Gee, you didn't notice that Vista overrode the user selection of GDS and executed searches using MS's search instead? This was a prime issue in the original complaint.
I think you misunderstand the whole concept of abusing a monopoly -- most users will take the path of least resistance, and having to jump through even just two hoops is too much.
How hard was it for users to use netscape instead of IE for browsing? Pretty easy, yet the antitrust suit still stuck.
If you're so concerned about the API, you don't have to use it. Just use net stop.
Yeah, works for me (if I used Vista on any of my production machines). But what about the 99.99% of users who are incapable of doing something as complicated as net stop? They are really who this is about, after all.
Disabling the service does not disable it for all of Vista. If you read the original complaint, that was a major issue -- some actions would still call the MS Search instead of whatever other search tool the user wanted.
Use the API? Are you certain that the API provided by MS to third-party developers is the same as the one used my MS's search? As other posters have pointed out, this has been a problem in the past with MS.
I don't understand, what caveat are you talking about?
That this connection did have LOS? That LOS (and radio interference, etc) is obviously a problem in more populated areas, and I should expect to make this work in New Jersey?
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't RTFA, AND somehow lacks the basic understanding of wireless communications to figure out that they must have had LOS, doesn't deserve the extra effort it takes to put in a caveat like that.
Seriously... if someone thought that they were able to do this without LOS... and then didn't click a link to RTFA... well... any misunderstanding they have is their own fault.
haven't they then lost their common carrier status?
They don't have common carrier status for the internet service they provide over DSL. They do, however still have third-party immunity from copyright violations, due to the DMCA.
Second - existing farms will not be converted back to forest land. Farms that don't produce crops get subsidized. If it's not a farm, the farmer doesn't make money.
False. New Jersey, for example, has an extensive private-public partnership called Green Acres, where farmers' land is bought at market prices -- while sometimes the farm continues to operate, typically the fields are allowed to go fallow, and eventually become reforested.
Third - A professor from a school like Columbia is as likely to revolutionize the farming industry as a professor from the University of Montana is to revolutionize skyscraper architecture.
Funny that you use architecture as an example -- did you know that Frank Lloyd Wright studied at the University of Wisconsin? Although it should be noted that the professor from TFA (did you read it?) actually studies the ecology of infectious diseases and their vectors. So, he should not be considered an expert anyway.
As for borrowing: get a loan from a bank. Borrowing on a credit card is madness, interest-wise.
Not so, most credit card companies will not charge any interest on balances paid in full by their due date. Not paying your bill in full so that you are charged interest -- that's madness. Using a credit card as a short-term 0% loan -- that's free cash.
Say you have $1500 worth of purchases every month that can be made via credit card. If you pay the credit cards off in full every month, you have the use of an extra $1500 at no cost until you need to pay your statement. You can make money off that $1500 if you want, say by purchasing a CD.
Not borrowing, when you can easily get a return significantly higher than the interest you need to pay, is madness.
Wow, lay off the coffee (or the crack, whatever it is that gets you so wound up).
Don't put words in my mouth, I never made any claims about what politicians are like "in my world", how ridiculous, where did you get that?
You based your entire argument off the fact that the actions of politicians affect the real world and real people. For politics to not be a game, then it must not be considered a game by any of the decision-makers in the system (the players). Hence, your position requires that politicians are motivated by the impacts of their actions on people, not the impact of their actions on the electoral cycle.
Maybe you misunderstand what a game is --
because by definition a friggin game does not affect the "real world".
You think it must be something that has no effect on the real world, this is false and destroys the rest of your arguments. Show me an accepted definition of 'game' that states that it must have no effect on the real world. Is poker a game? Without a doubt. Does it have an effect on the real world? Without a doubt, if money changes hands.
So, before you fly off the handle again, why not re-examine your assumptions and try again?
How do you bring jobs to your 'district' when its constituants are spread across the state?
It's a philosophical difference, but I would say that this is a net benefit -- state legislators don't exist to bring home pork to their district, they exist to resolve issues facing the entire state. If their 'district' consisted of their entire state, then maybe they would take actions to benefit the entire state, not just their district at the expense of the rest of the state.
your post says nothing and contributes nothing to the discussion, in fact it's silly: Politics isn't a game, it's real and affects real peoples' lives.
Just because it affects people doesn't mean it's not a game -- as I said, the stakes are far higher than what we're accustomed to seeing in what we think of as a "game".
Can you honestly say that there are not people involved in politics to whom "winning" isn't the most important aspect? That this type of attitude is not common at the level of presidential politics?
Do you really think that Karl Rove, for example, has a primary motivation other than winning? Or that the Democratic Party, as an institution, is anything more than a group that exists purely to get people elected? That's the nature of partisan politics in the US system.
This is what my post is saying, I'll spell it out so you can understand, since it appears that you're completely missing my point:
American politics at the highest level is dominated by those who treat it like a game. Hence, it becomes a game, where the effect on the outcome (future election results) taints every action taken, and is often a primary motivation for actions taken.
So how, exactly, is this not a point for discussion?
As for your opinion on cynicism, perhaps you misunderstand what cynicism is. It's pointing out the flaws of society because solving a problem is predicated by awareness of the problem. Apparently in your world, all politicians are motivated by the effect of their actions on the public -- I know better than that, and so should you.
Can anyone give me a valid reason why games like this should even be produced?
Because some people enjoy playing games like it.
Seriously, I think you have your priorities backwards... we should be concerned about the validity of measures taken to repress freedom, not concerned about the validity of one way in which people choose to express it.
As a politician who's trying to serve the public, you're trying to do what's best for the most people or, depending one your beliefs, your constituency.
Hey, I'm pretty cynical, I think there's a problem with your first clause there. Politicians at the highest level aren't trying to serve the public; they are first and foremost focused on electability (that's how they got to the highest level) and then focused on washing the hand that washed them i.e., giving handouts to the companies and groups that got them elected. The political process in the US filters out the more altruistic politicians at the lower levels.
It's crazy that gerrymandering is actually good fodder for a video game.
Why is that crazy? Gerrymandering, and indeed, much of politics, is a game. It's just played for higher stakes than we're used to when we think of games.
Or did you think that American politics at the highest levels was actually about serving the public?
I would suspect that most of the people who would submit their DNA to Ancestory.com are not the same type of people who go leaving their DNA at crime scenes, let alone are every around any crime scenes as anything other than a victim.
Sure, but if you get someone with enough similarities to suggest a familial connection, you can go interview them about their family.
"Mrs. Scharffenberger, do you have any close relatives who live in the Mendocino area? Do you know where they were Saturday night?"
I agree that her positions do not mesh well with the left, but I think the extreme dislike has a more fundamental and emotional source; a male candidate, or a female candidate with a less forceful persona, would not face such scorn.
Your post reminds me of an Onion piece from around when she announced...
The last thing America needs is a radical liberal who supports the war and the death penalty while opposing flag-burning and gay marriage.
I agree that her positions do not mesh well with the left, but I think the extreme dislike has a more fundamental and emotional source; a male candidate, or a female candidate with a less forceful persona, would not face.
Your post reminds me of an Onion piece from around when she announced...
The last thing America needs is a radical liberal who supports the war and the death penalty while opposing flag-burning and gay marriage.
All anyone has to do is go to the area they were born in and go through the hall of records or whatever it is and bam. You got all this info.
Well, it's an onerous task to do all that research. Security through obscurity and pain-in-the-assity actually works most of the time in the real world. It's when it becomes EASY to find that information that the amount of identity theft becomes a problem worth spending a ton of resources to defeat.
And to be honest, shouldnt we be using something OTHER than Mother's maiden name to reset passwords and crap by now?
Yes. Unfortunately, the credit card companies would have to spend a lot of money making a change like that, so it's not going to happen any time soon.
I wasn't aware there was an arithmetic of ignorance.
There isn't, idiocy has a geometric relationship with idiotic acts. The GGP is not a double idiot, as the GP has said -- they are an idiot squared if he had bothered to do the calculations properly. What an idiot.
Dealing with AT&T is just not worth it for cheap Internet Service
As opposed to dealing with...? Anyone? Any and all telcos are a pain in the rear to deal with. It's an industry-wide problem, and I'd gladly trade you dealing with Verizon for dealing with AT&T.
Slashdot Mirror
Gee, you didn't notice that Vista overrode the user selection of GDS and executed searches using MS's search instead? This was a prime issue in the original complaint.
I think you misunderstand the whole concept of abusing a monopoly -- most users will take the path of least resistance, and having to jump through even just two hoops is too much.
How hard was it for users to use netscape instead of IE for browsing? Pretty easy, yet the antitrust suit still stuck.
Disabling the service does not disable it for all of Vista. If you read the original complaint, that was a major issue -- some actions would still call the MS Search instead of whatever other search tool the user wanted.
Use the API? Are you certain that the API provided by MS to third-party developers is the same as the one used my MS's search? As other posters have pointed out, this has been a problem in the past with MS.
That's an awfully big assumption to make, that someone actually read the article.
I don't understand, what caveat are you talking about?
That this connection did have LOS? That LOS (and radio interference, etc) is obviously a problem in more populated areas, and I should expect to make this work in New Jersey?
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't RTFA, AND somehow lacks the basic understanding of wireless communications to figure out that they must have had LOS, doesn't deserve the extra effort it takes to put in a caveat like that.
Seriously... if someone thought that they were able to do this without LOS... and then didn't click a link to RTFA... well... any misunderstanding they have is their own fault.
Funny that you use architecture as an example -- did you know that Frank Lloyd Wright studied at the University of Wisconsin? Although it should be noted that the professor from TFA (did you read it?) actually studies the ecology of infectious diseases and their vectors. So, he should not be considered an expert anyway.
Just sayin'... I wouldn't want anyone to have a false sense of security, or a false sense of DHS competence when dealing with classified information.
Say you have $1500 worth of purchases every month that can be made via credit card. If you pay the credit cards off in full every month, you have the use of an extra $1500 at no cost until you need to pay your statement. You can make money off that $1500 if you want, say by purchasing a CD.
Not borrowing, when you can easily get a return significantly higher than the interest you need to pay, is madness.
You based your entire argument off the fact that the actions of politicians affect the real world and real people. For politics to not be a game, then it must not be considered a game by any of the decision-makers in the system (the players). Hence, your position requires that politicians are motivated by the impacts of their actions on people, not the impact of their actions on the electoral cycle.
Maybe you misunderstand what a game is --You think it must be something that has no effect on the real world, this is false and destroys the rest of your arguments. Show me an accepted definition of 'game' that states that it must have no effect on the real world. Is poker a game? Without a doubt. Does it have an effect on the real world? Without a doubt, if money changes hands.
So, before you fly off the handle again, why not re-examine your assumptions and try again?
Can you honestly say that there are not people involved in politics to whom "winning" isn't the most important aspect? That this type of attitude is not common at the level of presidential politics?
Do you really think that Karl Rove, for example, has a primary motivation other than winning? Or that the Democratic Party, as an institution, is anything more than a group that exists purely to get people elected? That's the nature of partisan politics in the US system.
This is what my post is saying, I'll spell it out so you can understand, since it appears that you're completely missing my point:
American politics at the highest level is dominated by those who treat it like a game. Hence, it becomes a game, where the effect on the outcome (future election results) taints every action taken, and is often a primary motivation for actions taken.
So how, exactly, is this not a point for discussion?
As for your opinion on cynicism, perhaps you misunderstand what cynicism is. It's pointing out the flaws of society because solving a problem is predicated by awareness of the problem. Apparently in your world, all politicians are motivated by the effect of their actions on the public -- I know better than that, and so should you.
Seriously, I think you have your priorities backwards... we should be concerned about the validity of measures taken to repress freedom, not concerned about the validity of one way in which people choose to express it.
Here's one link
and here's another.
Of course, some people would say that gerrymandering is a cheat code as well.
Or did you think that American politics at the highest levels was actually about serving the public?
"Mrs. Scharffenberger, do you have any close relatives who live in the Mendocino area? Do you know where they were Saturday night?"
Your post reminds me of an Onion piece from around when she announced...
Your post reminds me of an Onion piece from around when she announced...
Yes. Unfortunately, the credit card companies would have to spend a lot of money making a change like that, so it's not going to happen any time soon.
If it would help make the streets safer for our children, why would anyone have a problem with that?
Sorry, full of the snark this morning.