I guess that would also include all other forms of portable devices. Cigarette lighters replaced by cell phones, ink pens replaced by cell phones, watches replace by cell phones, etc.
All powered by Microsoft Windows Mobile 5.0.
Has anyone ever done any reseach on how often Bill Gates has been right in his predictions?
I liked the first three movies, tolerated the latest three movies, and was annoyed from day one on the hype surrounding the entire Star Wars phenomenon.
It would have been nice to have lived through only one Star Wars flood of commercial crap, but instead we have had to live through decades of Star Wars toys, drink cups, board games, etc.
I'm glad it is nearly over. Now I only have to tolerate the nostalgia periods that will pop up every decade or so.
...but because you're gonna get a driver's license with a federal stamp on it, you get your panties up in a bunch?
If that were all this were about, I wouldn't have much of an issue about it. We have already federalized hazardous waste/cargo drivers licenses.
What blows is the bullshit reasoning behind the legislation: protection against terrorists. If this is such a great protection measure against terrorists, perhaps the proponents can tell me how a federalized passenger car license would have stopped this.
Stopping terrorists? Right. Sure.
This is an anti-immigration bill disguised as a anti-terrorism bill. No significant debate was allowed and the Republican-controlled House and Senate tacked it on the military spending to keep it that way. Republicans are just too chicken-shit to take on immigration reform because they fear a California-style backlash.
Now they are going to drive up my state taxes to make themselves feel good about "stopping" terrorism.
As an added bonus, by not allowing your software to be written by programmers actively working for other companies, you wouldn't have to worry about it being full of 'stolen IP'!
You care to flesh that out a bit more? I got your point until you threw that little buttnugget out. Here is a practice version:
"As an added bonus, by not allowing [Office] to be written by programmers actively working for [Sun], you wouldn't have to worry about it being full of 'stolen IP'!"
Why would Sun want to steal code from Office? Open Office works just fine and doesn't need one bit of Microsoft's code.
Here is a much more plausible statement, one that you carefully avoided writing:
"As an added bonus, by writing your software with obscured code and non-standard protocols, you would be able to lock in your customers and screw them with every upgrade. You could then save money on development of 'new' innovations and can instead roam the world buying companies who have actually created something interesting."
I wander what you'd find if you compared higher quality newspapers with average newspapers how their respect differs among their readers.
One would think that news organizations like the New York Times and the Chicago Sun would have more to lose if their coverage was sub-par. Regional and local news organizations obviously have less risk, often times because they are the only game in town.
That is certainly the case in my little corner of the world. There are no other print outlets that would put competative pressure on the local rag and force it to improve.
I'd like to know what percentage of magazine stats are fact checked as well.
Good point. I think that the assumption has always been that the 'professional' print media perform a greater degree of quality assurance than, say, a Drudge Report webzine or a blog. The fact that there has been an increase in the number of fired reporters, retracted or heavily qualified news articles, and embarrassing editorial gaffs would serve as a corrective mechanism to the system. It seems that the 'traditional' media are, or are quickly becoming, no more reliable than the 'alternative' sources.
With no standard to use for comparison, other than bad ones, the consumer (and voter) will have to navigate carefully to get an objective view of the world.
It's so bad, some newsrooms resort to using people who "proof" content before a story is "edited."
On one afternoon, I counted nine misspellings in a twelve paragraph story. That is clearly unacceptable. I called the local paper to complain and I got a city editor who said that he took the issue very seriously and would look into it. The situation improved on locally written news stories. I can understand that they will sometime not edit wire stories, so the occasional flub doesn't bother me as much.
In another story they wrote about a guy who had lost his house in a range fire. They had all the names in the story carried faithfully until the end when, out of the blue, they quoted "Audrey". I looked the article over twice and never found another "Audrey" mentioned in the piece. WTF!?! This behavior has happened too often to list all of the occurences.
It is that kind of crap that keeps me from believing 10% of what the local paper writes. I wish someone would deliver the ads to our house without the paper so my wife would finally cancel their lazy asses.
The laziness displayed by the people actually fabricating the news is much worse, but even they are doing it because they're lazy, or because they are dishonest opportunists who want to be known for getting the scoop.
And in the case of Stephen Glass, his editor was more than happy to let him run around without a leash. He was jubilant at having a Wunderkind in his newsroom.
I realize that every profession has its fair share of lazy-asses and cons, but the profession I work in (scientific research) has a set of internal checks that look for this kind of bullshit propagation.
We still get burned on occasion, but fraud in the news industry is hitting epidemic levels.
But the New York Times and media of its ilk isn't ever going to go out of business.
The recent cases of reporters fabricating newstories only highlights how poor the editorial oversight is in the American newspaper industry. Most papers just put their news divisions on auto-pilot and never fact check, let alone spell check anything. I have seen an increase in shoddy writing and poorly attributed quotes since the mid-1980s. Because the larger American public doesn't seem to give a rats-ass, nothing gets done.
This is a hand wringing exercise by the American press. Readership has and will continue to fall off in favor of other news outlets, robbing the public of the detail that is required to make informed political decisions.
Great news for the rabid, camera-mugging politicians.
In return, Microsoft has the opportunity to take advantage of any progress these small suckers (er startups) manage to make.
Yes, but as open source advocates are fond of pointing out when people bitch about the restrictions of the GPL (myself included) "You can't complain if you agreed to the terms and conditions before you took the code".
No one is forcing these startups to take the research that Microsoft is offering them. These startups probably already know something about working with Microsoft and are aware of the strings that come with dealing with them.
Anyone who complains after Microsoft comes back to them with licensing agreements should be met with the same derision as those who whine after being served by the FSF for violations of the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Just keep hitting redial, eh?
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does a nerd still bitch about it?
Bitch about it? Hell no! Where do you think we get the material for our particle board cubicles?
No, only an ecowarrior gets pissed about falling trees.
I guess that would also include all other forms of portable devices. Cigarette lighters replaced by cell phones, ink pens replaced by cell phones, watches replace by cell phones, etc.
All powered by Microsoft Windows Mobile 5.0.
Has anyone ever done any reseach on how often Bill Gates has been right in his predictions?
They will eventually kill it just like they did Star Trek.
I liked the first three movies, tolerated the latest three movies, and was annoyed from day one on the hype surrounding the entire Star Wars phenomenon.
It would have been nice to have lived through only one Star Wars flood of commercial crap, but instead we have had to live through decades of Star Wars toys, drink cups, board games, etc.
I'm glad it is nearly over. Now I only have to tolerate the nostalgia periods that will pop up every decade or so.
Your original post wasn't funny.
That's what I thought. It was just an offhand remark, not a standup show.
What you think means less to me.
Funny moderations don't affect your karma.
I never said they did. I was commenting on the criticism of the 'dumb moderator' poster.
I guess I should be less oblique so that my comments can reach the education level of folks like yourself.
Come on FUNNY mods!!
Daddy needs a new karma bump!
As such, we have worked hard to develop strong partnerships within the international law-enforcement community.
Had Bush known that this was occurring, he would have stepped in and stopped this attack on US sovereignty.
We all know that the US will always choose the unilateralist role in defeating enemies of the State.
(chill... It is a joke.)
No thanks. I don't condone stupidity.
No, you just vote for pussies.
Since when do Dems not like pork spending that entails increasnig buracracy (i.e., creates jobs)?
Who said they didn't?
There's no diff between the parties anymore really. Republicrats and Democans.
Not since 1980.
That's why I vote Libertarian.
Do you care to explain why every Democrat in the Senate voted for it?
Because they are pussys?
Quit bashing Republicans when your own pals are voting the same way.
Incorrect assumption. I happen to be a Libertarian.
Republicans=Democrats who shower
Vote for a change. Vote Libertarian.
The have become the "Pussy Party". Not only that, they are probably pissed that they didn't think of this first.
Vote for a change. Vote Libertarian.
...but because you're gonna get a driver's license with a federal stamp on it, you get your panties up in a bunch?
If that were all this were about, I wouldn't have much of an issue about it. We have already federalized hazardous waste/cargo drivers licenses.
What blows is the bullshit reasoning behind the legislation: protection against terrorists. If this is such a great protection measure against terrorists, perhaps the proponents can tell me how a federalized passenger car license would have stopped this.
Stopping terrorists? Right. Sure.
This is an anti-immigration bill disguised as a anti-terrorism bill. No significant debate was allowed and the Republican-controlled House and Senate tacked it on the military spending to keep it that way. Republicans are just too chicken-shit to take on immigration reform because they fear a California-style backlash.
Now they are going to drive up my state taxes to make themselves feel good about "stopping" terrorism.
Republicans=Democrats without the guilt
As an added bonus, by not allowing your software to be written by programmers actively working for other companies, you wouldn't have to worry about it being full of 'stolen IP'!
You care to flesh that out a bit more? I got your point until you threw that little buttnugget out. Here is a practice version:
"As an added bonus, by not allowing [Office] to be written by programmers actively working for [Sun], you wouldn't have to worry about it being full of 'stolen IP'!"
Why would Sun want to steal code from Office? Open Office works just fine and doesn't need one bit of Microsoft's code.
Here is a much more plausible statement, one that you carefully avoided writing:
"As an added bonus, by writing your software with obscured code and non-standard protocols, you would be able to lock in your customers and screw them with every upgrade. You could then save money on development of 'new' innovations and can instead roam the world buying companies who have actually created something interesting."
Great story.
Killed for being above average.
I wander what you'd find if you compared higher quality newspapers with average newspapers how their respect differs among their readers.
One would think that news organizations like the New York Times and the Chicago Sun would have more to lose if their coverage was sub-par. Regional and local news organizations obviously have less risk, often times because they are the only game in town.
That is certainly the case in my little corner of the world. There are no other print outlets that would put competative pressure on the local rag and force it to improve.
I'd like to know what percentage of magazine stats are fact checked as well.
Good point. I think that the assumption has always been that the 'professional' print media perform a greater degree of quality assurance than, say, a Drudge Report webzine or a blog. The fact that there has been an increase in the number of fired reporters, retracted or heavily qualified news articles, and embarrassing editorial gaffs would serve as a corrective mechanism to the system. It seems that the 'traditional' media are, or are quickly becoming, no more reliable than the 'alternative' sources.
With no standard to use for comparison, other than bad ones, the consumer (and voter) will have to navigate carefully to get an objective view of the world.
It's so bad, some newsrooms resort to using people who "proof" content before a story is "edited."
On one afternoon, I counted nine misspellings in a twelve paragraph story. That is clearly unacceptable. I called the local paper to complain and I got a city editor who said that he took the issue very seriously and would look into it. The situation improved on locally written news stories. I can understand that they will sometime not edit wire stories, so the occasional flub doesn't bother me as much.
In another story they wrote about a guy who had lost his house in a range fire. They had all the names in the story carried faithfully until the end when, out of the blue, they quoted "Audrey". I looked the article over twice and never found another "Audrey" mentioned in the piece. WTF!?! This behavior has happened too often to list all of the occurences.
It is that kind of crap that keeps me from believing 10% of what the local paper writes. I wish someone would deliver the ads to our house without the paper so my wife would finally cancel their lazy asses.
The laziness displayed by the people actually fabricating the news is much worse, but even they are doing it because they're lazy, or because they are dishonest opportunists who want to be known for getting the scoop.
And in the case of Stephen Glass, his editor was more than happy to let him run around without a leash. He was jubilant at having a Wunderkind in his newsroom.
I realize that every profession has its fair share of lazy-asses and cons, but the profession I work in (scientific research) has a set of internal checks that look for this kind of bullshit propagation.
We still get burned on occasion, but fraud in the news industry is hitting epidemic levels.
But the New York Times and media of its ilk isn't ever going to go out of business.
People used to say that about CBS news.
The recent cases of reporters fabricating newstories only highlights how poor the editorial oversight is in the American newspaper industry. Most papers just put their news divisions on auto-pilot and never fact check, let alone spell check anything. I have seen an increase in shoddy writing and poorly attributed quotes since the mid-1980s. Because the larger American public doesn't seem to give a rats-ass, nothing gets done.
This is a hand wringing exercise by the American press. Readership has and will continue to fall off in favor of other news outlets, robbing the public of the detail that is required to make informed political decisions.
Great news for the rabid, camera-mugging politicians.
Parkinson's disease helps...
I hhhaavvvee PPPParrrkkiinnnsonnnnsss, yyyyouuu innnnseennnssssitiiivvee cccllllooddd!!!!
But is Morse proficiency still required for amatuer radio licensing?
..and that's a bad thing...how?
Just feeding the conspiracy hounds.
They love a good 'secret society' tale.
In return, Microsoft has the opportunity to take advantage of any progress these small suckers (er startups) manage to make.
Yes, but as open source advocates are fond of pointing out when people bitch about the restrictions of the GPL (myself included) "You can't complain if you agreed to the terms and conditions before you took the code".
No one is forcing these startups to take the research that Microsoft is offering them. These startups probably already know something about working with Microsoft and are aware of the strings that come with dealing with them.
Anyone who complains after Microsoft comes back to them with licensing agreements should be met with the same derision as those who whine after being served by the FSF for violations of the GPL.
Did anyone else read that as 'IBM give SCO the finger?'
Yep. Afterwhich they poked them in the eye with it.
What else has there been? A Beautiful Mind?
Yeah, that one was also mentioned in the radio show.
I never saw it so I neglected to mention it.
Good catch.