In other words, "as many as it takes."...For what it's worth, Vista had enough showstopper bugs on release day, it's hard to believe it ran through any kind of release candidate process.
Though "beta" and "release candidate" are supposed to mean particular things, the truth is that what they mean depends on the developer using them. Microsoft in particular usually does plan on having a set number of betas and a set number of release candidates. For them, "beta" seems to mean, "stable enough to be used, but everything is still subject to change; feature incomplete." Release candidate seems to mean, "feature complete, time to squash bugs." Their release candidates are what lots of developers would call "beta", and usually they have at least 3 betas and 3 release candidates.
So as far as I can figure, that Microsoft is planning on only doing one of each probably means one of three things:
Microsoft feels very confident about the current state of Windows 7 both in terms on its feature set and stability, and they just don't see the point of prolonged testing.
Microsoft is rushing to push Windows 7 out the door ASAP.
Microsoft has modified its development model and is referring to milestones differently.
I guess it depends on what constitutes a "release". They could spend another year and a couple hundred builds and still call it "Beta 1".
But yeah, I kind of get the feeling that they think the problem with Vista is just PR. They've managed to build some hype around Windows 7 and have gotten people to say some positive things, so they're going to kick it out the door and hope to get the sales that Vista has been missing.
When I said, "can't really be used for communication," I was trying to refer to faster-than-light communication. It seems to me when most people talk about "teleportation," the first hope is to actually deconstruct a physical object in one place while instantaneously reconstructing it in another. Then when it's explained that "no, we're talking about quantum entanglement and teleporting information," the hope usually turns into the idea that you would alter the state of one entangled particle in a way that the change could instantly be read at a distant location in so as to send information faster than light.
When it turns out to be neither of those things, my natural response is, "Oh, so you're not talking about teleportation. You're talking about using quantum entanglement for some particular purpose, probably encryption. That's interesting and all, but could you stop using the word 'teleportation' until you actually... you know... teleport something?"
...operate on A and measure it. Depending on the A measurement, apply one of two operations on B.
Doesn't that require a separate channel of communication, or am I misunderstanding? What I mean is, if you have to know A's state before you know what to do with B, then won't whoever measures A to then signal someone at B as to what operation to perform?
Not that I really understand your post, but it was my understanding that quantum entanglement couldn't be used for "communication" in the sense that people usually hope (faster than light communication).
Prediction #1 â" Your company will no longer own your laptop (go ahead, buy that cool new computer)
Huh?
So Citrix seems to be banking on the idea that employees will work on their own work computers, and the company will save money by not buying or supporting that computer. So the first question I need answered is, is pushing that expense onto the employees going to be considered an acceptable move?
Also, I'm just not sure it'll work out that well. The IT staff is still going to have to provide support, or else what do you think will happen when someone's computer stops working? And speaking as someone who has done desktop support, once I'm providing support, I really want to have full control over that system and the user locked out of admin rights.
Yeah, I felt like Putin missed the point entirely. Dell was basically asking, "What can we do to convince you to buy our hardware?" and Putin's response seemed to be, "We don't need your charity because we have good programmers!"
Now I can understand wanting to use computers manufactured in Russia for economic reasons, for security reasons, or even just for the sake of pride, but the conversation didn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me.
Yeah, the fact that this DLC seems to be focused on making it harder seems like a bad sign to me. I know lots of people complained that the game was too easy, but I don't think that was the problem.
The bigger problem is the game wasn't very interesting. The characters weren't great, and the look/design of the game was trying a little too hard. The combat was annoying and unrewarding.
And the worst part: the level design feel like the designers were bored with the game before they started work, and just strung a path of ledges and poles and holds together without trying to make it feel like you were going somewhere. Some of the older Prince of Persia games somehow made it feel like you were in a real building, though perhaps one that was falling apart, and that there was a sensible reason to go from A to B. This new one feels like every hold was put there just specifically for an acrobat to climb around on, and your only real reason to go to point B was because the game said so. Even when you go someplace, it's not because you really need anything that's there, but you just need to go there and plant your flag, and then you're done. All for a girl that's not the slightest bit compelling.
One thing most 'futurists' agree on is that the ultimate 'end game' of technology appears to be the conversion of all matter in the solar system into machine parts and computational elements. It's a logical end result of exponential growth. (and, actually, would be only the beginning : such a 'civilization' would eventually grow to convert the entire universe, but this would take much longer due to the snails pace of light)
What makes you think this hasn't already happened? Maybe we're part of a big computer thats trying to answer some kind of big question or something.
Actually, never mind. That seems infinitely improbable to me.
It would be nice (I live in NYC and the largest upload link I can get at home is 512kbps), but I don't think 5Mbps is enough to be all that pleased. FiOS, on the other hand, is offering a symmetric 20Mbps connection for $70/month.
I know we're probably in the minority, and that the majority of people probably don't care much about upload speeds. But it's not that small of a majority, I don't think.
Yeah, it seems like every so often, there's another story in the media that "teleportation has been achieved," or "we can make things invisible," or "scientists have made light go faster than light." They go on to explain all the great things we could do if we could teleport things, go faster than light, and make things invisible.
Then, down near the bottom somewhere, they finally explain that no, we're not talking about real teleportation, but rather quantum entanglement that can't really be used for communication. We're not talking about real faster-than-light travel, but making a light wave that sort of looks like it's going faster than light but isn't. We're talking about something that might be useful for stealth airplanes, making them invisible to radar, and not real invisibility. Stuff like that.
And then they tag some throw-away line at the end like, "But who knows, maybe we'll be able to teleport to the moon next year!"
Photoshop and Final Cut Pro aren't moving to the web anytime in the short to medium term
That's not even entirely clear. There are multiple attempts already to provide something like Photoshop in a web application, including one from Adobe. Now I don't expect most graphic pros to abandon their client version of the application, but it's also not as though there aren't web based graphic editors.
I think there are some valid points and some invalid points. My general response:
1. It's client-server all over again: Yeah, it is. We keep running up against this because doing things on the client has some advantages, and doing things on the server has other advantages. The debate will continue, because it's really not an issue of one being absolutely better, but choosing the better solution for your specific application.
2. Web UIs are a mess. & 3. Browser technologies are too limiting: These are really the same thing. Web apps suck. This may improve over time as the technology improves and new standards are put into place, but right now, they do kind of suck. If you can't deal with that, you don't want a web app.
4. The big vendors call the shots: a real objection. Do I want my ability to access my own documents/information to be at the mercy of another company? That's a question. worth considering.
5. Should every employee have a browser?: Meh, whatever. Every employee has a browser, and it's more trouble to remove them than it's worth. If you don't want people browsing the web, put up a firewall that can block/filter traffic. That's a better solution anyway.
Yeah, it's been several years so I don't remember the details, but I think there was some allegation about a particular patch. Microsoft issued a patch, and suddenly Netscape would crash at launch or something like that. Netscape issued a patch fairly quickly that resolved the issue, but someone found some sign that Microsoft had designed the patch such to purposeful cause Netscape to break. I don't remember if there was ever firm evidence, but that was the allegation. Anyway, the whole trial was specifically about Microsoft engaging in an anticompetitive pattern of behavior against Netscape.
Also, there was a source code leak some years back-- again, my memory is fuzzy and I doubt I could find a definitive source-- and it was found that Microsoft had in fact altered Windows code in order to accommodate Office developers, specifically to give Office advantages over competitors. Don't remember the details, but there were comments in the code about "This is to allow Excel to do X," X being something that other spreadsheet programs weren't given documentation or APIs to do.
So the idea that Microsoft was using its OS dominance to leverage other markets in an anticompetitive manner isn't any kind of a stretch. Sorry I can't provide links, though.
That slight loss of profit, however, would inevitably affect consumers negatively at some point. Microsoft stock may take a slight dip, they may have to lay off a few employees. etc
Well I guess you could argue that me buying a pack of gum could have an indirect adverse effect on the economy at large at some point down the road, but does it really make sense to make decisions through those sorts of twists and turns?
I think consumers definitely do benefit from increased freedom of choice, but anyway I don't want to get into a shifting argument here. You could argue that the economy would benefit indirectly from Microsoft being far more profitable, but I still wouldn't want the US government to be propping up private companies or giving them unfair advantages. Similarly, you could present an argument that the economy would improve if Microsoft were to go out of business, but I don't want the government to be in the business of shutting down private companies for theoretical economic gains.
My only point in this particular discussion is it would be trivial for Microsoft to provide a method for new users to download and install their own choice of browsers without incurring much cost, and that cost doesn't simply get passed on to consumers. Therefore, if requiring them to provide such a tool is considered appropriate due to anti-trust concerns, I don't think there's any valid and strong objection to be had.
To sum up, kudos to companies like Mozilla who have found new ways to compete in an unfair environment, rather than pointing out the lack of fairness in the environment.
Part of the problem with the argument, "other browsers are doing fine, which shows there's no need for anti-trust interference!" is that it's possible that the other browsers are only doing fine because of the anti-trust interference. One of the allegations against Microsoft, IIRC, is that they were making alterations to Windows for the specific purpose of sabotaging Netscape. It's possible that the only reason Firefox runs on Windows at all, instead of being a crashing mess of a program, is that Microsoft is worried about the punishments that sabotaging it would incur from various world governments.
Nope, additional development doesn't move the sweet spot-- except maybe insofar as additional development changes the consumers' perceptions of the product's value. For example, if you add a great new feature, it can raise the sweet spot. But no, adding cost to the development doesn't change the sweet spot at all.
The significance of the "sweet spot" (I really wish I could remember the marketing term) is that it's essentially a function of "what consumers will pay for the product", and has nothing to do with the cost of producing the product.
If it helps, imagine this thought experiment: You've developed a product with a set of features, and your marketing people discover that if you charge $5 for it, you'll be able to sell 10,000 units. To simplify the situation, we'll only talk about 2 other possible prices: If you charge $100 for it, you'll be able to sell 4 units. If you charge $0.01 for it, you'll be able to sell 11,000 units. These numbers are based on marketing research of what people are willing to pay for a product with the features you specify.
So the money you'll make from selling them at $5 is going to be $50,000. If you charge $0.01 then you'll make $110. If you set the price at $100 then you make $400. Pretty easy so far, but we haven't talked about costs.
So it might well be that your costs are more than $0.01 per unit, in which case if you couldn't sell the product for more than that amount, you'd have to go out of business or find another source of revenue. But ignoring that fact, is there any cost per unit that could convince you to sell your product (given those three choices) at any amount other than $5 per unit? $50,000 > $400 > $110, and that mathematical truth doesn't change based on your costs.
It's not like I was trying to be tricky and sneak that past anyone. Of course they weren't super-mainstream sites where they were anticipating a lot of IE traffic. I was just saying I've seen a few, out there. Often they're web applications or something where it's a bigger problem than just whether things display properly. But, for example, Apple's MobileMe service advises that you don't use IE when viewing their site. I forget what the other sites were, but I've seen a few web apps that weren't necessarily Linux/Mac focussed that said they didn't advise IE, even if they then proceeded to allow you to access it in IE anyway.
Still, even though it's only a few sites, it's out there, and it's not just sites that are doing it to be snarky. They were reputable sites that were doing serious and functional things, run by people who clearly didn't want to put in all the time and effort to support IE's little way of doing things. As someone who's done some web development (not even all that much), I find it understandable.
And my post was implying that it's not very significant now, but it would be a funny little karmic joke if the number of sites doing it did become significant.
Ok, so are you actually claiming that current matte computer screens are actually using some kind of new material that exhibits no translucent diffusion while diffusing reflections effectively? Or are you just saying theoretically they're different things?
Because I know they're different, but I've never heard of a material that can diffuse reflections without exhibiting diffusion. (it's much easier to diffuse light passing through a material without diffusing the reflections than the other way around)
Yes, because the price of Windows is determined purely based on development costs, and every extra penny Microsoft spends just gets distributed to customers, right?
In case you really don't know, that's not how these things work. I'm blanking on the correct marketing terminology, or else I'd find a good website to explain it, but basically there is a price point that Microsoft's marketing team determines is the "sweet spot", and that's how the price is chosen. If they increase the price, they get more money per sale, but make fewer sales, and therefore make less money. If they lower the price, they make more sales, but less money per sale, so they make less money.
The only thing that will cause Microsoft to change the price of Windows is if their marketing people think that the "sweet spot" has moved for some reason.
So no, the price doesn't just get passed along to consumers.
Besides, we're talking about a fracking "Wizard" that would fetch a file through FTP and/or HTTP and run it. Exactly how much do you expect that development to cost?
Well first, I think the big idea is that Microsoft allows OEMs and customers to uninstall IE and install Firefox.
Second, I don't think it would be all that difficult for Microsoft to develop a wizard-based application that allows end users to choose which browser to install from a set list, and even fetch the chosen browser from the Internet if need be. I bet Google and Mozilla would even be willing to cooperate with Microsoft by providing them a static link that always leads the the most recent version of their browsers.
Actually, by making sure other browsers are not [fully] supported by their web service applications, they are locking out competing, STANDARDS BASED, browsers and client machines including those running Firefox and Mac OS X.
Actually I can say that I've begun seeing websites where, if you visit them with IE, they say, "Sorry, but the page cannot be viewed in Internet Explorer. Please use Firefox, Google Chrome, or Safari." It seems that, by not adhering to standards, Microsoft may be starting to locking themselves out of competition.
Karma. Wouldn't it be funny if Microsoft had to scramble to get their browser standards-compliant because websites weren't bothering to support them anymore?
Matte screens are only "matte" in that they scatter light. If the effect were below the threshold of human perception, then you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between matte and glossy.
It's not quite that simple, but it's really more of a trade-off. Glossy displays really do allow for a slightly clearer/sharper image, since the light from the display isn't being scattered at much. And don't think that just because matte is scattering light that it's not reflecting light, or that ambient light can't mess with your colors on a matte screen. In some environments, a glossy screen can actually help to reduce the amount of ambient light reflected from the screen to your eyes.
Actually, the LHC creates a set of circumstances that happens all the time.
Ok, can you clarify for me: is it literally a set of circumstances that happens all the time on Earth, or is it a set of circumstances that is equivalently energetic to other things that happen all the time. I'm just asking because I've gotten some vague answers about this before.
In any case, I would stick by my claim that if we actually knew exactly what was going to happen, we wouldn't be building this thing because there'd be no point in studying it. But I also agree that "not knowing exactly what's going to happen" isn't the same as "dangerous", which was one of the big ideas that I was trying to highlight.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that beyond the PR problem of "Vista sucks," there's yet another problem of "why should I want Vista?"
Maybe that can be solved with PR too, but it's not entirely a PR problem.
In other words, "as many as it takes."...For what it's worth, Vista had enough showstopper bugs on release day, it's hard to believe it ran through any kind of release candidate process.
Though "beta" and "release candidate" are supposed to mean particular things, the truth is that what they mean depends on the developer using them. Microsoft in particular usually does plan on having a set number of betas and a set number of release candidates. For them, "beta" seems to mean, "stable enough to be used, but everything is still subject to change; feature incomplete." Release candidate seems to mean, "feature complete, time to squash bugs." Their release candidates are what lots of developers would call "beta", and usually they have at least 3 betas and 3 release candidates.
So as far as I can figure, that Microsoft is planning on only doing one of each probably means one of three things:
I guess it depends on what constitutes a "release". They could spend another year and a couple hundred builds and still call it "Beta 1".
But yeah, I kind of get the feeling that they think the problem with Vista is just PR. They've managed to build some hype around Windows 7 and have gotten people to say some positive things, so they're going to kick it out the door and hope to get the sales that Vista has been missing.
I think they might be missing the point, though.
I see.
When I said, "can't really be used for communication," I was trying to refer to faster-than-light communication. It seems to me when most people talk about "teleportation," the first hope is to actually deconstruct a physical object in one place while instantaneously reconstructing it in another. Then when it's explained that "no, we're talking about quantum entanglement and teleporting information," the hope usually turns into the idea that you would alter the state of one entangled particle in a way that the change could instantly be read at a distant location in so as to send information faster than light.
When it turns out to be neither of those things, my natural response is, "Oh, so you're not talking about teleportation. You're talking about using quantum entanglement for some particular purpose, probably encryption. That's interesting and all, but could you stop using the word 'teleportation' until you actually... you know... teleport something?"
...operate on A and measure it. Depending on the A measurement, apply one of two operations on B.
Doesn't that require a separate channel of communication, or am I misunderstanding? What I mean is, if you have to know A's state before you know what to do with B, then won't whoever measures A to then signal someone at B as to what operation to perform?
Not that I really understand your post, but it was my understanding that quantum entanglement couldn't be used for "communication" in the sense that people usually hope (faster than light communication).
And you're hoping to recreate the results of the years directly following Clinton's presidency by having Democrats now act like Republicans then?
I'm sure that will end well.
Prediction #1 â" Your company will no longer own your laptop (go ahead, buy that cool new computer)
Huh?
So Citrix seems to be banking on the idea that employees will work on their own work computers, and the company will save money by not buying or supporting that computer. So the first question I need answered is, is pushing that expense onto the employees going to be considered an acceptable move?
Also, I'm just not sure it'll work out that well. The IT staff is still going to have to provide support, or else what do you think will happen when someone's computer stops working? And speaking as someone who has done desktop support, once I'm providing support, I really want to have full control over that system and the user locked out of admin rights.
It just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.
Yeah, I felt like Putin missed the point entirely. Dell was basically asking, "What can we do to convince you to buy our hardware?" and Putin's response seemed to be, "We don't need your charity because we have good programmers!"
Now I can understand wanting to use computers manufactured in Russia for economic reasons, for security reasons, or even just for the sake of pride, but the conversation didn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me.
Yeah, the fact that this DLC seems to be focused on making it harder seems like a bad sign to me. I know lots of people complained that the game was too easy, but I don't think that was the problem.
The bigger problem is the game wasn't very interesting. The characters weren't great, and the look/design of the game was trying a little too hard. The combat was annoying and unrewarding.
And the worst part: the level design feel like the designers were bored with the game before they started work, and just strung a path of ledges and poles and holds together without trying to make it feel like you were going somewhere. Some of the older Prince of Persia games somehow made it feel like you were in a real building, though perhaps one that was falling apart, and that there was a sensible reason to go from A to B. This new one feels like every hold was put there just specifically for an acrobat to climb around on, and your only real reason to go to point B was because the game said so. Even when you go someplace, it's not because you really need anything that's there, but you just need to go there and plant your flag, and then you're done. All for a girl that's not the slightest bit compelling.
One thing most 'futurists' agree on is that the ultimate 'end game' of technology appears to be the conversion of all matter in the solar system into machine parts and computational elements. It's a logical end result of exponential growth. (and, actually, would be only the beginning : such a 'civilization' would eventually grow to convert the entire universe, but this would take much longer due to the snails pace of light)
What makes you think this hasn't already happened? Maybe we're part of a big computer thats trying to answer some kind of big question or something.
Actually, never mind. That seems infinitely improbable to me.
What I'd love is the upload bandwidth of 5 Mbit/s
It would be nice (I live in NYC and the largest upload link I can get at home is 512kbps), but I don't think 5Mbps is enough to be all that pleased. FiOS, on the other hand, is offering a symmetric 20Mbps connection for $70/month.
I know we're probably in the minority, and that the majority of people probably don't care much about upload speeds. But it's not that small of a majority, I don't think.
Yeah, it seems like every so often, there's another story in the media that "teleportation has been achieved," or "we can make things invisible," or "scientists have made light go faster than light." They go on to explain all the great things we could do if we could teleport things, go faster than light, and make things invisible.
Then, down near the bottom somewhere, they finally explain that no, we're not talking about real teleportation, but rather quantum entanglement that can't really be used for communication. We're not talking about real faster-than-light travel, but making a light wave that sort of looks like it's going faster than light but isn't. We're talking about something that might be useful for stealth airplanes, making them invisible to radar, and not real invisibility. Stuff like that.
And then they tag some throw-away line at the end like, "But who knows, maybe we'll be able to teleport to the moon next year!"
I hate journalists.
Photoshop and Final Cut Pro aren't moving to the web anytime in the short to medium term
That's not even entirely clear. There are multiple attempts already to provide something like Photoshop in a web application, including one from Adobe. Now I don't expect most graphic pros to abandon their client version of the application, but it's also not as though there aren't web based graphic editors.
Yeah, it's been several years so I don't remember the details, but I think there was some allegation about a particular patch. Microsoft issued a patch, and suddenly Netscape would crash at launch or something like that. Netscape issued a patch fairly quickly that resolved the issue, but someone found some sign that Microsoft had designed the patch such to purposeful cause Netscape to break. I don't remember if there was ever firm evidence, but that was the allegation. Anyway, the whole trial was specifically about Microsoft engaging in an anticompetitive pattern of behavior against Netscape.
Also, there was a source code leak some years back-- again, my memory is fuzzy and I doubt I could find a definitive source-- and it was found that Microsoft had in fact altered Windows code in order to accommodate Office developers, specifically to give Office advantages over competitors. Don't remember the details, but there were comments in the code about "This is to allow Excel to do X," X being something that other spreadsheet programs weren't given documentation or APIs to do.
So the idea that Microsoft was using its OS dominance to leverage other markets in an anticompetitive manner isn't any kind of a stretch. Sorry I can't provide links, though.
That slight loss of profit, however, would inevitably affect consumers negatively at some point. Microsoft stock may take a slight dip, they may have to lay off a few employees. etc
Well I guess you could argue that me buying a pack of gum could have an indirect adverse effect on the economy at large at some point down the road, but does it really make sense to make decisions through those sorts of twists and turns?
I think consumers definitely do benefit from increased freedom of choice, but anyway I don't want to get into a shifting argument here. You could argue that the economy would benefit indirectly from Microsoft being far more profitable, but I still wouldn't want the US government to be propping up private companies or giving them unfair advantages. Similarly, you could present an argument that the economy would improve if Microsoft were to go out of business, but I don't want the government to be in the business of shutting down private companies for theoretical economic gains.
My only point in this particular discussion is it would be trivial for Microsoft to provide a method for new users to download and install their own choice of browsers without incurring much cost, and that cost doesn't simply get passed on to consumers. Therefore, if requiring them to provide such a tool is considered appropriate due to anti-trust concerns, I don't think there's any valid and strong objection to be had.
To sum up, kudos to companies like Mozilla who have found new ways to compete in an unfair environment, rather than pointing out the lack of fairness in the environment.
Part of the problem with the argument, "other browsers are doing fine, which shows there's no need for anti-trust interference!" is that it's possible that the other browsers are only doing fine because of the anti-trust interference. One of the allegations against Microsoft, IIRC, is that they were making alterations to Windows for the specific purpose of sabotaging Netscape. It's possible that the only reason Firefox runs on Windows at all, instead of being a crashing mess of a program, is that Microsoft is worried about the punishments that sabotaging it would incur from various world governments.
Nope, additional development doesn't move the sweet spot-- except maybe insofar as additional development changes the consumers' perceptions of the product's value. For example, if you add a great new feature, it can raise the sweet spot. But no, adding cost to the development doesn't change the sweet spot at all.
The significance of the "sweet spot" (I really wish I could remember the marketing term) is that it's essentially a function of "what consumers will pay for the product", and has nothing to do with the cost of producing the product.
If it helps, imagine this thought experiment: You've developed a product with a set of features, and your marketing people discover that if you charge $5 for it, you'll be able to sell 10,000 units. To simplify the situation, we'll only talk about 2 other possible prices: If you charge $100 for it, you'll be able to sell 4 units. If you charge $0.01 for it, you'll be able to sell 11,000 units. These numbers are based on marketing research of what people are willing to pay for a product with the features you specify.
So the money you'll make from selling them at $5 is going to be $50,000. If you charge $0.01 then you'll make $110. If you set the price at $100 then you make $400. Pretty easy so far, but we haven't talked about costs.
So it might well be that your costs are more than $0.01 per unit, in which case if you couldn't sell the product for more than that amount, you'd have to go out of business or find another source of revenue. But ignoring that fact, is there any cost per unit that could convince you to sell your product (given those three choices) at any amount other than $5 per unit? $50,000 > $400 > $110, and that mathematical truth doesn't change based on your costs.
Yes, they were Mac or Linux centric sites.
It's not like I was trying to be tricky and sneak that past anyone. Of course they weren't super-mainstream sites where they were anticipating a lot of IE traffic. I was just saying I've seen a few, out there. Often they're web applications or something where it's a bigger problem than just whether things display properly. But, for example, Apple's MobileMe service advises that you don't use IE when viewing their site. I forget what the other sites were, but I've seen a few web apps that weren't necessarily Linux/Mac focussed that said they didn't advise IE, even if they then proceeded to allow you to access it in IE anyway.
Still, even though it's only a few sites, it's out there, and it's not just sites that are doing it to be snarky. They were reputable sites that were doing serious and functional things, run by people who clearly didn't want to put in all the time and effort to support IE's little way of doing things. As someone who's done some web development (not even all that much), I find it understandable.
And my post was implying that it's not very significant now, but it would be a funny little karmic joke if the number of sites doing it did become significant.
Ok, so are you actually claiming that current matte computer screens are actually using some kind of new material that exhibits no translucent diffusion while diffusing reflections effectively? Or are you just saying theoretically they're different things?
Because I know they're different, but I've never heard of a material that can diffuse reflections without exhibiting diffusion. (it's much easier to diffuse light passing through a material without diffusing the reflections than the other way around)
Yes, because the price of Windows is determined purely based on development costs, and every extra penny Microsoft spends just gets distributed to customers, right?
In case you really don't know, that's not how these things work. I'm blanking on the correct marketing terminology, or else I'd find a good website to explain it, but basically there is a price point that Microsoft's marketing team determines is the "sweet spot", and that's how the price is chosen. If they increase the price, they get more money per sale, but make fewer sales, and therefore make less money. If they lower the price, they make more sales, but less money per sale, so they make less money.
The only thing that will cause Microsoft to change the price of Windows is if their marketing people think that the "sweet spot" has moved for some reason.
So no, the price doesn't just get passed along to consumers.
Besides, we're talking about a fracking "Wizard" that would fetch a file through FTP and/or HTTP and run it. Exactly how much do you expect that development to cost?
Well first, I think the big idea is that Microsoft allows OEMs and customers to uninstall IE and install Firefox.
Second, I don't think it would be all that difficult for Microsoft to develop a wizard-based application that allows end users to choose which browser to install from a set list, and even fetch the chosen browser from the Internet if need be. I bet Google and Mozilla would even be willing to cooperate with Microsoft by providing them a static link that always leads the the most recent version of their browsers.
Actually, by making sure other browsers are not [fully] supported by their web service applications, they are locking out competing, STANDARDS BASED, browsers and client machines including those running Firefox and Mac OS X.
Actually I can say that I've begun seeing websites where, if you visit them with IE, they say, "Sorry, but the page cannot be viewed in Internet Explorer. Please use Firefox, Google Chrome, or Safari." It seems that, by not adhering to standards, Microsoft may be starting to locking themselves out of competition.
Karma. Wouldn't it be funny if Microsoft had to scramble to get their browser standards-compliant because websites weren't bothering to support them anymore?
Matte screens are only "matte" in that they scatter light. If the effect were below the threshold of human perception, then you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between matte and glossy.
Glossy is a bug, not a feature.
It's not quite that simple, but it's really more of a trade-off. Glossy displays really do allow for a slightly clearer/sharper image, since the light from the display isn't being scattered at much. And don't think that just because matte is scattering light that it's not reflecting light, or that ambient light can't mess with your colors on a matte screen. In some environments, a glossy screen can actually help to reduce the amount of ambient light reflected from the screen to your eyes.
Actually, the LHC creates a set of circumstances that happens all the time.
Ok, can you clarify for me: is it literally a set of circumstances that happens all the time on Earth, or is it a set of circumstances that is equivalently energetic to other things that happen all the time. I'm just asking because I've gotten some vague answers about this before.
In any case, I would stick by my claim that if we actually knew exactly what was going to happen, we wouldn't be building this thing because there'd be no point in studying it. But I also agree that "not knowing exactly what's going to happen" isn't the same as "dangerous", which was one of the big ideas that I was trying to highlight.