That's my thinking. If all you have to do is a quick rejig and recompile because the APIs are so close to the Android ones, then it's a near-zero effort situation. I don't know much about the new platform, but I thought I had read that it would support Android apps out of the box, so it may literally may be just pushing a button.
Not that there's a damned wrong with that. If Android compatibility or portability is good enough, then you already have thousands of apps ready to go and you don't need to put massive amounts of effort into convincing developers to support your platform (like Redmond is doing).
I'd probably counter your diatribe with something witty. But then that would take effort, and I think i'ts likely wasted on someone with the mentality of an eight year old and the social skills of a flatulent middle aged coke-snorting stripper.
The very fact that you use the term "mainstream" gives you away. Where new ideas prove to have greater explanatory power, they inevetiably win out. But crackpots and kooks, no, they do not win out.
Frankly I wish they would dispense with the half-assed warfare of football, and bring back the gladiatorial games. Instead of mock battles over some stupid ball and goal posts, let's just move the game straight to big motherfuckers cutting each other to pieces. We can triple their pay, and they likely won't make it to 40, let alone to the point where they start suffering the ill effects of neurological damage.
I mean, if these guys are going to end up brain damaged messes in the end anyways, why not just short circuit all of that and go for the blood. That's what audiences really want, anyways. I can just see Hank Williams Jr. shouting "It's time for Monday Night Slaughterhouse!"
It doesn't even apply to Darwin. Darwin quickly had many admirers among his fellow scientists once Origins was published. Yes, he had his critics, but large portions Victorian science community were quick to see the explanatory power of Natural Selection.
Yes, it's true. I reject pseudoscience because I'm not some pathetic loser who hates scientists and gloms on to some fucking fraud as a way of soothing the chip on his shoulder.
You're "revolutionary" scientist is a fucking retired chem professor who spouts absolute fucking nonsense.
But even Relativity had its antecedents; in particular Lorentz. Frankly I don't think Kuhn was right at all. Paradigm shifts are, if you really look at them, pretty illusory, and part of the way we treat most history.
It's like declaring 476 a watershed moment in European history, when in fact, the Roman decline had been going on for decades, and there wasn't much left of the Western Empire by the time Romulus Augustulus was locked away in Castellum Lucullanum.
We mark time that way, we look for what we can describe as the Big Date or the Big Theory or the Big Innovation, and then shove everything that led up to that event to one side.
As to SR and GR themselves, while some might describe them as paradigm shifts, modern physicists will continue to point out that while they revolutionized the way we look at the universe, they remain Classical theories, and that the real paradigm shift, if it can be called that, was Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect, which is one of the predecessors of quantum mechanics. But even with QM, there was a lot of groundwork laid before the theory itself was developed, so I have a problem with the claims that that was a paradigm shift.
The list goes on and on. Did Darwin's theory of Natural Selection represent a paradigm shift? In some respects, yes, but at the same time you have to give due credit to some of those who came before him, in particular Linnaeus, who recognized the notion of phylogenetic relationships to some degree. Most certainly Linnaeus's work deeply informed Darwin as he worked on Natural Selection. But even Linnaeus has his antecedents, dating back to Classical Greece.
Oh, and as to the Queen's power to dismiss ministers, individually or en masse, while it is present, it is considered that in all but the most extreme circumstances (such as a government refusing to recognize defeat), it would never be used unilaterally without the advice of the Prime Minister.
But that's not what realy happened in the 1975 Constitutional Crisis. Because of Australia's "Washminster" system (an elected upper house), a Government could retain the confidence of the lower house (which in other bicameral Westminster legislatures is the elected, and thus superior house) but find itself blocked by the upper house. This is a part of the Australian constitution that is poorly thought out, as it retains the notion of the lower house's confidence being required, but giving democratic legitimacy to the upper house, but not creating a safety valve. What happened wasn't a loss of confidence. Whitlam never lost the confidence of the House of Representatives, and thus in the Westminster system, retained confidence.
You will find Westminster constitutional experts pretty sharply divided on whether Governor General Sir John Kerr acted appropriately or not.
What the Australian crisis is a lesson in is making sure when you create an innovation in the Westminster system like an elected upper house, that you alter or eliminate the older constitutional precepts (often "unwritten" as in not being present in the primary constitutional documents) to re-balance the powers. If Australia had had a rule like the Senate being able to withdraw confidence (whether through a straight vote of no confidence, or by multiple rejections of a bill sent from the lower house), that would have eliminated the possibility of this kind of deadlock, but because Australia's version of Westminster retains the older British notions of lower house supremacy in matters of confidence, but gives the upper house the democratic mandate that the British House of Lords has not possessed for over two hundred years (even before the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 castrated the House of Lords powers), you create the chance of this sort of deadlock.
Probably a better modern example (since the House of Lords is a shadow of what it was even in the 19th century) is the Canadian Senate. It is modeled on the House of Lords as it stood in the mid-19th century. The only constitutional limitation put on the Senate is that supply bills must originate in the House of Commons. Other than that, the Senate's powers are equal to the House of Commons. But the Canadian constitution has two limitations on the Senate; one written and one unwritten. The written limitation is the power of the Prime Minister to go directly to the Queen (not the Governor General) and request an expansion of the Senate from its normal number of seats, thus allowing a Government to force through legislation in the case of a deadlock. The other is unwritten, and that is that the Senate does not enjoy the democratic mandate that the House of Commons does, and therefore it will 1. tend to pass Commons bills with much less trouble than it often might and 2. that the Senate's confidence is not required for the Government.
That isn't present in every Westminster parliament. In canada and the UK, defeat of any supply bill is a vote of no confidence and forces the resignation of the government, at which point the head of state has the choice to either dissolve the legislature and call new elections or ask some other party to form a government.
Then they don't need to use yum or aptitude or whatever. They can either link the libraries statically or supply their own libraries and point to them, and have the whole thing dump into its own directory. I've installed plenty of software like this. Just installed Alfresco and it comes with its own copies of Java, OpenOffice, PostgresSQL and Tomcat sitting in its own directory tree under/opt.
If they just static link the necessary libraries, the difficulty of getting the software running on any major distro version from the last few years is not that hard.
It's called hedging your bet. With the future of Windows as a major consumer OS up in there, and with the likelihood of a Linux-based gaming platform on the horizon, it seems an awfully good idea to get your developers, particularly your platform developers, thinking in terms of portability. That way, whoever the ultimate winners in the consumer market are, you didn't fuck up your own success by backing the horse that didn't even show.
It isn't 2005 anymore, and Redmond isn't the only game in town.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you asserting the "deadbeat" trait is genetic and can be bred for?
That's my thinking. If all you have to do is a quick rejig and recompile because the APIs are so close to the Android ones, then it's a near-zero effort situation. I don't know much about the new platform, but I thought I had read that it would support Android apps out of the box, so it may literally may be just pushing a button.
Not that there's a damned wrong with that. If Android compatibility or portability is good enough, then you already have thousands of apps ready to go and you don't need to put massive amounts of effort into convincing developers to support your platform (like Redmond is doing).
I'd probably counter your diatribe with something witty. But then that would take effort, and I think i'ts likely wasted on someone with the mentality of an eight year old and the social skills of a flatulent middle aged coke-snorting stripper.
Brought to you by "Tales From The Bathroom Mirror"
Frozen piss, of course.
The very fact that you use the term "mainstream" gives you away. Where new ideas prove to have greater explanatory power, they inevetiably win out. But crackpots and kooks, no, they do not win out.
Frankly I wish they would dispense with the half-assed warfare of football, and bring back the gladiatorial games. Instead of mock battles over some stupid ball and goal posts, let's just move the game straight to big motherfuckers cutting each other to pieces. We can triple their pay, and they likely won't make it to 40, let alone to the point where they start suffering the ill effects of neurological damage.
I mean, if these guys are going to end up brain damaged messes in the end anyways, why not just short circuit all of that and go for the blood. That's what audiences really want, anyways. I can just see Hank Williams Jr. shouting "It's time for Monday Night Slaughterhouse!"
It doesn't even apply to Darwin. Darwin quickly had many admirers among his fellow scientists once Origins was published. Yes, he had his critics, but large portions Victorian science community were quick to see the explanatory power of Natural Selection.
Yes, it's true. I reject pseudoscience because I'm not some pathetic loser who hates scientists and gloms on to some fucking fraud as a way of soothing the chip on his shoulder.
You're "revolutionary" scientist is a fucking retired chem professor who spouts absolute fucking nonsense.
But clearly that did not happen. Einstein was still very much alive and kicking when Planck, Bohr and that group were developing QM.
Oh look. Another quack advocate trying to justify pseudoscience by calling real science into question.
But even Relativity had its antecedents; in particular Lorentz. Frankly I don't think Kuhn was right at all. Paradigm shifts are, if you really look at them, pretty illusory, and part of the way we treat most history.
It's like declaring 476 a watershed moment in European history, when in fact, the Roman decline had been going on for decades, and there wasn't much left of the Western Empire by the time Romulus Augustulus was locked away in Castellum Lucullanum.
We mark time that way, we look for what we can describe as the Big Date or the Big Theory or the Big Innovation, and then shove everything that led up to that event to one side.
As to SR and GR themselves, while some might describe them as paradigm shifts, modern physicists will continue to point out that while they revolutionized the way we look at the universe, they remain Classical theories, and that the real paradigm shift, if it can be called that, was Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect, which is one of the predecessors of quantum mechanics. But even with QM, there was a lot of groundwork laid before the theory itself was developed, so I have a problem with the claims that that was a paradigm shift.
The list goes on and on. Did Darwin's theory of Natural Selection represent a paradigm shift? In some respects, yes, but at the same time you have to give due credit to some of those who came before him, in particular Linnaeus, who recognized the notion of phylogenetic relationships to some degree. Most certainly Linnaeus's work deeply informed Darwin as he worked on Natural Selection. But even Linnaeus has his antecedents, dating back to Classical Greece.
And on and on it goes.
I'm waiting until next week. I hear version 50 is going to be awesome!
Oh, and as to the Queen's power to dismiss ministers, individually or en masse, while it is present, it is considered that in all but the most extreme circumstances (such as a government refusing to recognize defeat), it would never be used unilaterally without the advice of the Prime Minister.
But that's not what realy happened in the 1975 Constitutional Crisis. Because of Australia's "Washminster" system (an elected upper house), a Government could retain the confidence of the lower house (which in other bicameral Westminster legislatures is the elected, and thus superior house) but find itself blocked by the upper house. This is a part of the Australian constitution that is poorly thought out, as it retains the notion of the lower house's confidence being required, but giving democratic legitimacy to the upper house, but not creating a safety valve. What happened wasn't a loss of confidence. Whitlam never lost the confidence of the House of Representatives, and thus in the Westminster system, retained confidence.
You will find Westminster constitutional experts pretty sharply divided on whether Governor General Sir John Kerr acted appropriately or not.
What the Australian crisis is a lesson in is making sure when you create an innovation in the Westminster system like an elected upper house, that you alter or eliminate the older constitutional precepts (often "unwritten" as in not being present in the primary constitutional documents) to re-balance the powers. If Australia had had a rule like the Senate being able to withdraw confidence (whether through a straight vote of no confidence, or by multiple rejections of a bill sent from the lower house), that would have eliminated the possibility of this kind of deadlock, but because Australia's version of Westminster retains the older British notions of lower house supremacy in matters of confidence, but gives the upper house the democratic mandate that the British House of Lords has not possessed for over two hundred years (even before the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 castrated the House of Lords powers), you create the chance of this sort of deadlock.
Probably a better modern example (since the House of Lords is a shadow of what it was even in the 19th century) is the Canadian Senate. It is modeled on the House of Lords as it stood in the mid-19th century. The only constitutional limitation put on the Senate is that supply bills must originate in the House of Commons. Other than that, the Senate's powers are equal to the House of Commons. But the Canadian constitution has two limitations on the Senate; one written and one unwritten. The written limitation is the power of the Prime Minister to go directly to the Queen (not the Governor General) and request an expansion of the Senate from its normal number of seats, thus allowing a Government to force through legislation in the case of a deadlock. The other is unwritten, and that is that the Senate does not enjoy the democratic mandate that the House of Commons does, and therefore it will 1. tend to pass Commons bills with much less trouble than it often might and 2. that the Senate's confidence is not required for the Government.
That isn't present in every Westminster parliament. In canada and the UK, defeat of any supply bill is a vote of no confidence and forces the resignation of the government, at which point the head of state has the choice to either dissolve the legislature and call new elections or ask some other party to form a government.
Then they don't need to use yum or aptitude or whatever. They can either link the libraries statically or supply their own libraries and point to them, and have the whole thing dump into its own directory. I've installed plenty of software like this. Just installed Alfresco and it comes with its own copies of Java, OpenOffice, PostgresSQL and Tomcat sitting in its own directory tree under /opt.
If they just static link the necessary libraries, the difficulty of getting the software running on any major distro version from the last few years is not that hard.
It's called hedging your bet. With the future of Windows as a major consumer OS up in there, and with the likelihood of a Linux-based gaming platform on the horizon, it seems an awfully good idea to get your developers, particularly your platform developers, thinking in terms of portability. That way, whoever the ultimate winners in the consumer market are, you didn't fuck up your own success by backing the horse that didn't even show.
It isn't 2005 anymore, and Redmond isn't the only game in town.
Not even RIM looks on MS's mobile offerings with jealousy.
With his lack of skills, he'll either be out the door or in management before too long.
It's as if a million porkbarrels cried out and were suddenly silenced.
So, what you're saying, is there needs to be a Death Star dedicated to blasting lobbyists and lawyers.
The deeper irony is that some defenders of the second amendment desire to shut down those exercising the first amendment.
Perhaps the saddest thing of all is having to explain that.
They're significantly more innocent than the violent assholes threatening them.