Don't interrupt him. He's writing the post-election for how Romney lost. It won't do to blame the republican ticket. What's needed is a conspiracy theory.
Clearly PCs are staying put in the business and government worlds and for at least in some home niches (PC gamers, writers, hobbiests, home businesses and the like). So yes, it will only shrink to some extent, and that is still a pretty big market.
I do think the OEM market will take a huge hit, and that has been a big money maker for Redmond for going on a quarter century. Software rental may take up some of the slack, but certainly will not be a replacement.
But if you really look at home use, you find smart devices are going to gobble up PC sales. If you look at tablets and smartphones as content delivery devices (streaming and video playes) and casual communications devices (SMS, social networking), that is the market where PC share is eroding badly.
Even for me, I find myself doing most of my casual surfing, reading and even watching video on my crappy little iPhone 4. I figure about a third of my emails now go out on it rather than my home or work PC, so even for a balding 40 year old techy who still prefers a CLI to a GUI, the PC has ceased to be my only tool, and for some purposes has almost stopped being used entirely.
And yet the PC market itself is likely to shrink. How is being the dominant player in a shrinking market not a problem? While the PC is likely to be around for a very long time, particularly in the corporate/business market, even Microsoft acknowledges it needs to make a dent in the smart device market.
Apple is one of the biggest companies in the world now, and it is not because of Macs. That tells you everything you need to know about what the PC market represents, and what it will represent in 5 or 10 years.
I think a better solution is strip all IP lawyers of citizenship, declare them problem animals, and allow the open hunting of them, with a $200 bounty for every intact business suit.
That would solve pretty much the entire problem in about a month.
My understanding is that the most potent objections to the bill didn't come from the Opposition or any particular civil liberties group, but rather from the Tory caucus itself. Rumor has it there were several very blunt exchanges in caucus over this bill between the Minister and various Tory MPs, and that the Government intentionally booted into the Death By Committee.
Not to say that you're not right, but it's pretty clear there are places that sizable portions of the Tory caucus just simply will not go, and for a Government, even the hint of a caucus revolt over legislation is enough to make the legislation go away quietly.
Popper was full of crap. He didn't understand Relativity. While he certainly was entirely a rubbish merchant, on this count, as on others, he had no idea what he was talking about.
Well, you could try starting a letter writing campaign to the Australian Governor General. At the end of the day, the GG has to give assent to any bill, and has the power to effectively veto or delay a bill.
And of course, the Citizenry soon found out that the Roundheads were even more egregious in their style of government than Charles I, and ultimately rejected Cromwell's heir in favour of Charles I's heir.
The Glorious Revolution, that's where real Parliamentary democracy had its birth. While it took another century or so before the forms of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy were fully developed, it was at that point that Parliament gained, in law as well as in fact, supremacy.
The USA became a western democracy because the French gave the Continental Congress a helluva lot of financial and military aid. I suspect that without it, the best that could have happened for the revolutionaries would have been a long term guerrilla campaign.
Congress has certainly given the US Government some unseemly powers, to be sure, but still, the bills themselves were debated openly. This is quite another thing entirely, and if it is as written, is pretty much alien to the way laws have been passed in the United States and the Commonwealth since before either even existed as such.
Has Australia have no brave MPs who could stand up, invoke Parliamentary privilege, and make people aware of the more noxious aspects of the legislation?
I mean, how, in the post-Glorious Revolution age of Parliamentary democracy can a government submit a secret law to a Parliament in any of the Commonwealth Realms and have it passed? Something like this would have been seen even in Queen Anne's time as a violation of Parliament's authority and dignity.
And yet the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN. As bad as the US may be on occasion, it's still better than handing the keys over to the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.
"There's nothing in the street Looks any different to me And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye And the parting on the left Is now the parting on the right And the beards have all grown longer overnight"
"This week we're releasing almost completely unusable alpha code, but on the bright side, the tshirts with our new logo should be shipping within a month!"
The earliest written languages were in Mesopotomia, Egypt and china (order somewhat controversial). All the major developments on the way to civilization; animal domestication, agriculture, urban development, writing, bureaucracy, bronze and so forth were developed in Asia, while indo-Europeans were still savages in Eastern Europe. Even the Iron Age began in East Africa. The first literate Indo-Europeans were the Hittites, whose writing system and much of its culture were nicked from the Sumero-Akkadian civilization. Even up to the Middle Ages Europe had no real technical advantage over the East Asian civilizations.
As Jered Diamond points out, all the key innovations that lead to civilization were developed outside of Europe and the Indo-European sphere. Hell, even our alphabet has its roots in Phoenecian writing.
I don't think that taxonomy has been in use for a long time. I haven't heard any researcher refer to Neandertals as a subspecies of H. sapens for many years. Nor would it make much sense considering they are likely both daughter species of H. erectus.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't interrupt him. He's writing the post-election for how Romney lost. It won't do to blame the republican ticket. What's needed is a conspiracy theory.
Clearly PCs are staying put in the business and government worlds and for at least in some home niches (PC gamers, writers, hobbiests, home businesses and the like). So yes, it will only shrink to some extent, and that is still a pretty big market.
I do think the OEM market will take a huge hit, and that has been a big money maker for Redmond for going on a quarter century. Software rental may take up some of the slack, but certainly will not be a replacement.
But if you really look at home use, you find smart devices are going to gobble up PC sales. If you look at tablets and smartphones as content delivery devices (streaming and video playes) and casual communications devices (SMS, social networking), that is the market where PC share is eroding badly.
Even for me, I find myself doing most of my casual surfing, reading and even watching video on my crappy little iPhone 4. I figure about a third of my emails now go out on it rather than my home or work PC, so even for a balding 40 year old techy who still prefers a CLI to a GUI, the PC has ceased to be my only tool, and for some purposes has almost stopped being used entirely.
And yet the PC market itself is likely to shrink. How is being the dominant player in a shrinking market not a problem? While the PC is likely to be around for a very long time, particularly in the corporate/business market, even Microsoft acknowledges it needs to make a dent in the smart device market.
Apple is one of the biggest companies in the world now, and it is not because of Macs. That tells you everything you need to know about what the PC market represents, and what it will represent in 5 or 10 years.
I think a better solution is strip all IP lawyers of citizenship, declare them problem animals, and allow the open hunting of them, with a $200 bounty for every intact business suit.
That would solve pretty much the entire problem in about a month.
Which in and of itself is weasily. He's already on record as saying he would seek to kill Obamacare, except for the bits he figures voters will like.
Seems to be working, too. Certainly he's polling better, though the state projections still heavily favor Obama.
Even Guy Fawkes was tried in public
My understanding is that the most potent objections to the bill didn't come from the Opposition or any particular civil liberties group, but rather from the Tory caucus itself. Rumor has it there were several very blunt exchanges in caucus over this bill between the Minister and various Tory MPs, and that the Government intentionally booted into the Death By Committee.
Not to say that you're not right, but it's pretty clear there are places that sizable portions of the Tory caucus just simply will not go, and for a Government, even the hint of a caucus revolt over legislation is enough to make the legislation go away quietly.
Popper was full of crap. He didn't understand Relativity. While he certainly was entirely a rubbish merchant, on this count, as on others, he had no idea what he was talking about.
Well, you could try starting a letter writing campaign to the Australian Governor General. At the end of the day, the GG has to give assent to any bill, and has the power to effectively veto or delay a bill.
And of course, the Citizenry soon found out that the Roundheads were even more egregious in their style of government than Charles I, and ultimately rejected Cromwell's heir in favour of Charles I's heir.
The Glorious Revolution, that's where real Parliamentary democracy had its birth. While it took another century or so before the forms of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy were fully developed, it was at that point that Parliament gained, in law as well as in fact, supremacy.
The USA became a western democracy because the French gave the Continental Congress a helluva lot of financial and military aid. I suspect that without it, the best that could have happened for the revolutionaries would have been a long term guerrilla campaign.
Congress has certainly given the US Government some unseemly powers, to be sure, but still, the bills themselves were debated openly. This is quite another thing entirely, and if it is as written, is pretty much alien to the way laws have been passed in the United States and the Commonwealth since before either even existed as such.
Has Australia have no brave MPs who could stand up, invoke Parliamentary privilege, and make people aware of the more noxious aspects of the legislation?
I mean, how, in the post-Glorious Revolution age of Parliamentary democracy can a government submit a secret law to a Parliament in any of the Commonwealth Realms and have it passed? Something like this would have been seen even in Queen Anne's time as a violation of Parliament's authority and dignity.
Relativity does not state that something cannot move faster than c says you cannot accelerate to c.
And I cannot sort out why anyone interested in SR, GR, QM or physics in general would read Popper.
And yet the Internet is still safer in American hands than being handed over lock, stock and barrel to the UN. As bad as the US may be on occasion, it's still better than handing the keys over to the likes of China and Saudi Arabia.
"There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight"
It would shut the Libertarians up once and for all.
"This week we're releasing almost completely unusable alpha code, but on the bright side, the tshirts with our new logo should be shipping within a month!"
Um, those are pig sounds mixed into a song on Animals. They're no more lyrics than the jet engine sounds in the Beatles' Back In The USSR.
And thank god for that. There were no more lyrics like "I've got a bike, such a pretty little bike, it's nice."
Guns are not genetic.
The argument hasn't just been made, it has been demonstrated. Small breeding populations lead to a decrease in viability. Diversity is very good.
The earliest written languages were in Mesopotomia, Egypt and china (order somewhat controversial). All the major developments on the way to civilization; animal domestication, agriculture, urban development, writing, bureaucracy, bronze and so forth were developed in Asia, while indo-Europeans were still savages in Eastern Europe. Even the Iron Age began in East Africa. The first literate Indo-Europeans were the Hittites, whose writing system and much of its culture were nicked from the Sumero-Akkadian civilization. Even up to the Middle Ages Europe had no real technical advantage over the East Asian civilizations.
As Jered Diamond points out, all the key innovations that lead to civilization were developed outside of Europe and the Indo-European sphere. Hell, even our alphabet has its roots in Phoenecian writing.
That is not the biological definition of a species. That's the cartoon definition. The biological definition is far more nuanced.
For instance, coyotes and wolves are considered separate species and yet they do interbreed.
I don't think that taxonomy has been in use for a long time. I haven't heard any researcher refer to Neandertals as a subspecies of H. sapens for many years. Nor would it make much sense considering they are likely both daughter species of H. erectus.