Because a bunch of $20B companies pay Google to license their technology for use on intranets. Why'd they do that? Because they use the free version at home, and they like it. The free products are the honey. The big business that pay for B2B services that build on those free products are the prize.
I was pretty much basing my opinion on the fact that I don't think anyone who is actually that smart would make such an asinine blanket statement about people simply because he disagrees with them on some philosophical issues. It came across as much more "pissing-contest" like than I intended.:-)
I'm pretty sure I'm much, MUCH smarter than you are, and I tend to vote republican. I think a more accurate generalization is that smart people don't blindly pledge absolute allegiance to any party. You seem to have gone above and beyond that, and created a fictional world where people who ever vote for the other party (which you seem to have transformed into "the enemy") are necessarily "not smart", and that, of course, is absurd on its face.
That sort of language smacks of mental illness. You seem to have set up an elaborate mental defense mechanism to deal with feelings--or at least fears--of inadequacy.
WND doesn't claim as it's mission to organization and "make accessible" the world's information. Google does. I think that most people here would agree that Google has some moral responsibility to be objective and fair as it controls the flow of ideas and information. If a news search includes ridiculously biased left-wing blogs with much less credibility than even WND, most rational people would expect it to include WND as well.
I wasn't aware that WND had been delisted, but do you REALLY want to go down that road, of letting Google decide what is and isn't a news site? There is a pretty solid argument to be made--based on anecdotal evidence--that Google's opinion of whether or not a site is a "news" site depends rather heavily on its politics. That policy also quite obviously carries over to other properties, like YouTube.
And WND, while obnoxious, is much more of a "news site" than many, MANY of the others listed by Google. You want to get rid of WND? Get rid of every blog first, then you might have a case.
In any case, it's a free country and Google can do what it wants with its logo, but there is no question that they omit certain holidays to make a very antagonistic political statement... it's fairly transparent and anyone who wants to argue with me should save their breath. It should come as no surprise that the people they were trying to tweak got a little upset about it, and, oops!... they are much wealthier and potentially harmful to google's bottom line than the types who would applaud them for the finger-in-the-eye to the military.
The cameras aren't for aiming. They are there so that the pilot can see below his aircraft, particularly when landing the STOVL variant. Most of the time, the HMD will simply show the HUD-type symbology (altitude, airspeed, pitch ladder, designated target locations and info, etc). Using the display management switch (DMS) on the stick, the pilot can turn the video on or off.
Most of the time, that DAS video is available through a DAS page on the MFD. It would be overwhelming and pointless to have it on all of the time.
The JHMCS you linked to is a HMD projected HUD with visual targeting, off-axis target symbology, etc. The one going on the JSF has all of that (except maybe for the targeting), but it also allows the pilot to look straight through the plane, and see the ground or other objects that would normally be occluded by the airframe. This is only possible because of the JSF's DAS cams, which are synthesized into a single image and piped into the HMD... other planes don't have those, to my knowledge, so they could never have that ability.
That's the whole point of the JSF... cost effectiveness. It is one modular plane with 3 variants: a traditional fighter, a STOVL marine version, and a more rugged carrier version with a hook, etc. It is designed to be one plane that can be produced for all branches (hence the term "Joint" Strike Fighter), which will lower production costs. It will replace pretty much every fighter-like aircraft in use, except for the F-22.
This plane will be the "high-tech stealth plane" taking radars out. And if it is ever engaged in a dog-fight at supersonic speeds, the pilot has done something wrong. They almost didn't even put a gun on it (only one variant got a gun, IIRC), because it is meant to take out threats WELL before they are visible.
One more thing, supersonic speeds are essential for combat aircraft... they have to get in and hit targets before anyone hears them coming (have you never been to an airshow where they do a low supersonic pass?). Supersonic capability itself isn't all that expensive... supercruising capability is more expensive, and JSF doesn't do that.
I can't see the article, but the Joint Strike Fighter (F35) will have this capability as well. There are multiple DAS cams looking in pretty much every direction, and that imagery (or IR, etc) can be synthesized into a single large image and piped into the HMD, giving the illusion of seeing "through the plane". One cool thing about the JSF is that the computer will mask out the part of the image that would occlude the touchscreen multi-function display, so the pilot can ALWAYS see the important stuff in front of him/her.
I think that Microsoft's "ribbon" based GUI in MS Office 2007 is an incredible step ahead for UI design, and that it hasn't gotten the credit it deserves.
Maybe you aren't aware of this, but Colbert's campaign is actually a joke, a parody. It would have been a laughable embarrassment if they let him on the ballot.
Let's say you want to add the leader of Libya. According to this wikipedia article, there are no less than 36 ways to spell his name, including, but not limited to:
And that doesn't even take into consideration any other permutations/variants of his "middle names". In other words, it isn't like there are actually 700,000 people on the list. I would guess that the number is actually much, much smaller than 100,000, but they have names that are not spelled with latin characters, and which can be transcribed in myriad ways.
I was reading the language that you excerpted in your original comment. According to that language, the downloaders are inarguably the "hackers". Let's not go down the strawman road... I didn't say that using bittorrent was hacking, I said that downloading the movies illegally was hacking, according to the law you yourself quoted.
The definition you quoted above would make the bittorrent users--whose conduct carries the intent to fraudulently obtain an item of value, ie a movie, from the MPAA--the "hackers".
You actually suggesting that not only will Microsoft acquire Redhat, but it will do so and have the entire process completed (regulatory hurdles and all) in the next 15 months? Amazing.
So you're saying that Windows should be bundled as a CD (because it has earned its place in the box after years of consistently winning in the markets), and that Ubuntu should be selected for bundling as a CD (for no reason whatsoever, other than that YOU like it), and that everyone else should be excluded? That's pretty arbitrary.
How about just letting people buy what they want, and letting companies bundle whatever they think their customers want? What's with all of this totalitarian bullshit?
Ubuntu is nice, and it is by far the Linux distro that is closest to competing with Windows on the desktop, but Windows--whether you want to admit it or not--is what people are used to and it works remarkably well.
Slashdot Mirror
Because a bunch of $20B companies pay Google to license their technology for use on intranets. Why'd they do that? Because they use the free version at home, and they like it. The free products are the honey. The big business that pay for B2B services that build on those free products are the prize.
I was pretty much basing my opinion on the fact that I don't think anyone who is actually that smart would make such an asinine blanket statement about people simply because he disagrees with them on some philosophical issues. It came across as much more "pissing-contest" like than I intended. :-)
That's quite the fallacious argument you've constructed there!
I'm pretty sure I'm much, MUCH smarter than you are, and I tend to vote republican. I think a more accurate generalization is that smart people don't blindly pledge absolute allegiance to any party. You seem to have gone above and beyond that, and created a fictional world where people who ever vote for the other party (which you seem to have transformed into "the enemy") are necessarily "not smart", and that, of course, is absurd on its face.
That sort of language smacks of mental illness. You seem to have set up an elaborate mental defense mechanism to deal with feelings--or at least fears--of inadequacy.
WND doesn't claim as it's mission to organization and "make accessible" the world's information. Google does. I think that most people here would agree that Google has some moral responsibility to be objective and fair as it controls the flow of ideas and information. If a news search includes ridiculously biased left-wing blogs with much less credibility than even WND, most rational people would expect it to include WND as well.
I wasn't aware that WND had been delisted, but do you REALLY want to go down that road, of letting Google decide what is and isn't a news site? There is a pretty solid argument to be made--based on anecdotal evidence--that Google's opinion of whether or not a site is a "news" site depends rather heavily on its politics. That policy also quite obviously carries over to other properties, like YouTube.
And WND, while obnoxious, is much more of a "news site" than many, MANY of the others listed by Google. You want to get rid of WND? Get rid of every blog first, then you might have a case.
In any case, it's a free country and Google can do what it wants with its logo, but there is no question that they omit certain holidays to make a very antagonistic political statement... it's fairly transparent and anyone who wants to argue with me should save their breath. It should come as no surprise that the people they were trying to tweak got a little upset about it, and, oops!... they are much wealthier and potentially harmful to google's bottom line than the types who would applaud them for the finger-in-the-eye to the military.
The cameras aren't for aiming. They are there so that the pilot can see below his aircraft, particularly when landing the STOVL variant. Most of the time, the HMD will simply show the HUD-type symbology (altitude, airspeed, pitch ladder, designated target locations and info, etc). Using the display management switch (DMS) on the stick, the pilot can turn the video on or off.
Most of the time, that DAS video is available through a DAS page on the MFD. It would be overwhelming and pointless to have it on all of the time.
The JHMCS you linked to is a HMD projected HUD with visual targeting, off-axis target symbology, etc. The one going on the JSF has all of that (except maybe for the targeting), but it also allows the pilot to look straight through the plane, and see the ground or other objects that would normally be occluded by the airframe. This is only possible because of the JSF's DAS cams, which are synthesized into a single image and piped into the HMD... other planes don't have those, to my knowledge, so they could never have that ability.
That's the whole point of the JSF... cost effectiveness. It is one modular plane with 3 variants: a traditional fighter, a STOVL marine version, and a more rugged carrier version with a hook, etc. It is designed to be one plane that can be produced for all branches (hence the term "Joint" Strike Fighter), which will lower production costs. It will replace pretty much every fighter-like aircraft in use, except for the F-22.
This plane will be the "high-tech stealth plane" taking radars out. And if it is ever engaged in a dog-fight at supersonic speeds, the pilot has done something wrong. They almost didn't even put a gun on it (only one variant got a gun, IIRC), because it is meant to take out threats WELL before they are visible.
One more thing, supersonic speeds are essential for combat aircraft... they have to get in and hit targets before anyone hears them coming (have you never been to an airshow where they do a low supersonic pass?). Supersonic capability itself isn't all that expensive... supercruising capability is more expensive, and JSF doesn't do that.
I can't see the article, but the Joint Strike Fighter (F35) will have this capability as well. There are multiple DAS cams looking in pretty much every direction, and that imagery (or IR, etc) can be synthesized into a single large image and piped into the HMD, giving the illusion of seeing "through the plane". One cool thing about the JSF is that the computer will mask out the part of the image that would occlude the touchscreen multi-function display, so the pilot can ALWAYS see the important stuff in front of him/her.
I think that Microsoft's "ribbon" based GUI in MS Office 2007 is an incredible step ahead for UI design, and that it hasn't gotten the credit it deserves.
Maybe you aren't aware of this, but Colbert's campaign is actually a joke, a parody. It would have been a laughable embarrassment if they let him on the ballot.
Nice comment, considering that you pulled it right out of your ass.
Let's say you want to add the leader of Libya. According to this wikipedia article, there are no less than 36 ways to spell his name, including, but not limited to:
Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi
Mu'ammar al-Qaf
Muammar al-Gaddafi
Muammar al-Qaddafi
Moammar Gadhafi
Muammar al-Qadhafi
Mu'ammar Qaddafi
Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi
Moammar El-Gadhafi
Muammar al-Gathafi
And that doesn't even take into consideration any other permutations/variants of his "middle names". In other words, it isn't like there are actually 700,000 people on the list. I would guess that the number is actually much, much smaller than 100,000, but they have names that are not spelled with latin characters, and which can be transcribed in myriad ways.
And, of course, the warrantless "wiretaps" are not directed at US citizens inside the US.
...was a thousand typical slashdot moonbat heads exploding.
Because slashdotters are kneejerk partisan morons, for the most part.
Nevermind, I misread the "protected computer" clause.
I was reading the language that you excerpted in your original comment. According to that language, the downloaders are inarguably the "hackers". Let's not go down the strawman road... I didn't say that using bittorrent was hacking, I said that downloading the movies illegally was hacking, according to the law you yourself quoted.
Because you don't sound like a very fun person.
The definition you quoted above would make the bittorrent users--whose conduct carries the intent to fraudulently obtain an item of value, ie a movie, from the MPAA--the "hackers".
You actually suggesting that not only will Microsoft acquire Redhat, but it will do so and have the entire process completed (regulatory hurdles and all) in the next 15 months? Amazing.
They can recommend, but the judge sentences. This woman was an asshat, plain and simple.
So you're saying that Windows should be bundled as a CD (because it has earned its place in the box after years of consistently winning in the markets), and that Ubuntu should be selected for bundling as a CD (for no reason whatsoever, other than that YOU like it), and that everyone else should be excluded? That's pretty arbitrary.
How about just letting people buy what they want, and letting companies bundle whatever they think their customers want? What's with all of this totalitarian bullshit?
Ubuntu is nice, and it is by far the Linux distro that is closest to competing with Windows on the desktop, but Windows--whether you want to admit it or not--is what people are used to and it works remarkably well.