Errr...the cartels controlling poppy production ARE the Taliban. And even if they weren't, the U.S. would shortly be accused of drugging its population for whatever passes for the latest conspiracy theory including Jews, the Tri-Lateral Commission, New World Order, and Al Qaeda (the CIA is secretly in bed with them, you know...WTC was a Jewish CIA plot to...to...clear land for brand new buildings...errr....or something...)
Ack! This is against the Geneva Convention and certainly violates any rules of good taste in warfare. What if the Iranians fire back with rancid goat cheese. How will you feel about it then?
Iran, China, and N. Korea. All have ideas about conquering nations the U.S. has treaties to defend. Without those treaties, the Gulf States, Taiwan, and S. Korea would be looking to develop nukes to counter their nuclear armed or soon to be nuclear armed adversaries. The more nukes in the world, the larger the chance those totally well-adjusted Islamic nutjobs fighting for the death of all non-believers since 632 will get their hands on them and the fewer non-believers there will be to non-believe. You are a believer, aren't you?
Deterrence? Against what, precisely? The little saw-off runts running the political jail and the Peoples Republican Army have aspirations to show their dicks are not as small as we believe. Taiwan is next...among others. Will the U.S. threaten nuclear war to defend Taiwan? I think not. And if that China takes Taiwan, the pacifist element in Japan will be hard pressed to restrain that country from going nuclear. S. Korea has already demonstrated an exploration of nuclear potential. Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines will similarly be looking for a counter-weight.
The U.S. IBCM deterrence will mean nothing in this scenario.
Bingo! Siberia is rich prize that would soooooo much richer if it were...depopulated...from those pesky non-Hans. Shades of Tibet? The Han think very long term...centuries. What is Russia willing to risk to keep Siberia?
It could be 1000 cuts, but I think it will be more a shift in the computing platform to pervasive computing devices which are small, ungeek centered, and have dual biz and home use. How many will need to use Word when documents are short, quick, and formatted depending upon the device they are viewed on? At that point, who really needs Word? I'd venture a smaller share than do now. One can make similar arguments for the rest of MS's alleged suite. And small, pervasive devices don't need a common OS. An OS that fits the device will do since it will need to be optimized to limit power consumption and tailored to how the device is being used.
But then it won't matter how they bleed if they bleed.
"provide ways of using existing Windows programs" Maybe, they'd better not be UI centric programs or the underlying assumptions will come bleeding through.
"It's a nice, polished product, but true to Apple strategy, it could be SO MUCH MORE yet it is not because they're going to improve it incrementally to maximize sales."
Yep, yer right, they should have jumped out there several years late after they learned all the lessons from those non-existent users with all foreseeable problems solved just so geeks like you can be pleased. Brilliant strategy. How many products are you going launch this year, I wish to buy your stock now while it's cheap.
Maybe they are running out of their daughters to strap suicide vests. That was also one of their favorite tricks. And then there is that passage in the Koran about 72 bananas....
I've gone maybe where someone shouldn't, I incorporate the peanut butter and jelly into the dough. After baking, I just slice of a slab of peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Nice proposal. Now, as an administrator in charge of Oil Naughtiness, could you please submit your studies showing the efficacy of your scheme. Also include your published, peer reviewed papers as well. We'd like a thorough understanding before we make any decision involving billions of dollars in taxpayer money and possibly adverse lawyer scum induced lawsuits in case of unexpected consequences. You'll be putting your home up for collateral, of course. We must be sure you have skin in the game, or where we can remove it from you in case this blows up in our faces.
Just to amplify that, there is no acid test for when a gui is a good gui. In addition, what's a good gui for a novice is not necessarily a good gui for an experienced person. The only way to get a good gui is to do user testing, and not just any group of users will do. So a company either whacks together something an engineer thought was a good gui, or relies on a gui guru who knows how past guis work so the next one must be just like the others.
Add to those problems that a good gui can easily take over 50% of your development time. And it won't really work unless the underlying system it is abstracting is already there. So you can spend more time doing a Potemkin village for your gui developers so they aren't waiting for the underlying system developers to finish. But now you have the problem of combining the underlying system with the gui using more time. The consequence is the system gets drawn up first, and now it is time to draw up the gui. But Sales is climbing on your back saying they need it yesterday because they've already sold one. So system developing starts up before the gui gets drawn up. By the time the gui is being developed, time is already short and so anything that half-way works get shoved out the door.
Cyber war got its provenance from Georgia and Estonia. The U.S. had nothing to do with it.
The taxes were never raised to cover the wars. They should have been. They will in the future.
Drones didn't make war more popular, look at the current poll numbers on the wars. They are an effective military option. The Taliban and Al Qaeda got their start well before the U.S. discovered drones. The Taliban and Al Qaeda continued the fine tradition of Islamo-Fascists of death to all who are not Muslim...and those who are but are not the right kind of Muslim.
Cyberwars are cheap compared to any of the U.S. Airforce's fighter/bomber programs. It is important that one develop sense of proportion.
The U.S. (well, the people, anyhow) didn't understand militant Islam before 9/11. Yet, it contributed to the economic slowdown after the.bust. All it will take is for the the Islamic nutjobs to get control of Pakistan's nukes to make the even the blind realize the threat...assuming that hasn't already happened given the alleged leadership in that alleged country.
Re 2: errr... what are you using for a front end. I use TeXShop, it has the tex output preview in a separate window and activates that winder right after I hit the Latex button at the top of the source window and the backend finishes texing. Hell, even old Blue Sky's version did this through the 90's.
Actually, I always thought of Ballmer as employing Mr. Haney from Green Acres: (in a nasal tone) Mr. Douglas, have I got a deal for you...a genuine developed exclusively with you in mind.
Yeah, yer right, Apple's marketing dept should start saying things like: Buy our iPhone, it isn't any better than anyone else's and in many ways it is worse... please visit Slashdot.org for reasons why you should NOT buy our iPhone.
"You meant to say "it works for everything we CURRENTLY know about"."
I don't think that fixes the problem since then we would ever know whether a physical theory is complete or consistent. This why I phrased it as "it works for everything we know about" meaning at the time of utterance.
"You could probably simplify your argument to logical theories are simple enough to be believed unmodifiable over time, but physics is not." Not really. They are modified all the time, but the modifications are deemed to yield different logics. That isn't the crux, the crux is the models are mathematical models, not physical models.
Slashdot Mirror
Errr...the cartels controlling poppy production ARE the Taliban. And even if they weren't, the U.S. would shortly be accused of drugging its population for whatever passes for the latest conspiracy theory including Jews, the Tri-Lateral Commission, New World Order, and Al Qaeda (the CIA is secretly in bed with them, you know...WTC was a Jewish CIA plot to...to...clear land for brand new buildings...errr....or something...)
Yes, when they were so neutral, they decided that the Nazies were just those guys...even sold them iron ore. Neutrality isn't a paradigm of virtue.
Ack! This is against the Geneva Convention and certainly violates any rules of good taste in warfare. What if the Iranians fire back with rancid goat cheese. How will you feel about it then?
They only canceled some further purchases, the U.S. will still have a fleet of those. Impressive plane, impressive budget.
Iran, China, and N. Korea. All have ideas about conquering nations the U.S. has treaties to defend. Without those treaties, the Gulf States, Taiwan, and S. Korea would be looking to develop nukes to counter their nuclear armed or soon to be nuclear armed adversaries. The more nukes in the world, the larger the chance those totally well-adjusted Islamic nutjobs fighting for the death of all non-believers since 632 will get their hands on them and the fewer non-believers there will be to non-believe. You are a believer, aren't you?
Deterrence? Against what, precisely? The little saw-off runts running the political jail and the Peoples Republican Army have aspirations to show their dicks are not as small as we believe. Taiwan is next...among others. Will the U.S. threaten nuclear war to defend Taiwan? I think not. And if that China takes Taiwan, the pacifist element in Japan will be hard pressed to restrain that country from going nuclear. S. Korea has already demonstrated an exploration of nuclear potential. Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines will similarly be looking for a counter-weight.
The U.S. IBCM deterrence will mean nothing in this scenario.
Bingo! Siberia is rich prize that would soooooo much richer if it were...depopulated...from those pesky non-Hans. Shades of Tibet? The Han think very long term...centuries. What is Russia willing to risk to keep Siberia?
Hmmm...seems the Chinese think it is helping them. Now, why would that be?
It could be 1000 cuts, but I think it will be more a shift in the computing platform to pervasive computing devices which are small, ungeek centered, and have dual biz and home use. How many will need to use Word when documents are short, quick, and formatted depending upon the device they are viewed on? At that point, who really needs Word? I'd venture a smaller share than do now. One can make similar arguments for the rest of MS's alleged suite. And small, pervasive devices don't need a common OS. An OS that fits the device will do since it will need to be optimized to limit power consumption and tailored to how the device is being used.
But then it won't matter how they bleed if they bleed.
"provide ways of using existing Windows programs" Maybe, they'd better not be UI centric programs or the underlying assumptions will come bleeding through.
"It's a nice, polished product, but true to Apple strategy, it could be SO MUCH MORE yet it is not because they're going to improve it incrementally to maximize sales."
Yep, yer right, they should have jumped out there several years late after they learned all the lessons from those non-existent users with all foreseeable problems solved just so geeks like you can be pleased. Brilliant strategy. How many products are you going launch this year, I wish to buy your stock now while it's cheap.
Maybe they are running out of their daughters to strap suicide vests. That was also one of their favorite tricks. And then there is that passage in the Koran about 72 bananas....
Do you really believe Ballmer is making patent decisions? C'mon, he fucks up the company at much higher levels than this. Get a sense of proportion.
I've gone maybe where someone shouldn't, I incorporate the peanut butter and jelly into the dough. After baking, I just slice of a slab of peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
It is important to develop a sense of proportion and the differences between apples and oranges.
Nice proposal. Now, as an administrator in charge of Oil Naughtiness, could you please submit your studies showing the efficacy of your scheme. Also include your published, peer reviewed papers as well. We'd like a thorough understanding before we make any decision involving billions of dollars in taxpayer money and possibly adverse lawyer scum induced lawsuits in case of unexpected consequences. You'll be putting your home up for collateral, of course. We must be sure you have skin in the game, or where we can remove it from you in case this blows up in our faces.
Just to amplify that, there is no acid test for when a gui is a good gui. In addition, what's a good gui for a novice is not necessarily a good gui for an experienced person. The only way to get a good gui is to do user testing, and not just any group of users will do. So a company either whacks together something an engineer thought was a good gui, or relies on a gui guru who knows how past guis work so the next one must be just like the others.
Add to those problems that a good gui can easily take over 50% of your development time. And it won't really work unless the underlying system it is abstracting is already there. So you can spend more time doing a Potemkin village for your gui developers so they aren't waiting for the underlying system developers to finish. But now you have the problem of combining the underlying system with the gui using more time. The consequence is the system gets drawn up first, and now it is time to draw up the gui. But Sales is climbing on your back saying they need it yesterday because they've already sold one. So system developing starts up before the gui gets drawn up. By the time the gui is being developed, time is already short and so anything that half-way works get shoved out the door.
Cyber war got its provenance from Georgia and Estonia. The U.S. had nothing to do with it.
The taxes were never raised to cover the wars. They should have been. They will in the future.
Drones didn't make war more popular, look at the current poll numbers on the wars. They are an effective military option. The Taliban and Al Qaeda got their start well before the U.S. discovered drones. The Taliban and Al Qaeda continued the fine tradition of Islamo-Fascists of death to all who are not Muslim...and those who are but are not the right kind of Muslim.
Cyberwars are cheap compared to any of the U.S. Airforce's fighter/bomber programs. It is important that one develop sense of proportion.
The U.S. (well, the people, anyhow) didn't understand militant Islam before 9/11. Yet, it contributed to the economic slowdown after the .bust. All it will take is for the the Islamic nutjobs to get control of Pakistan's nukes to make the even the blind realize the threat...assuming that hasn't already happened given the alleged leadership in that alleged country.
I use the package wrapfig for inline text boxes, is that not what you are asking for?
Re 2: errr... what are you using for a front end. I use TeXShop, it has the tex output preview in a separate window and activates that winder right after I hit the Latex button at the top of the source window and the backend finishes texing. Hell, even old Blue Sky's version did this through the 90's.
Actually, I always thought of Ballmer as employing Mr. Haney from Green Acres: (in a nasal tone) Mr. Douglas, have I got a deal for you...a genuine developed exclusively with you in mind.
Could you kindly stop with the Business School Product exhaust? I feel unclean.
So you say you slept through the Clinton administration? That's a long sleep, how did you do that?
Yeah, yer right, Apple's marketing dept should start saying things like: Buy our iPhone, it isn't any better than anyone else's and in many ways it is worse... please visit Slashdot.org for reasons why you should NOT buy our iPhone.
"You meant to say "it works for everything we CURRENTLY know about"."
I don't think that fixes the problem since then we would ever know whether a physical theory is complete or consistent. This why I phrased it as "it works for everything we know about" meaning at the time of utterance.
"You could probably simplify your argument to logical theories are simple enough to be believed unmodifiable over time, but physics is not." Not really. They are modified all the time, but the modifications are deemed to yield different logics. That isn't the crux, the crux is the models are mathematical models, not physical models.