No, I'm pretty sure I didn't mention anything about ID. I can't imagine that math has anything to say, for or against it. I just like to point out when people are wrong.:)
Microsoft needs to put a metric shit-ton more man-hours into compatibility with previous hardware and software.
Are you serious? They already do a ton of this. It's the old damned if you do, damned if you don't. The breakages have mainly occurred due to fixing design flaws or bugs in previous releases that some software relied upon. I'm sure that there are some applications that broke for other reasons, but to assume that they're not already putting huge amounts of effort into this area is just ignorant.
These people were captured on the battle field. They are prisoners of war. They were not arrested for a crime, like a car thief or a murderer. There have been numerous attempts to give them the process that they are due. The point of capturing prisoners of war is not to prosecute them. The purpose is to keep them from returning to the battle field.
Should we have charged captured Germans in WWII? What would we have charged them with? How could any cases be prosecuted?
The logical result of what you seem to be proposing is that the military would stop taking prisoners altogether. And the other way to remove combatants from the battle field is not nearly so respectful of the combatants rights.
These beliefs are only frightening to the naive or ignorant. I'll leave it to you to pick which category you'd prefer.
So don't use it. But you should at least be able to admit that for some people, and for some uses, cloud stuff is preferred. Sure, managing *a* local office suite shouldn't be too difficult (though there are plenty of people who can't manage even this!), but what about thousands across an enterprise? Maybe the cloud version is better in some of those cases.
And the cloud version of many things (like google maps) is pretty convenient, especially if you don't have access to your 'local' mapping software.
If you're really upset about people saying that cloud computing is the *only* or *always* best (which isn't what your post actually says) then I'd agree with you. But you are being just as silly as that hypothetical hysteric.
It's true that it would have reduced Mozilla's value with respect to Linux, no amount of distro forking would be likely to have an appreciable affect on FF in Windows, which has got to be a much bigger value for Mozilla.
That's not what speculators do. For every buyer, there's a seller. And as prices have risen, the speculators have increasingly moved to other investments. They give important price signals to the market, and help to spread some of the risk in changing prices, but they definitely do not drive the market in the same way that supply and demand, or the value of the dollar do.
It's about the expectations of the players in the market. For instance, if you think that supply will continue to be tight, and you have a lot of oil (possibly sitting in the ground), you have an incentive to hold on to oil to sell it at higher prices. If, however, you believe that supplies may not be so tight in the future, you may be more willing to sell more oil now while prices are high.
It's neither wishful thinking nor tarot cards. Just a tangible change to the realities of the market.
No, I don't watch O'Reilly. Brit Hume FTW. But you can't seriously be comparing him to Kos. He's not even in the same league as Matthews or Olberman. Also, I don't consider O'Reilly to be terribly conservative. On some things he is, but I've heard plenty of liberal opinions come from him, too.
But nowhere does it say that it has to be short term profit at the cost of anything else, although CEOs and their ilk appear to understand it that way, since that is the way they themselves profit the most.
Agreed, but the reason for that is that shareholders (and prospective shareholders, analysts, etc) have made it loud and clear that short term (quarterly) results are the be all, end all. If investors could be put into a spectrum, from day trader to, say, Warren Buffet (Ok, no analogy is perfect, but if you have problems with this, just imagine I said something about cars), I'd say that the day trader end of the spectrum is generally having a greater effect than the Buffet side of the equation.
Do you read your comments before submitting? This post makes no sense.
Please explain why someone who has been Ivy League educated and been a law professor, talks down to "small town America" would not be an elite. Then you can explain why Palin is not a "regular person." Ok, she's not regular in that she's managed to become a governor, and very few people do that, but she's certainly closer to "regular" status than Obama.
Your implication is that Obama has "qualifications." I suppose a two year campaign counts to some people (he's made that case himself). What would you accept as a qualification for the office?
I guess we have different definitions of "nobody." Or perhaps you forgot Obama's positions on capital gains tax. First, he thought he could raise more revenue by raising them. He got called on that pretty quickly, and changed his story to be that we needed to raise the tax to make it more "fair."
You do know that during times of high tax rates and strict regulation, our country has thrived economically more than during periods of deregulation and tax cuts, right?
That's a good point. For example, the 1970s. Wage and price controls, high marginal tax rates, and record prosperity!
Slashdot Mirror
It's similar to grammar police, but math police are much better.
No, I'm pretty sure I didn't mention anything about ID. I can't imagine that math has anything to say, for or against it. I just like to point out when people are wrong. :)
The problem with your argument is that you're ignoring most of the real numbers.
No they aren't. Most real numbers can't be derived that way.
Are you serious? They already do a ton of this. It's the old damned if you do, damned if you don't. The breakages have mainly occurred due to fixing design flaws or bugs in previous releases that some software relied upon. I'm sure that there are some applications that broke for other reasons, but to assume that they're not already putting huge amounts of effort into this area is just ignorant.
These people were captured on the battle field. They are prisoners of war. They were not arrested for a crime, like a car thief or a murderer. There have been numerous attempts to give them the process that they are due. The point of capturing prisoners of war is not to prosecute them. The purpose is to keep them from returning to the battle field.
Should we have charged captured Germans in WWII? What would we have charged them with? How could any cases be prosecuted?
The logical result of what you seem to be proposing is that the military would stop taking prisoners altogether. And the other way to remove combatants from the battle field is not nearly so respectful of the combatants rights.
These beliefs are only frightening to the naive or ignorant. I'll leave it to you to pick which category you'd prefer.
Yes, thank you for proving my point.
It's the difference between arresting a criminal and prisoners of war. I'm sorry if the difference is too subtle for you.
So don't use it. But you should at least be able to admit that for some people, and for some uses, cloud stuff is preferred. Sure, managing *a* local office suite shouldn't be too difficult (though there are plenty of people who can't manage even this!), but what about thousands across an enterprise? Maybe the cloud version is better in some of those cases.
And the cloud version of many things (like google maps) is pretty convenient, especially if you don't have access to your 'local' mapping software.
If you're really upset about people saying that cloud computing is the *only* or *always* best (which isn't what your post actually says) then I'd agree with you. But you are being just as silly as that hypothetical hysteric.
Yes, we were. Also, we were making sense and not non sequitors. Since this is /. I won't ask that you leave until you can do the same.
It's true that it would have reduced Mozilla's value with respect to Linux, no amount of distro forking would be likely to have an appreciable affect on FF in Windows, which has got to be a much bigger value for Mozilla.
That's not what speculators do. For every buyer, there's a seller. And as prices have risen, the speculators have increasingly moved to other investments. They give important price signals to the market, and help to spread some of the risk in changing prices, but they definitely do not drive the market in the same way that supply and demand, or the value of the dollar do.
Only if they aren't very good at studying.
It's typically conducive to exchange only if the ideas are similar to the ideas already present. Just like any other part of society.
It's about the expectations of the players in the market. For instance, if you think that supply will continue to be tight, and you have a lot of oil (possibly sitting in the ground), you have an incentive to hold on to oil to sell it at higher prices. If, however, you believe that supplies may not be so tight in the future, you may be more willing to sell more oil now while prices are high.
It's neither wishful thinking nor tarot cards. Just a tangible change to the realities of the market.
Also the recent (2006) restrictions on sulfur content in diesel has raised prices.
Ok, so it's worse than that. You have a strange definition of "right wing." Good luck with that.
Ok, so you define "a bunch" as one. I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Shrug.
No, I don't watch O'Reilly. Brit Hume FTW. But you can't seriously be comparing him to Kos. He's not even in the same league as Matthews or Olberman. Also, I don't consider O'Reilly to be terribly conservative. On some things he is, but I've heard plenty of liberal opinions come from him, too.
Ok: s/DailyKos/MSNBC/
Fox News can't touch DailyKos for vitriolic bias.
Agreed, but the reason for that is that shareholders (and prospective shareholders, analysts, etc) have made it loud and clear that short term (quarterly) results are the be all, end all. If investors could be put into a spectrum, from day trader to, say, Warren Buffet (Ok, no analogy is perfect, but if you have problems with this, just imagine I said something about cars), I'd say that the day trader end of the spectrum is generally having a greater effect than the Buffet side of the equation.
Do you read your comments before submitting? This post makes no sense.
Please explain why someone who has been Ivy League educated and been a law professor, talks down to "small town America" would not be an elite. Then you can explain why Palin is not a "regular person." Ok, she's not regular in that she's managed to become a governor, and very few people do that, but she's certainly closer to "regular" status than Obama.
Your implication is that Obama has "qualifications." I suppose a two year campaign counts to some people (he's made that case himself). What would you accept as a qualification for the office?
I guess we have different definitions of "nobody." Or perhaps you forgot Obama's positions on capital gains tax. First, he thought he could raise more revenue by raising them. He got called on that pretty quickly, and changed his story to be that we needed to raise the tax to make it more "fair."
That's a good point. For example, the 1970s. Wage and price controls, high marginal tax rates, and record prosperity!