I have a simple question. First, everyone complains that the United States is not doing enough to combat global warming. Okay. What about the oil producing countries? With all the wealth that they make from the oil that bad old US of A is buying from them (and many other countries), why are they not investing that revenue into making oil cleaner to burn or in alternative fuel sources? It seems to me they spend the official government dollars on researching new palaces, yachts, and foreign real estate. I won't get into the weapons part of those expenditures-well, okay, I did a bit.
But seriously, why do not they come up with clean fuel sources? It seems to make sense. In the larger sense, if someone does come up with an energy source to replace oil, then the countries in the Middle East and Columbia would get far less money. And poverty is often blamed for the extremism that provides us with suicide bombers. So that problem would only get worse. But if they used their vast wealth to research and replace their own oil supplies, then they would continue to receive revenue and thus build more palaces. We all know that more palaces keeps people happy.
Yes, Microsoft's hosting partners are paying a bundle in licensing fees. But, they-the hosting companies-are making it back plus a substantial profit. This is just a classic cut out the middleman move. Microsoft will charge a bit less than the current hosting companies can and will will still make the licensing fees plus the profit that the hosting companies previously enjoyed.
The question for many of the hosting companies is whether or not Microsoft will enter their specific niche by introducing their own products or will simply purchase a company in the niche to get a jump start. A good example of this would be SalesForce.com or eBay. Actually, I look for both to be purchased by Microsoft. I think that SalesForce.com is already deep in bed with Microsoft and they are the leader in the space. eBay has to be looking over its shoulder with Google supposedly firing up a competitive service. So they both seem to me to be acquisitions that Microsoft could and would make.
Why is the iPhoto approach to storing photos bad for non-professionals? I disagree. The non-pros that I know don't have a clue about file structuring and organization. They will never delve into the file structure to find a photo - especially when it is so much easier to find one using either iPhoto or SpotLight.
And, if they really don't like what iPhoto provides them with, they are free to not use it and instead use one of the free tools that utilize Core Image for photo editing and then just store the photos in the Photos folder. Rather than using iPhoto to download images from the camera/card, they can use the excellent included software called "Image Capture". But this is for those who know a little more than the average guy and actually care.
Obviously you have never read "Dorsai". Where they discuss this very thing. For example, what would happen if a bunch of apes could design and build the ultimate ape. Would it have the intelligence of home sapiens? Probably not. Rather it would have more strength, greater size, more powerful jaws, better olfactory glands, etc. It would probably not have a better mental capacity to conceptualize and build tools like a man (or woman if you insist on PC).
Thus, could we really build real better people? Sure we could enhance those features that we believe are important today. But could we conceptualize and build a better human with skills and capabilities that we can't even imagine? Perhaps.
I personally don't care for either. Web mail generally sucks compared to a goo e-mail client. But for the sake of argument, why do you think that the new MSN mail is better than Gmail? From the article, all I see are features where MSA is catching up to Gmail - not surpassing it.
Are you implying that because it is Microsoft, it must be better?
Holes and what to use to get around them now.
on
First Look at GIMP 2.4
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I would love to see a comprehensive listing of what can't be done with GIMP 2.4 that you can do with Photoshop. Then, tack on a list of what features can be covered by other applications (open source or commercial) from the list of missing features in GIMP. That would give me a very nice look at comparing the two and deciding which way to go. Also, it would give me a sense of how much money, if any, I have to spend to acquire the capability of Photoshop or being better.
First, government oversight is the same as state education. Once they start overseeing, they start issuing policies in a way that is similar to feature creep in a software project. But the government is worse.
While a tax credit is a possible method, I also disapprove of them because I am also a proponent for the a much simpler government revenue system that involves removing the IRS for from existence. While I have great hopes for the typical American to budget their moneys wisely, my practical experience has not demonstrated it for too large a portion of the population. So, I typically favor-not rabidly-a voucher system that is meant for educating the kids. That gives a little nudge from the government to use it properly but hopefully does not give them enough room to start interfering too quickly. Yes, I do realize that they will eventually start meddling too much. But I have hopes that we can delay the bureaucrats.
Will there be parents and kids that abuse the vouchers? Absolutely. But how is that any different than parents currently abusing the system. The difference is that people that know better and want better will be able to do something about it regardless of their personal financial position, at least more than they currently can.
The one issue I have not seen a good solution for with the voucher system is allowing for teachers, administrators, and schools that perform better than average to get better than average reward (ie. cash) and/or better facilities. But, there is enough of a motivation with just the better pay, in my mind and to my teaching wife.
Ah, yes. The battle cry of the teacher's union in the United States, "Give us more money!". Regardless of the fact that money has not be tied to better teaching...that is their demand. Let's see:
Public school teachers refuse to be compensated for performance. Testing against standards is only for the students!
Public school teachers are against a voucher system that would mean that they have to compete for the kids.
In my day, 60%-80% of public school staff were teaching staff and the rest were non-teaching staff. Today, that ratio is reversed.
The number of useless but "socially responsible" classes in public school have dramatically risen.
I vote that remove the public school system entirely from the United States of America (Yes, I am a citizen). That every citizen of school age or desire is given a voucher for their using to fund their kids education at the school of their choice. State run education is NOT the solution.
Good information. And, since I am not a solar scientist I cannot suggest why the sun may have fluctuations in heating/cooling other than the assumption that the sun is not a constant heat source without any variation in temperature. Same for size.
I only brought up the sun as a possible variable for changes in the earth's temperature because of the article at the root of this forum says that there appears to be a climatic warming trend in progress of significant enough rate for us to notice it clearly in only a three period and that the sun is a common possible factor in the climates for both worlds. However, I am sure that someone will be able to give me a good guess as to other causes for the sudden heating on Mars in this story forum.
That may be true, but my questions are still valid. Everyone is assuming that man is the cause of what may be the warming of the earth (ignoring facts like a single volcanic eruption spews out 500 times as much as greenhouse gases as man has every produced). But with potential evidence on a planet where we are not affecting the climate, that perception may change to real issues. Like, maybe the earth is not a very stable place for long-term habitation by a single dominant species (witness the many mass extinctions over the eons). Thus we might be well advised to spend a lot more money and time on finding a way to get off this rock if we want the species to continue to survive.
You don't think that the huge flaming ball at the center of our little system has "that" much influence over our temperatures? Just where do you think we are getting our heat from?
On a more serious note, has anyone done a calculation for the ratio of sun temperature changes to the expected rise or fall of temperatures here on earth? In other words, if the old Sol's temperature goes up by 500 C, what will that do to the earth's temp? On a similar vein, what would happen if the sun didn't change its actual temperature, but rather it expanded thus putting the photosphere closer to the earth. What would be the effect for every X miles increase in photosphere size?
That is the first thing that came to mind when I saw the video. However, I am not seeing it as a funny. Very robust wings of that nature could certainly be used in the same manner as the 'Thopter.
Thank you for having the sense to take my word as intended. So often people misinterpret or choose to be offended. Thank you for being a reasonable person and assuming the best intentions in my post. I do appreciate it.
And, as I said in my earlier post, it was not intended for you specifically. Rather, it was intended for those that don't know that being a monopoly is not illegal.
Thank you for the kind response.
A lot of people have a problem with the concept of a "monopoly". So let me try to get some of the facts straight. There is NOTHING ILLEGAL in having a monopoly. Where companies run afoul the laws is in the methods that they use to maintain their monopoly. This is the problem that Microsoft has (the technology aside for the moment).
Once you have been ruled a monopoly (that is the first step and the first thing that Microsoft was ruled as), then there are a whole host of business tactics that are illegal - for them.
So...say it with me. "Monopolies are legal."
(This is not targeted specifically at you, NickFortune.)
I know very little about WINE. I do know about computer history since I have been a part of it since 1976. How about you? Since you prefer to insult rather than debate, my guess is that you are a twenty-something, unemployed, kid living at home with your mother and has a hobby building computers for yourself from scrap parts.
I see your real defense is to insult the person you are having a debate with and not a well crafted rebuttal.
You are correct in that it was a PS/1 emulator-my typo. But the fact stands. Sony shut them down as quickly as possible.
And no, it is no "strawman" argument. It is as real as a courtroom trial. Stealing is stealing. Come to my house and try it. I'll show you my my cartoon 9mm. Companies do not do that. They show you their lawyers. But the principle is the same. If you steal you should get the consequences.
As to the clone makers reverse engineering the early IBM machines, they were allowed to because of the looming monopoly of IBM on what was quickly being seen as a "necessity". The government allowed the "legal theft" to take place. BTW I don't support it. I think that if they had rightly disallowed that to occur then we would have had other companies still in business making competing products to the WinTel world today besides just Apple and Sun.
Let me get this right - you are supporting the theft of software and then claiming that is where Apple's revenue will come from - and you are calling me "cartooney"?
First, I believe that open source software is going to become the standard throughout the world. An interesting thing about it is that is that mostly it is free. If Apple were to go to a pure software model as you suggest, how to you propose they make money by competing against "Free"? While I am not Microsoft supporter, I do understand their predicament. They are fighting the same thing. And because software is going the commodity route very quickly (witness the growth of Linux and BSD), I say that Apple going the pure software route is a sure path to oblivion.
And, why is selling hardware a losing battle? It is a product and they can make one of the best-if not the best-hardware products on the planet. Why cannot they continue doing this? Hardware is not going to become free (like software can) anytime soon. Not, that is, if you actually follow the laws and buy your hardware. However, if you support smashing store windows and grabbing your hardware in the real world as you do figuratively smashing windows and grabbing software for free (software you are supposed to pay for), then I can see why you might think that hardware sales will go away.
Sony and Microsoft have learned that software is profitable so long as people actually pay for it. Sony, also knows that controlling the entire experience is important to quality of the experience. That is why there are no licensed builders of the PlayStation - Sony builds them all. And why they aggressively go after anyone that provides software that allows playing of their profit maker (the software) on anything but their hardware. You may not be familiar with it, but Connectix, an emulation company, used to make a product that allowed the playing of PS/2 games on the Mac. It was extremely cool software. But Sony shut it down with legal action as soon as they possibly could. Sony knows that they can allow that to happen. You obviously don't get it though.
If I am making the same assumption, then it is this, that it is wrong to steal.
I am fine with the idea that if someone buys OS X and then decides to hack it and put it on a lawn mower, then that is their business. However, that is not usually where that ends. Those same people usually do not purchase anything and they are quick to "share" it with as many others as they possibly can. That is called stealing.
I also support Apple in trying to make hacking their operating system in this way as difficult as possible. Apple makes the money they need to develop things like OS X primarily through hardware sales. Just selling software would be the death of them and the end of OS X.
I guess that the guys who hacked it to place on an unauthorized Intel box purchased their copy? Probably not! There is no profit in something that people steal.
I am curious as to how your actually pay for your food and shelter? Since you obviously are above "money grubbing". Are you getting manna from heaven and living under a blessed sky?
Oh, wait, dumb me. You mean that anyone BUT you collecting money is "money grubbing". Right. Silly me.
Good for you. Personally, I prefer to get my radio for free. When I spend money on recorded music, then I prefer to own it. IMHO, the subscription model sucks. The labels have to like it though-you get to pay them for life.
Many have already address your ludicrous comments in a more sensible way. Let me take a road less travelled. While you rail against the futurists, let me point your attention to people like you who did not see the benefits of telephones, horseless carriages, and airplanes. If it were up to people like you, then we would still be walking and using drums.
Thanks for the reality check. The United States has forgotten just how many people died to explore and settle North America. Being on the cutting edge is dangerous. But there are huge rewards for the successful and huge payoffs to those of us left behind. Those pioneers that take the big risks expand our envelope and we get huge benefits from that.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a simple question. First, everyone complains that the United States is not doing enough to combat global warming. Okay. What about the oil producing countries? With all the wealth that they make from the oil that bad old US of A is buying from them (and many other countries), why are they not investing that revenue into making oil cleaner to burn or in alternative fuel sources? It seems to me they spend the official government dollars on researching new palaces, yachts, and foreign real estate. I won't get into the weapons part of those expenditures-well, okay, I did a bit.
But seriously, why do not they come up with clean fuel sources? It seems to make sense. In the larger sense, if someone does come up with an energy source to replace oil, then the countries in the Middle East and Columbia would get far less money. And poverty is often blamed for the extremism that provides us with suicide bombers. So that problem would only get worse. But if they used their vast wealth to research and replace their own oil supplies, then they would continue to receive revenue and thus build more palaces. We all know that more palaces keeps people happy.
You should take a look here:
http://my-internetpc.com/
Scott
Yes, Microsoft's hosting partners are paying a bundle in licensing fees. But, they-the hosting companies-are making it back plus a substantial profit. This is just a classic cut out the middleman move. Microsoft will charge a bit less than the current hosting companies can and will will still make the licensing fees plus the profit that the hosting companies previously enjoyed.
The question for many of the hosting companies is whether or not Microsoft will enter their specific niche by introducing their own products or will simply purchase a company in the niche to get a jump start. A good example of this would be SalesForce.com or eBay. Actually, I look for both to be purchased by Microsoft. I think that SalesForce.com is already deep in bed with Microsoft and they are the leader in the space. eBay has to be looking over its shoulder with Google supposedly firing up a competitive service. So they both seem to me to be acquisitions that Microsoft could and would make.
Why is the iPhoto approach to storing photos bad for non-professionals? I disagree. The non-pros that I know don't have a clue about file structuring and organization. They will never delve into the file structure to find a photo - especially when it is so much easier to find one using either iPhoto or SpotLight.
And, if they really don't like what iPhoto provides them with, they are free to not use it and instead use one of the free tools that utilize Core Image for photo editing and then just store the photos in the Photos folder. Rather than using iPhoto to download images from the camera/card, they can use the excellent included software called "Image Capture". But this is for those who know a little more than the average guy and actually care.
Obviously you have never read "Dorsai". Where they discuss this very thing. For example, what would happen if a bunch of apes could design and build the ultimate ape. Would it have the intelligence of home sapiens? Probably not. Rather it would have more strength, greater size, more powerful jaws, better olfactory glands, etc. It would probably not have a better mental capacity to conceptualize and build tools like a man (or woman if you insist on PC).
Thus, could we really build real better people? Sure we could enhance those features that we believe are important today. But could we conceptualize and build a better human with skills and capabilities that we can't even imagine? Perhaps.
They are not the only ones to do that. Most software/hardware vendors do this to give them features/price points for their different customers.
I personally don't care for either. Web mail generally sucks compared to a goo e-mail client. But for the sake of argument, why do you think that the new MSN mail is better than Gmail? From the article, all I see are features where MSA is catching up to Gmail - not surpassing it. Are you implying that because it is Microsoft, it must be better?
I would love to see a comprehensive listing of what can't be done with GIMP 2.4 that you can do with Photoshop. Then, tack on a list of what features can be covered by other applications (open source or commercial) from the list of missing features in GIMP. That would give me a very nice look at comparing the two and deciding which way to go. Also, it would give me a sense of how much money, if any, I have to spend to acquire the capability of Photoshop or being better.
First, government oversight is the same as state education. Once they start overseeing, they start issuing policies in a way that is similar to feature creep in a software project. But the government is worse.
While a tax credit is a possible method, I also disapprove of them because I am also a proponent for the a much simpler government revenue system that involves removing the IRS for from existence. While I have great hopes for the typical American to budget their moneys wisely, my practical experience has not demonstrated it for too large a portion of the population. So, I typically favor-not rabidly-a voucher system that is meant for educating the kids. That gives a little nudge from the government to use it properly but hopefully does not give them enough room to start interfering too quickly. Yes, I do realize that they will eventually start meddling too much. But I have hopes that we can delay the bureaucrats.
Will there be parents and kids that abuse the vouchers? Absolutely. But how is that any different than parents currently abusing the system. The difference is that people that know better and want better will be able to do something about it regardless of their personal financial position, at least more than they currently can.
The one issue I have not seen a good solution for with the voucher system is allowing for teachers, administrators, and schools that perform better than average to get better than average reward (ie. cash) and/or better facilities. But, there is enough of a motivation with just the better pay, in my mind and to my teaching wife.
Ah, yes. The battle cry of the teacher's union in the United States, "Give us more money!". Regardless of the fact that money has not be tied to better teaching...that is their demand. Let's see:
Public school teachers refuse to be compensated for performance. Testing against standards is only for the students!
Public school teachers are against a voucher system that would mean that they have to compete for the kids.
In my day, 60%-80% of public school staff were teaching staff and the rest were non-teaching staff. Today, that ratio is reversed.
The number of useless but "socially responsible" classes in public school have dramatically risen.
I vote that remove the public school system entirely from the United States of America (Yes, I am a citizen). That every citizen of school age or desire is given a voucher for their using to fund their kids education at the school of their choice. State run education is NOT the solution.
Good information. And, since I am not a solar scientist I cannot suggest why the sun may have fluctuations in heating/cooling other than the assumption that the sun is not a constant heat source without any variation in temperature. Same for size.
I only brought up the sun as a possible variable for changes in the earth's temperature because of the article at the root of this forum says that there appears to be a climatic warming trend in progress of significant enough rate for us to notice it clearly in only a three period and that the sun is a common possible factor in the climates for both worlds. However, I am sure that someone will be able to give me a good guess as to other causes for the sudden heating on Mars in this story forum.
That may be true, but my questions are still valid. Everyone is assuming that man is the cause of what may be the warming of the earth (ignoring facts like a single volcanic eruption spews out 500 times as much as greenhouse gases as man has every produced). But with potential evidence on a planet where we are not affecting the climate, that perception may change to real issues. Like, maybe the earth is not a very stable place for long-term habitation by a single dominant species (witness the many mass extinctions over the eons). Thus we might be well advised to spend a lot more money and time on finding a way to get off this rock if we want the species to continue to survive.
You don't think that the huge flaming ball at the center of our little system has "that" much influence over our temperatures? Just where do you think we are getting our heat from? On a more serious note, has anyone done a calculation for the ratio of sun temperature changes to the expected rise or fall of temperatures here on earth? In other words, if the old Sol's temperature goes up by 500 C, what will that do to the earth's temp? On a similar vein, what would happen if the sun didn't change its actual temperature, but rather it expanded thus putting the photosphere closer to the earth. What would be the effect for every X miles increase in photosphere size?
That is the first thing that came to mind when I saw the video. However, I am not seeing it as a funny. Very robust wings of that nature could certainly be used in the same manner as the 'Thopter.
Thank you for having the sense to take my word as intended. So often people misinterpret or choose to be offended. Thank you for being a reasonable person and assuming the best intentions in my post. I do appreciate it. And, as I said in my earlier post, it was not intended for you specifically. Rather, it was intended for those that don't know that being a monopoly is not illegal. Thank you for the kind response.
A lot of people have a problem with the concept of a "monopoly". So let me try to get some of the facts straight. There is NOTHING ILLEGAL in having a monopoly. Where companies run afoul the laws is in the methods that they use to maintain their monopoly. This is the problem that Microsoft has (the technology aside for the moment). Once you have been ruled a monopoly (that is the first step and the first thing that Microsoft was ruled as), then there are a whole host of business tactics that are illegal - for them. So...say it with me. "Monopolies are legal." (This is not targeted specifically at you, NickFortune.)
I know very little about WINE. I do know about computer history since I have been a part of it since 1976. How about you? Since you prefer to insult rather than debate, my guess is that you are a twenty-something, unemployed, kid living at home with your mother and has a hobby building computers for yourself from scrap parts.
I see your real defense is to insult the person you are having a debate with and not a well crafted rebuttal. You are correct in that it was a PS/1 emulator-my typo. But the fact stands. Sony shut them down as quickly as possible. And no, it is no "strawman" argument. It is as real as a courtroom trial. Stealing is stealing. Come to my house and try it. I'll show you my my cartoon 9mm. Companies do not do that. They show you their lawyers. But the principle is the same. If you steal you should get the consequences. As to the clone makers reverse engineering the early IBM machines, they were allowed to because of the looming monopoly of IBM on what was quickly being seen as a "necessity". The government allowed the "legal theft" to take place. BTW I don't support it. I think that if they had rightly disallowed that to occur then we would have had other companies still in business making competing products to the WinTel world today besides just Apple and Sun.
Let me get this right - you are supporting the theft of software and then claiming that is where Apple's revenue will come from - and you are calling me "cartooney"?
First, I believe that open source software is going to become the standard throughout the world. An interesting thing about it is that is that mostly it is free. If Apple were to go to a pure software model as you suggest, how to you propose they make money by competing against "Free"? While I am not Microsoft supporter, I do understand their predicament. They are fighting the same thing. And because software is going the commodity route very quickly (witness the growth of Linux and BSD), I say that Apple going the pure software route is a sure path to oblivion.
And, why is selling hardware a losing battle? It is a product and they can make one of the best-if not the best-hardware products on the planet. Why cannot they continue doing this? Hardware is not going to become free (like software can) anytime soon. Not, that is, if you actually follow the laws and buy your hardware. However, if you support smashing store windows and grabbing your hardware in the real world as you do figuratively smashing windows and grabbing software for free (software you are supposed to pay for), then I can see why you might think that hardware sales will go away.
Sony and Microsoft have learned that software is profitable so long as people actually pay for it. Sony, also knows that controlling the entire experience is important to quality of the experience. That is why there are no licensed builders of the PlayStation - Sony builds them all. And why they aggressively go after anyone that provides software that allows playing of their profit maker (the software) on anything but their hardware. You may not be familiar with it, but Connectix, an emulation company, used to make a product that allowed the playing of PS/2 games on the Mac. It was extremely cool software. But Sony shut it down with legal action as soon as they possibly could. Sony knows that they can allow that to happen. You obviously don't get it though.
If I am making the same assumption, then it is this, that it is wrong to steal.
I am fine with the idea that if someone buys OS X and then decides to hack it and put it on a lawn mower, then that is their business. However, that is not usually where that ends. Those same people usually do not purchase anything and they are quick to "share" it with as many others as they possibly can. That is called stealing.
I also support Apple in trying to make hacking their operating system in this way as difficult as possible. Apple makes the money they need to develop things like OS X primarily through hardware sales. Just selling software would be the death of them and the end of OS X.
I guess that the guys who hacked it to place on an unauthorized Intel box purchased their copy? Probably not! There is no profit in something that people steal.
I am curious as to how your actually pay for your food and shelter? Since you obviously are above "money grubbing". Are you getting manna from heaven and living under a blessed sky? Oh, wait, dumb me. You mean that anyone BUT you collecting money is "money grubbing". Right. Silly me.
Good for you. Personally, I prefer to get my radio for free. When I spend money on recorded music, then I prefer to own it. IMHO, the subscription model sucks. The labels have to like it though-you get to pay them for life.
Many have already address your ludicrous comments in a more sensible way. Let me take a road less travelled. While you rail against the futurists, let me point your attention to people like you who did not see the benefits of telephones, horseless carriages, and airplanes. If it were up to people like you, then we would still be walking and using drums.
Thanks for the reality check. The United States has forgotten just how many people died to explore and settle North America. Being on the cutting edge is dangerous. But there are huge rewards for the successful and huge payoffs to those of us left behind. Those pioneers that take the big risks expand our envelope and we get huge benefits from that.