it. The 5% who do probably could not start a company without running in trouble legally given all the Google trade secrets they are privy to.
Slashdot Mirror
50 dollars AND you don't have to uninstall Vista and then install Ubuntu. Sounds like a decent deal to me.
"I'm not sure why Apple should want to make you happy with their actions. They're offering some products. Your choice is to take them or leave them."
- abundance-frustrates). I was actually convinced I was going to buy an iPhone in the next year before I started reading about all the Apple-created problems associated with it.
It sounds to me like you need an obvious lesson in capitalism and business 101. Incidentally, the iPhone did not sell out at stores like many thought it would (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2193213/iphone
Who is stupid enough to go through a page of identical results and claim one is better than the other? That is why the design of the experiment is so important - it would answer WHY people did that, and how valid the results are.
"Google became first because it delivered beter results, and generally still does."
But Yahoo did better in the survey than Google. I think it's a combination of the two; brand reputation, especially in something as obvious as search results, is often influenced by performance.
"Despite the results pages being identical in content and presentation, participants indicated that Yahoo! and Google outperformed MSN Live Search and the in-house search engine."
I don't understand, did people see the identical results and rate them differently? Or did they show Group A the google results of one query and the MSN results of another, and Group B vise versa?
"The abuses and illicit activities listed within date from the 1950s to the 1970s."
60 years is really pushing it. It is more like 30-55 years ago. And I am young enough (~25) that I may actually find out what is happening today.
Is it bad? Definitely. Is it as bad as what happened during World War II or the Cold War? Probably not.
This is the first boycott I have EVER been behind. Read up on the issue, and you will understand why this boycott actually makes sense. Basically, a lot of small business owners are being bullied to death by larger cororations.
The opposing argument is that September 11th happened because agencies like the NSA were underfunded at the time.
Kind of ironic that an organization that is all about openness and freedom is trying to restrict a common phrase that it doesn't even have legal control over.
Well, it is really "at earliest" April 2008. But, as we all know, deadlines are usually made unreasonably optimistic for political reasons. And, the more a game gets pushed back, the more chances one of the following will happen:
-it will get pushed back another time
-it will never even come out
-it will be disappointing
This perception is why I think optimistic deadlines are a bad idea. When a game ships earlier than expected, people only love it more.
It may not be part of the kernel, but AFAIK everything that comes with Ubuntu is the operating system. Either way, this is becoming a semantic discussion while my original point was that my video card is top of the line, has both open and closed sourced linux drivers, and works wonderfully in Windows.
Probably not, because the common solution is to modify the xorg.conf file, which is an OS file. I know the drivers I had installed could handle the monitor and its resolution - it was the OS refusing to believe that.
I am still waiting for a user-friendly FREE OS.
I tried to install Ubuntu last week, and it couldn't figure out my monitor's resolution of 1920x1200 (a pretty common one nowadays). After an hour of fiddling with it and reading technical advice on forums, I accidentally crashed the X-server and could no longer log into the GUI.
That is far from user friendly
He may be able to understand what we have, but I think he would be amazed with what we have done with it, and how refined it is now.
If you show him a highway during rush hour, I think he would be amazed. If you told him that we can get a man from New York to London in 2 hours, he would be very amazed. And we shouldn't downplay computers - they have revolutionized our society just as much as transportation.
Finally, and perhaps most relevant to this discussion, if you told him that we have probed other planets, sent a man to the moon, and have people permanently living in space, he would be beyond amazed.
"The problem is, while we have many ideas; they get shot down left and right."
Advances in a specific technologies often lull for a while, and then quickly jump forward in leaps and bounds. This is usually limited to pure luck (the need of an innovation or a set of innovations that open the flood gates). There is no reason why this can't happen in energy in the next 20 years.
But it is still comparing apples to oranges. It is very hard to find a single prototypical American city, especially because 5% of the population should not represent an entire nation. Why use New York instead of Baltimore, for example? I would argue that New York is a very unique city in the USA, that far from represents the nation.
Yes, I think this would be a good measure:
# of people with broadband / # of people who live in "urban" areas
This takes into account how rural a population is, and assumes that it is much harder for them to get broadband (a number greater than 1 indicates that the rural population has already started being penetrated in the broadband market).
Problem with this is that the urban population of the USA is quite high. There's no real excuse for a lot of these people to not have broadband.
That's not a fair comparison. For example, Alaska has a tiny population in a huge area. Even if 5% of Alaskans have broadband, your formula would say they are doing incredibly well in broadband penetration.
This would unfairly bias towards countries with wealthier cities - cities in the USA are proportionally less wealthy than cities in most of the rest of the world. I think most Americans would prefer to live in suburban areas, where broadband penetration is pretty high.
I guess it would be more convincing if there is a pattern - e.g. 10 villages entirely burned in a 100 mile radius. Obviously, there were not 10 individual fires, but some underlying cause.
Also, I would guess whoever is burning down the villages is not burning down much of the surrounding trees and shrubs, which would indicate man-made causes
I think at that point ROMS simply work better. Many cartridges have some sort of magnetic data loss over time - a ROM is a perfect digital copy of the game. I see no legal or moral problem with using a ROM of a game you already paid 50 dollars for 20 years ago. Now if only Nintendo had a way of allowing us to do this (e.g. somehow proving you own the game to get an encrypted ROM that works on only your console would even be fine.)
Until game companies make it easier to do stuff like this, I don't feel bad about doing it myself. The dreamcast was my favorite console of recent time because I could play all my nintendo games on it without cracking the system.
It's kind of like how the USA spends 4% of its GDP on the military - for many people, that is worth the comfort of living their lives without worrying all the time. (please don't respond to the previous paragraph, it was merely trying to create an analogy, not trying to spark a political debate...)
In the case of computers, there is *no* easy way to stop malware without a strong defense. The problem stems from the fact that malware is usually a social engineering problem. Despite what many people think, majority of malware problems were caused by the stupidity of the user. Even a well-secured Linux computer can be tricked by a program requesting sudo access. The typical computer user doesn't understand the nuances of computer security like the typical Slashdot user; even I have been tricked by spoofed websites and malware programs.
If malware can't be stopped at the source, it certainly can be defended against. If someone is willing to give up 4% of their CPU (or whatever) for the peace of mind that all their data won't be erased, that seems like a rational decision.
"Now, look at the "Los Angeles Times". Every bit of news and opinion at the "Times" is free. Why would anyone subscribe to the "Times" when she can get the news for free?"
My friend has an online account to the Economist, and offered me his username/password. I love the Economist, and chose to subscribe to the print edition. Why? Not for moral reasons (that's a nice side effect), but because I like to read the newspaper in print. I don't want to stare at a computer more than I have to, and it's much harder to find what you are interested in. The economist is a weekly newspaper, I can only imagine how much more pronounced this is with a daily. Imagine looking through 50 articles on the computer every day
"That's sort of like saying that Google is destroying Microsoft by building a better desktop OS. "
No, it's like saying Google isn't destroying Microsoft. All they did was block Microsoft from expanding more, but Microsoft is still a healthy company that is bigger than it was when Google was founded.
"Cringely suggests looking no further than the thousands of entrepreneurial geniuses currently working for Google, who will inevitably be driven to leave the company to realize the dreams of their rejected ideas. "
To destroy Google, someone would have to beat them at what they make their money on - search and ads. First off, 95% of the people in the company probably do not work in this division, and don't have the background and aren't surrounded by it enough to get ideas about it. The 5% who do probably could not start a company without running in trouble legally given all the Google trade secrets they are privy to.
Ron Paul:
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
From http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm?