First of all, the article you link to is very old (2002, and talking about WMP8). Since then the public outlook on privacy has changed, issues and expectation have been clarified, things like opt-out have become less acceptable, and so on. Current versions of WMP not only don't enable phoning hoome by default, but also open a window during installation asking you about the privacy options you want. Apple seems to have missed on some of those developments.
I hear that Japan has started a Zen Buddhist Quantum logic lab that will be neither evil nor not evil nor both evil and not evil nor neither evil nor not evil.
Look, it's one thing to support small clusters. That's a reasonably profitable market place, and I can't imagine a modern OS that is marketed as a server solution not offering that feature. But what we're talking about here is supercomputer clusters, beasties used in nuclear weapons research, weather forecasting and other forms of computational-intensive work. This isn't exactly a huge market. In fact it's a downright small one, dominated by custom applications and by a few companies with a lot of years of expertise in high end computing.
OTOH, a very similar point of view was expressed in the past about computers in general: computers are beasties, to be used indeed only in weather research, weather forecasting and computational-intensive work. Or, as the man said, "I can imagine a world-wide market for about five computers".
Gates came with the "a computer on every desk" vision, and so we got to the current situation, where a current desktop-level Pentium or Athlon machine is many times more powerful than a military supercomputer of a few years ago. Given the continuous advance of technology, today's supercomputer will be tomorrow's desktop machine. So pushing the OS to deal with the (currently) high-level features of supercomputers, and making it easy to use seems like a reasonable strategy for future-proofing your software.
Could you explain how IIS is more secure than Apache?
I could: Apache 2.0.x had 28 security advisories since release (2 still unpatched at the time of writing), while IIS 6.0 had only 2 until now, and they were both patched.
Granted, its not the CTRL-ALT-DEL and then "Lock workstation" solution, but once you have it setup, its easier to lock a screen on the Mac, than on Windows.
CTRL-ALT-DEL + Lock works, but there is a much quicker way in Windows: press WINDOWS key-L. Much easier than hunting about for a small icon on the menu bar, and selecting a menu option. I do that every time I leave my desk - it's a reflex action now.
CA, NCR and IBM are the service providers; Novell's providing the directory service.
The ICS (Integrated Cargo System) application is running on an IBM OS390 mainframe; the OS is ZOS, the database is DB2. The web interface is Java, using WebSphere.
The CCF (Customs Connect Facility) runs on Sun Solaris Unix platforms (using a variety of other servers for validation and transformation). Again, the database is DB2 and the interface uses WebSphere Java.
I won't buy magazines because they're all full of ads. Why can't they make a magazine with no ads?
FWIW, I prefer British magazines over the equivalent American ones; they have a reasonable amount of ads, and the articles are usually much better. I read photography magazines, some audio and computer magazines, and the above observation holds for all cases.
Last I checked, Google didn't give you the opinions of a bunch of geeks.
But you can get them from Google Groups. Usenet may be litle known to newer internet users, but you'll still find lots of opinions and advice from real users, and much less commercial spam than on the web.
When I'm interested in some product, I always start my documentation on Google Groups.
Apache has 70% of the market, IIS has about 20%, yet the the former has only two unpatched holes.
Since Apache is more popular (by 3 1/2 times), you'd think it would have 3 1/2 unpatched vulnerabilities, eh?
So Apache 2 has had 27 Secunia advisories, with 2 still unpatched, and IIS 6 has only had 3, of which one is still unpatched. Seems to support the GP's theory pretty well. Your point?
well as i understand it they only did dev for the mac because it would prove they weren't a monopoly, and they stopped doing it years ago.
Well, no, and no. Microsoft developed software for the Mac since the beginning, long before there was talk of monopolies. Some of the best known MS products were originally developed for the Mac. And the development continues today.
Now I would like you to compile a list of microsoft products that work in linux.
Why particularly Linux? Let me point out that Microsoft is the world's second Mac developer (after Apple itself), so they're obviously not "Windows only". And they have released code for FreeBSD as well, for example here. If MS developed for Linux, you'd ask why they don't develop for any other pet OS of yours, and show *that* as a proof of evil. IOW, you don't have an argument.
Just because there are more advisories for a paticular product doesn't mean that it actually contains more bugs, just that more are being found. [...]Apache is much more widely used [...] --making bugs easier to locate
You're right, of course: widespread usage is a big factor in bug discovery. Be careful though: applying the same reasoning to Windows vs. Linux may cause serious karma damage.
tha last time i worked for a company it was in my resume that I could not work on a windows machine because I can't and I refuse.....
Well, some companies may hire you, but I wouldn't. At least not for any position that carries responsability. With such an example of zealotry over professionalism in the resume, I could never trust you to choose the best solution for *my* company, and not let your personal feelings decide for you.
Gaming wasn't a "loser" at +64%, but I get your point.
Well, the revenue did grow a lot, but the expenses for the segment grew even more, so the whole segment showed an even bigger operating loss than last year. That does make the segment a loser.
Yeah, but their gaming division is something like 60% up from last year. They are experiencing the exact opposite of what MS is experiencing. =)
Actually, the revenue for MS's Home and Entertainment division has also grown by something like 12%. More interesting is the fact that the operating loss for MS's H&E division has shrunk, while Sony's gaming segment operating loss has more than doubled (though it's still trivial compared to MS's). Numbers here: Sony and Microsoft. Actually, the division that made most money for Sony was the financial arm; both electronics and games are losers.
Actually, if you read the statement, it agrees with my views. (a) it passed peer review. Noone is questioning that.
I'm confused: the link I quoted says very specifically: [the paper] "was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process".
The practices mentioned above are here. I quote: "One of the Society's aims is to give its members an opportunity for prompt publication of their shorter contributions. Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors and appropriate referees".
One can argue that Sternberg was the acting managing editor at the time, and therefore qualified to do the review. The fact that no other members of the society or associated editors were consulted looks however very strange to me. Dr Sternberg had controversies with other associated editors before (see his site). Given that Dr. Sternberg himself is (by his own affirmation) a process structuralist, and therefore anti-darwinist, his decision to avoid talking to other editors, the fact that he handled all publishing process himself together with the fact that the peers he claims reviewed the paper are anonymous, I regard the Discovery Institute's claims of "peer reviewing" as quite suspect.
This article stood up to peer review, but was withdrawn because of political pressure.
No, it didn't. But it's always nice to play the martyr persecuted by the establishment.
This article stood up to peer review and was published
This article has very little to do with ID; it merely computes a probability for a certain type of mutation, using some assumptions. In order to make it into an example of irreductible complexity, you have to assert that the assumptions the authors used in the paper are valid in reality, and are the only ones possible; that's not correct, for a number of reasons. See a critique of the paper here
Dembsky
Dembsky's work is not accepted as valid by most scientists. See more on wikipedia if you're curious.
This article was done by a young-earth creationist, with creationist results
This is an interesting article, but it's only creationist if you go for the "God of the gaps" interpretation. There are indeed problems and unknowns in modern science. But that only means they need to be solved; they don't imply that the Earth was created 6000 years ago or all the associated mythological farrago.
Intelligent Design requires that intelligence can *only* arise by design.
Not quite. ID refers to the intelligence of the designer, not of the designed object. The saying was "The existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker". ID doesn't require that the designed object be intelligent; any physical system too complex to appear as a result of the action of natural forces will do.
ID proponents have offered, over the years, a number of examples of things they say are too complex to occur naturally. Many of them (see Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" for example) simply don't understand exactly how evolution works. Others live in the gaps: there *are* things that aren't known yet by science; ID folks postulate that the things science can't explain yet can only be explained through the intervention of an external intelligent force.
Basically, ID is the old argument from design in sheep's clothing: there is no mention of a "god" or of the Bible, which differentiates proponents of ID from old style creationists. But the inference is clear and left as an exercise for the reader.
The first version of optical mice needed to be used with a special mouse pad, with a metallic rectangular grid on the surface. The accuracy was pretty bad, and having to use this pad was no fun either. As mechanical mice got better, optical mice disappeared for many years. The newer ones do a lot of image processing internally, have much better accuracy and don't need a special mouse pad - which is why they've more or less replaced mechanical mice.
I'm sorry, all medical "science" does is stumble around in circles until they land on top of something remotely approaching the truth.
Are we talking about the same medical science that eradicated smallpox (a sickness that killed up to 40% of the afflicted and caused the death of about 2 million people in only in the year 1967)? The same medicine that reduced the cases of polio in the world from 350000 in 1988 to 759 in 2005 (till now)?
I'm sorry, but your complaints about margarine and/or eggs don't seem very significant when compared to those successes. So, medicine messes up sometimes. What science doesn't? The whole thing about sciences is that established beliefs are challenged again and again, and, when found faulty, they get replaced. Medicine is more exposed to distrust: few care whether fire is caused by an exothermic oxidation reaction or by phlogiston leaving the burning log; but when their health is in the balance, people get very interested. And I agree that many medical practitioners and researchers could do with learning better statistic and experimental methods. But let's not discard the whole thing because it can't give us exact guidance on margarine.
Microsoft using open source code at the same time they are attempting to outlaw open source is hypocritical.
It's hypocritical only if you ignore the facts, which are that MS (and quite a few other companies) don't have a problem with BSD-type licences; their objections are specifically against the GPL
Furthermore, they violated the terms (if not the spirit) of the BSD license by not attributing the original copyright holders in their advertisements.
And can you prove this, or is this more FUD? To help you, are you aware that the advertising clause has been removed from the BSD licence since 1999?
You can say E=U*I all you want, but that doesn't demonstrate it so.
It makes more sense to me that the heat given off should equal a percentage of current * resistance
I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for, but if you simply want the heat as a function of current and resistance, then replace U in equation 2 and you'll get
E = I^2 * R
There you go; you can verify the formula experimentally; double the current and watch the heat output increase four times. It's easiest if you have a calorimeter, but it should be easy to improvise a desktop setup sufficient for a qualitative verification.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's big secret Web 2.0 push is to copy everything Google does?
You're not in sync with the Slashdot weltanschauung: Microsoft's secret is to preemptively copy everything Google might eventually do!
Is this any different from Microsoft's Windows Media Player database that phones home or used to phone home? http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/wmp8dvd.ht m
Yes, it's different.
First of all, the article you link to is very old (2002, and talking about WMP8). Since then the public outlook on privacy has changed, issues and expectation have been clarified, things like opt-out have become less acceptable, and so on. Current versions of WMP not only don't enable phoning hoome by default, but also open a window during installation asking you about the privacy options you want. Apple seems to have missed on some of those developments.
I hear that Japan has started a Zen Buddhist Quantum logic lab that will be neither evil nor not evil nor both evil and not evil nor neither evil nor not evil.
So it is purple?
Mu
Look, it's one thing to support small clusters. That's a reasonably profitable market place, and I can't imagine a modern OS that is marketed as a server solution not offering that feature. But what we're talking about here is supercomputer clusters, beasties used in nuclear weapons research, weather forecasting and other forms of computational-intensive work. This isn't exactly a huge market. In fact it's a downright small one, dominated by custom applications and by a few companies with a lot of years of expertise in high end computing.
OTOH, a very similar point of view was expressed in the past about computers in general: computers are beasties, to be used indeed only in weather research, weather forecasting and computational-intensive work. Or, as the man said, "I can imagine a world-wide market for about five computers".
Gates came with the "a computer on every desk" vision, and so we got to the current situation, where a current desktop-level Pentium or Athlon machine is many times more powerful than a military supercomputer of a few years ago. Given the continuous advance of technology, today's supercomputer will be tomorrow's desktop machine. So pushing the OS to deal with the (currently) high-level features of supercomputers, and making it easy to use seems like a reasonable strategy for future-proofing your software.
Could you explain how IIS is more secure than Apache?
I could: Apache 2.0.x had 28 security advisories since release (2 still unpatched at the time of writing), while IIS 6.0 had only 2 until now, and they were both patched.
Granted, its not the CTRL-ALT-DEL and then "Lock workstation" solution, but once you have it setup, its easier to lock a screen on the Mac, than on Windows.
CTRL-ALT-DEL + Lock works, but there is a much quicker way in Windows: press WINDOWS key-L. Much easier than hunting about for a small icon on the menu bar, and selecting a menu option. I do that every time I leave my desk - it's a reflex action now.
What OS do they run?
What software do they use?
CA, NCR and IBM are the service providers; Novell's providing the directory service.
The ICS (Integrated Cargo System) application is running on an IBM OS390 mainframe; the OS is ZOS, the database is DB2. The web interface is Java, using WebSphere.
The CCF (Customs Connect Facility) runs on Sun Solaris Unix platforms (using a variety of other servers for validation and transformation). Again, the database is DB2 and the interface uses WebSphere Java.
More information here.
I won't buy magazines because they're all full of ads. Why can't they make a magazine with no ads?
FWIW, I prefer British magazines over the equivalent American ones; they have a reasonable amount of ads, and the articles are usually much better. I read photography magazines, some audio and computer magazines, and the above observation holds for all cases.
Last I checked, Google didn't give you the opinions of a bunch of geeks.
But you can get them from Google Groups. Usenet may be litle known to newer internet users, but you'll still find lots of opinions and advice from real users, and much less commercial spam than on the web.
When I'm interested in some product, I always start my documentation on Google Groups.
Apache has 70% of the market, IIS has about 20%, yet the the former has only two unpatched holes.
Since Apache is more popular (by 3 1/2 times), you'd think it would have 3 1/2 unpatched vulnerabilities, eh?
So Apache 2 has had 27 Secunia advisories, with 2 still unpatched, and IIS 6 has only had 3, of which one is still unpatched. Seems to support the GP's theory pretty well. Your point?
well as i understand it they only did dev for the mac because it would prove they weren't a monopoly, and they stopped doing it years ago.
Well, no, and no. Microsoft developed software for the Mac since the beginning, long before there was talk of monopolies. Some of the best known MS products were originally developed for the Mac. And the development continues today.
Now I would like you to compile a list of microsoft products that work in linux.
Why particularly Linux? Let me point out that Microsoft is the world's second Mac developer (after Apple itself), so they're obviously not "Windows only". And they have released code for FreeBSD as well, for example here. If MS developed for Linux, you'd ask why they don't develop for any other pet OS of yours, and show *that* as a proof of evil. IOW, you don't have an argument.
I still haven't seen any games and it's like 2 months from launch.
Here's a list; here's another; yet another here. Finding them took all of 20 seconds on Google.
Just because there are more advisories for a paticular product doesn't mean that it actually contains more bugs, just that more are being found. [...]Apache is much more widely used [...] --making bugs easier to locate
You're right, of course: widespread usage is a big factor in bug discovery. Be careful though: applying the same reasoning to Windows vs. Linux may cause serious karma damage.
...of COURSE you're using IIS. It's far superior to Apache...
In what way? Seriously, I havent heard anyone claim that for years, I'm very intrested in what has changed...
Security?
And before you start rolling on the floor laughing, look here:
Apache 2.0 has had 25 advisories, of which 3 are still unpatched at the moment of this writing (one since March 2004)
IIS 6.0 has been affected by a grand total of 2 advisories, both patched.
tha last time i worked for a company it was in my resume that I could not work on a windows machine because I can't and I refuse.....
Well, some companies may hire you, but I wouldn't. At least not for any position that carries responsability. With such an example of zealotry over professionalism in the resume, I could never trust you to choose the best solution for *my* company, and not let your personal feelings decide for you.
Gaming wasn't a "loser" at +64%, but I get your point.
Well, the revenue did grow a lot, but the expenses for the segment grew even more, so the whole segment showed an even bigger operating loss than last year. That does make the segment a loser.
Yeah, but their gaming division is something like 60% up from last year. They are experiencing the exact opposite of what MS is experiencing. =)
Actually, the revenue for MS's Home and Entertainment division has also grown by something like 12%. More interesting is the fact that the operating loss for MS's H&E division has shrunk, while Sony's gaming segment operating loss has more than doubled (though it's still trivial compared to MS's). Numbers here: Sony and Microsoft. Actually, the division that made most money for Sony was the financial arm; both electronics and games are losers.
Actually, if you read the statement, it agrees with my views. (a) it passed peer review. Noone is questioning that.
I'm confused: the link I quoted says very specifically: [the paper] "was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process".
The practices mentioned above are here. I quote: "One of the Society's aims is to give its members an opportunity for prompt publication of their shorter contributions. Manuscripts are reviewed by a board of Associate Editors and appropriate referees".
One can argue that Sternberg was the acting managing editor at the time, and therefore qualified to do the review. The fact that no other members of the society or associated editors were consulted looks however very strange to me. Dr Sternberg had controversies with other associated editors before (see his site). Given that Dr. Sternberg himself is (by his own affirmation) a process structuralist, and therefore anti-darwinist, his decision to avoid talking to other editors, the fact that he handled all publishing process himself together with the fact that the peers he claims reviewed the paper are anonymous, I regard the Discovery Institute's claims of "peer reviewing" as quite suspect.
This article stood up to peer review, but was withdrawn because of political pressure.
No, it didn't. But it's always nice to play the martyr persecuted by the establishment.
This article stood up to peer review and was published
This article has very little to do with ID; it merely computes a probability for a certain type of mutation, using some assumptions. In order to make it into an example of irreductible complexity, you have to assert that the assumptions the authors used in the paper are valid in reality, and are the only ones possible; that's not correct, for a number of reasons. See a critique of the paper here
Dembsky
Dembsky's work is not accepted as valid by most scientists. See more on wikipedia if you're curious.
This article was done by a young-earth creationist, with creationist results
This is an interesting article, but it's only creationist if you go for the "God of the gaps" interpretation. There are indeed problems and unknowns in modern science. But that only means they need to be solved; they don't imply that the Earth was created 6000 years ago or all the associated mythological farrago.
Intelligent Design requires that intelligence can *only* arise by design.
Not quite. ID refers to the intelligence of the designer, not of the designed object. The saying was "The existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker". ID doesn't require that the designed object be intelligent; any physical system too complex to appear as a result of the action of natural forces will do.
ID proponents have offered, over the years, a number of examples of things they say are too complex to occur naturally. Many of them (see Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" for example) simply don't understand exactly how evolution works. Others live in the gaps: there *are* things that aren't known yet by science; ID folks postulate that the things science can't explain yet can only be explained through the intervention of an external intelligent force.
Basically, ID is the old argument from design in sheep's clothing: there is no mention of a "god" or of the Bible, which differentiates proponents of ID from old style creationists. But the inference is clear and left as an exercise for the reader.
Selling optical mice in 1983
Yes.
The first version of optical mice needed to be used with a special mouse pad, with a metallic rectangular grid on the surface. The accuracy was pretty bad, and having to use this pad was no fun either. As mechanical mice got better, optical mice disappeared for many years. The newer ones do a lot of image processing internally, have much better accuracy and don't need a special mouse pad - which is why they've more or less replaced mechanical mice.
I'm sorry, all medical "science" does is stumble around in circles until they land on top of something remotely approaching the truth.
Are we talking about the same medical science that eradicated smallpox (a sickness that killed up to 40% of the afflicted and caused the death of about 2 million people in only in the year 1967)? The same medicine that reduced the cases of polio in the world from 350000 in 1988 to 759 in 2005 (till now)?
I'm sorry, but your complaints about margarine and/or eggs don't seem very significant when compared to those successes. So, medicine messes up sometimes. What science doesn't? The whole thing about sciences is that established beliefs are challenged again and again, and, when found faulty, they get replaced. Medicine is more exposed to distrust: few care whether fire is caused by an exothermic oxidation reaction or by phlogiston leaving the burning log; but when their health is in the balance, people get very interested. And I agree that many medical practitioners and researchers could do with learning better statistic and experimental methods. But let's not discard the whole thing because it can't give us exact guidance on margarine.
Microsoft using open source code at the same time they are attempting to outlaw open source is hypocritical.
It's hypocritical only if you ignore the facts, which are that MS (and quite a few other companies) don't have a problem with BSD-type licences; their objections are specifically against the GPL
Furthermore, they violated the terms (if not the spirit) of the BSD license by not attributing the original copyright holders in their advertisements.
And can you prove this, or is this more FUD? To help you, are you aware that the advertising clause has been removed from the BSD licence since 1999?
I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for, but if you simply want the heat as a function of current and resistance, then replace U in equation 2 and you'll get
There you go; you can verify the formula experimentally; double the current and watch the heat output increase four times. It's easiest if you have a calorimeter, but it should be easy to improvise a desktop setup sufficient for a qualitative verification.