So I guess you did not read the slashdot article posted two days ago in which Symbian blasts Android? You guess correctly. I do not read every slashdot article. But I don't think I'm out of order in using the generality I used in my 2nd post. In general, the slashdot community leans away from MS, many times to the point of irrationality. I can't imagine you would disagree with this...although, this is slashdot, after all. Disagreements, both rational and irrational, abound.
But he definitely overstates Microsoft's success on the mobile platform. Microsoft, is at best, a bit player on the global stage with Symbian currently dominating. Yes - you are correct. My point, which has more to do with slashdot than Windows C, I suppose, is that execs overstate and bluster all the time, but it's only when a Microsoftian does this that people get all up in arms.
Remember people, if you want to be taken seriously, snail mail is the only way to go. No. Post-911, Anthrax scare, etc. the best option is ALWAYS to call or fax, especially for the federal government. If you snail mail, your letter sits in communication purgatory where it is treated as if it is filled with explosives or toxins. Once it's been cleared, it could be weeks.
"Right now they have a press release, we have many, many millions of customers, great software, many hardware devices and they're welcome in our world"
Ok - Ballmer's a nut job sure, but is he saying anything absolutely, quantifiably wrong or deceitful here? The only part anyone could have any contention with is the "great software" part, I suppose.
US consumers are clueless about technology in general. Why is everyone adding the "US" adjective to the word consumers? Are the Tongan consumers that savvy? Are there no foolish Brits? Are the Swedes perfect in every way? I recognize the study was only about Americans, but it's funny (not ha ha funny) this strange sort of reverence slashdotters give to all things not American -- a sort of unspoken statement that, man, those French/Thai/Slovak/Brazilians/etc are really savvy consumers. But the Americans, well, they're just ridiculously stupid. No one seems to mention that most consumers, regardless of nationality, tend to be lazy and cheap, especially against the unbelievably grating and unrealistic standards used by many slashdotters. A few months back there was a discussion about how bad American chocolate is. Some guy went so far as to say how much he hated eating some European chocolate at first because he didn't like the taste, but eventually he learned to like it. Like it's ok that it tastes like pressed, moldy coffee beans soaked in horse piss, because at least he's not eating Hershey's anymore.
I know this is a sensitive subject, but I've read many posts here referring to carbon (basically C02) as a "pollutant" and I think it's kind of silly. A pollutant is something that creates a quantitative negative impact on the substance to which it's introduced. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Its existence in the atmosphere is not anthropogenic, although recent industrial activity has increased its levels. Plants need it. Like other greenhouse gases such as the much more plentiful (and insidious!) water vapor [evil laugh], it helps keeps the temperature of the earth at a "livable" level. I know this is an emotionally charged issue, with all sides taking part in the cognitive dissonance, group think, research tautology and irrationality, but when I read "pollutant" as referring to C02, I see it as more of a political use than a scientific one. Just my 2 cents as always.
One of the great aspects of the Internet was anyone could take part, no matter your race, religion, colour or *age* everyone is equal behind the keyboard.
I love how much credit people give to the Internet. Anyone can/could already take part in "real life". Will other people be so stupid as to exclude them based on *some* of the things you mention above? Sure. But it's not like this is non-existent online -- it just takes longer to come out. The online context only delays and obsfucates who a person really is; the truth will come out eventually when important things come to pass.
Basically, if someone has a certain prejudice, they're not magically going to change because they're online. Thus, the major value of this online context is its...anonymity -- a concept which runs completely contrary to the idea of being "social". If someone thinks being able to more-or-less anonymously post comments online without being subject to the awful rules of real life is some sort of great and meaningful social advancement, I'd say they're sorely mistaken.
The body of society can't just be composed of heads. It needs feet, legs, arms, stomach, back, hands, etc, to function properly. Maybe just maybe, having people learn trades isn't such a bad thing after all. Not everyone needs to be, or can be, white collar. Then maybe we don't have to import labor (aka Illegal Aliens) into the US.
I don't think that's a good example since the people can choose what they want to do. If you're born an arm, you're an arm, you cannot become a leg or an ear or a pancreas. But people are born as people. I'm oversimplifying, but people have unlimited upside when they're born -- the Al Sharptons of the world can bitch and moan about inequalities, but even if you're born into tough circumstances, you can still end up incredibly prosperous. An appendix can end up as a brain.
And since we choose not to specifically force people any way or the other based on who they are, their religion, their hometown, etc., most of them choose occupations that have a lot of upside potential in terms of money. In other words, no one's promoting "white collar" or pushing people towards advanced degrees, but people simply like money -- and white collar jobs tend to provide more of that. It's not a hard and fast rule (auto repair tech / mechanic is a great example of a blue collar job where you can make a crapload and even that requires a lot of education and apprenticeship), but it's pretty close to it.
"Here, little Timmy, you can be a lawyer when you grow up and make lots of money. Or you can cut grass and make a fair, but not huge, amount." Why try to decide for Timmy that it's silly for him to get his law degree because there's grass he could be cutting?
It's all about money. Don't tell someone it's great to learn a trade simply there's tradework to be done. If they want to try to make a buttload of money in the ways that they see as the best/fastest ways to do so who are you to try and tell them otherwise?
Now if you want to convince people that money is, to some degree, overrated, I'm with you.
What is the threshold where people should start to take-up arms? It seems we are really close to the threshold here: [kind-of-off-topic]
What are these arms you speak of? You have actual arms? I have some guns, but the same people that may be the recipients of me "taking them up" know all about me having them because they passed laws a relatively long time ago about me registering them and having a special ID card (I live in Illinois). And now they want to keep passing laws regarding those guns because the current ones aren't enough, apparently. After all, who really needs a gun now anyways? Times have changed and we can trust the government to do the right thing. They've certainly show they can, righ...oh wait...
Pish posh, of course. Eventually, we'll be at the point where it would literally be our arms -- the things that extend from our scapulas and clavicles with ulnas and humeruses and radiuses -- that would need to do any sort of revolting because they'll have scraped away an amendment to their supposedly precious Constitution. Mess with people's "free speech" or "civil liberties" and they crap their pants while having a fit. But subtly screw with other parts of the Constitution and those SAME pants-crappers become governmental apologists trying to explain why those weren't and really aren't actual rights.
Yeah - thanks for the responses. I guess I didn't explain myself well, perhaps because of my annoyance. My point was that the only reason this would be "too bad" would be if you were trying to tout one thing versus another, as opposed to talking about the technology. Is it new technology? No - as the so-called fan boys have certainly, and redundantly, told us all. Is it a new "application" of technology? I think this could be easily argued yes. So, while my annoyance could be that I just need a cup of coffee, it could also be that I'm sick of everything ending up as a debate about Apple vs. whatever, etc.
Too bad that Apple has supported HD access without booting for years. Firewire target mode, and SCSI target mode before that. Why is this "too bad"? I'd think this would be "too good" or at least "good" for Apple users, right? Unless you really don't care about discussing the actual functionality and just want to sling around a bunch of meaningless, childlike chatter for the purposes of... well, I don't even understand why you'd do it, actually. Why do you do it?
What great evidence of objectivity. So some old judge gets to be the be-all-end-all in terms of slashdot arguments about global warming? It's hard to take either side seriously when they start referencing some judge that isn't really an expert resource as an expert resource, only because something that judge said lends some sort of twisted credence to those things with which they agree. Judges say lots of crap -- it doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.
Re:Yeah, mutual geeking out is awesome
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 1
I was at a sci-fi con, had some art in the art show. Since I grew up without a TV I really didn't know much about what was going on, but my friend was helping organize the con and talked me into going and watching the art auction. We were wandering around, talking about this and that, and walked into a room. There was a strikingly pretty woman sitting in a chair, looking *very* bored, and on the other side of the room, a strikingly handsome man, surrounded by people, talking. I think you forgot to start with "Dear Penthouse Forum,".
Just throwing out an idea -- maybe companies "prefer" younger workers because they're cheaper? Don't know this to be all-encompassing, but I've found, anecdotally, that most 28 year olds, in most industries, makes less money than most 58 year olds. Don't lambaste me, but respond if you have evidence or other ideas.
I wouldn't mod you troll or even off-topic. But you've gotta admit it would all depend on which "hardcore Christian" you're talking to. For example, some "hardcore" Christians would say God just does whatever He wants and, since they believe God and His sovereignty exceeds the bounds of human understanding, that the only inconsistencies in the occurrence, or lack thereof, of something like a natural disaster are the result of a human understanding that's not just very much small in scope, but also remarkably overrated. Other Christians would shrug and go out and try to get filthy rich, married and divorced 3 times, sleep with their neighbor's wife, etc. And even other Christians would ignore any chatter about the ozone because they've got too much other crap in their lives to deal with already, like someone trying to kill them or that they just lost their spouse or any other number of problems anyone could face. Your problem, that which leads you to draw that there's an "amusing" link here, isn't with Christians -- that's far too general a grouping -- but rather those with whom you disagree, namely on the way they hold beliefs and the behaviors that go with those beliefs in terms of God. This could be a Jew or a Muslim or some animist that thinks the buffalo he saw on vacation is a manifestation of God. But I guess I understand why you picked Christian -- because generally a lot of people say they're Christians? Not sure otherwise.
You make people more independent by making them wealthy.
You need to consider the means by which they were made wealthy, of course, in order to determine how independent they really are. You also need to consider that wealth is a relative term. And finally, you need to consider that independent is a relative term, as well. All that to say that some of the wealthiest people people in the world are completely dependent on many factors to maintain their current wealth and some of the "unwealthiest" people function completely independently from many of those same forces to which the wealthy are beholden. Conversely, as you've said, the "unwealthy" may come to depend so much on the support of others that they lose a great deal of independence that the wealthy have, simply because the wealthy have enough resources to buy themselves time to survive the dry times of life.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with your statement, but I think there are a great number factors more than simply money. Using the example of China, give Foo Long in some rat hole inland Chinese province more money because the garment dyeing factory at which he works is making boatloads of money and his quality of life may improve. But he's still dependent on that factory, as well as restricted in his independence by "his" government. His newfound "wealth" isn't bad, but depending on the situation, could be considered table scraps.
or are people devolving? This is an interesting word choice. I like it a lot because the general consensus is that we're constantly advancing -- but maybe we're not. Perhaps there are/were very effective methods that we used to employ to deal with these type of ageless social problems, but they've (recently?) been deemed inappropriate, so we're left with less effective methods. Because these methods appear to be more civil or socially acceptable, this is regarded by the general public as a positive and a sign of advanced society, so we're unable to figure out why the problems seem to get worse -- a sort of corporate cognitive dissonance when the answer is right in front of our noses. Our own misguided social piety could be screwing us over.
Your use of the word "subsidize" suggests that you believe cable companies are overcharging for certain more popular content and then using a portion of those overages to pay for the niche content. I don't think this is the case. I think the cables companies do "subsidize", but I believe in a converse manner to what you're suggesting (the ESPN situation -- where popular and expensive content is actually "subsidized" by packaging the content).
Also, it seems like you're working under the assumption that the major revenue stream of the niche providers is subscriptions, which I am not 100% sure is the case. I would think that they make more money from advertisers. Granted, the two are not unrelated (advertisers won't pay if there are no subscribers); however, if a channel is able to currently exist, it should be able to exist in the future if it has something that people want. It's disingenuous (and gives the cable companies too much credit) to say that the only reason something like The Science Channel exists is because the cable companies make it part of one of their packages.
All that said, I do indeed agree that a la carte will raise certain costs -- just not to the point of extincting smaller providers. But I am willing to pay those increases, for 1) what I am guessing, but am not certain, will be a lower total cost and 2) more leverage in getting content that is currently not in any existing or reasonably priced *packages* they have anyways.
I'd go even one step further and say that I -WANT- the online and print versions to be the same or similar or at least have some sync or unified feel to them. I dislike seeing a headline in passing or hearing about an article on the radio and then getting online and not being able to find it because the print and online versions of newspapers are so different. I don't know if I'm in the majority or if I'm weird, but that's what I'd prefer.
The CSI study has a major weakness: it's an "informal" study distributed to CSI members and conference-goers. The estimates of money lost to damages are, in one author's own words, "estimates." "Some of them," in fact, "are probably altogether approximate guesses."
I love how companies determine damages; it's completely arbitrary. "The average fix for a security issue is XXX,XXX.XX dollars" -- but maybe the real cost of fixing it is way less than that if you're just willing to do the math. So the numbers are already skewed, and then you let people estimate (guess) what the damages were/are? I'm not saying there aren't real and substantial costs associated with security issues, just that maybe they aren't quite as big and bad as some people make them out to be. Just my 2 cents.
Yeah. I don't know what to think about helmet laws because I don't feel I can trust any studies either way. Ardent opponents have their studies that show how evil helmets are. Ardent supporters have studies that show the contrary. I just wonder where all the helmet law people are in the discussion about mandatory safety belt use. It seems like the exact same issue -- or at least very closely related. Food for thought, whatever the case may be.
What about a $50,000 hospital bill, which isn't paid because the person dies 2 days later from head trauma, plus a $5,000 funeral bill, plus any potential life insurance payout, plus an employer replacing an employee, plus any other costs related to the accident in the first place? And on and on. More often than not, people dying in vehicle accidents is a bad thing all around.
Who cares is right! Playing the "what-if" game is a complete waste of time. The question can never be satisfactorily answered because Microsoft did and does exist. I hate stuff like this. It's like that one guy in the office that sits around telling you about how things could have been.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is a sensitive subject, but I've read many posts here referring to carbon (basically C02) as a "pollutant" and I think it's kind of silly. A pollutant is something that creates a quantitative negative impact on the substance to which it's introduced. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Its existence in the atmosphere is not anthropogenic, although recent industrial activity has increased its levels. Plants need it. Like other greenhouse gases such as the much more plentiful (and insidious!) water vapor [evil laugh], it helps keeps the temperature of the earth at a "livable" level. I know this is an emotionally charged issue, with all sides taking part in the cognitive dissonance, group think, research tautology and irrationality, but when I read "pollutant" as referring to C02, I see it as more of a political use than a scientific one. Just my 2 cents as always.
I love how much credit people give to the Internet. Anyone can/could already take part in "real life". Will other people be so stupid as to exclude them based on *some* of the things you mention above? Sure. But it's not like this is non-existent online -- it just takes longer to come out. The online context only delays and obsfucates who a person really is; the truth will come out eventually when important things come to pass.
Basically, if someone has a certain prejudice, they're not magically going to change because they're online. Thus, the major value of this online context is its...anonymity -- a concept which runs completely contrary to the idea of being "social". If someone thinks being able to more-or-less anonymously post comments online without being subject to the awful rules of real life is some sort of great and meaningful social advancement, I'd say they're sorely mistaken.
I think this would violate the Constitution.I should only be able to give money to candidates I am permitted to vote for.
I don't think that's a good example since the people can choose what they want to do. If you're born an arm, you're an arm, you cannot become a leg or an ear or a pancreas. But people are born as people. I'm oversimplifying, but people have unlimited upside when they're born -- the Al Sharptons of the world can bitch and moan about inequalities, but even if you're born into tough circumstances, you can still end up incredibly prosperous. An appendix can end up as a brain.
And since we choose not to specifically force people any way or the other based on who they are, their religion, their hometown, etc., most of them choose occupations that have a lot of upside potential in terms of money. In other words, no one's promoting "white collar" or pushing people towards advanced degrees, but people simply like money -- and white collar jobs tend to provide more of that. It's not a hard and fast rule (auto repair tech / mechanic is a great example of a blue collar job where you can make a crapload and even that requires a lot of education and apprenticeship), but it's pretty close to it.
"Here, little Timmy, you can be a lawyer when you grow up and make lots of money. Or you can cut grass and make a fair, but not huge, amount." Why try to decide for Timmy that it's silly for him to get his law degree because there's grass he could be cutting?
It's all about money. Don't tell someone it's great to learn a trade simply there's tradework to be done. If they want to try to make a buttload of money in the ways that they see as the best/fastest ways to do so who are you to try and tell them otherwise?
Now if you want to convince people that money is, to some degree, overrated, I'm with you.
What are these arms you speak of? You have actual arms? I have some guns, but the same people that may be the recipients of me "taking them up" know all about me having them because they passed laws a relatively long time ago about me registering them and having a special ID card (I live in Illinois). And now they want to keep passing laws regarding those guns because the current ones aren't enough, apparently. After all, who really needs a gun now anyways? Times have changed and we can trust the government to do the right thing. They've certainly show they can, righ...oh wait...
Pish posh, of course. Eventually, we'll be at the point where it would literally be our arms -- the things that extend from our scapulas and clavicles with ulnas and humeruses and radiuses -- that would need to do any sort of revolting because they'll have scraped away an amendment to their supposedly precious Constitution. Mess with people's "free speech" or "civil liberties" and they crap their pants while having a fit. But subtly screw with other parts of the Constitution and those SAME pants-crappers become governmental apologists trying to explain why those weren't and really aren't actual rights.
[/kind-of-off-topic]Yeah - thanks for the responses. I guess I didn't explain myself well, perhaps because of my annoyance. My point was that the only reason this would be "too bad" would be if you were trying to tout one thing versus another, as opposed to talking about the technology. Is it new technology? No - as the so-called fan boys have certainly, and redundantly, told us all. Is it a new "application" of technology? I think this could be easily argued yes. So, while my annoyance could be that I just need a cup of coffee, it could also be that I'm sick of everything ending up as a debate about Apple vs. whatever, etc.
What great evidence of objectivity. So some old judge gets to be the be-all-end-all in terms of slashdot arguments about global warming? It's hard to take either side seriously when they start referencing some judge that isn't really an expert resource as an expert resource, only because something that judge said lends some sort of twisted credence to those things with which they agree. Judges say lots of crap -- it doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.
Just throwing out an idea -- maybe companies "prefer" younger workers because they're cheaper? Don't know this to be all-encompassing, but I've found, anecdotally, that most 28 year olds, in most industries, makes less money than most 58 year olds. Don't lambaste me, but respond if you have evidence or other ideas.
I wouldn't mod you troll or even off-topic. But you've gotta admit it would all depend on which "hardcore Christian" you're talking to. For example, some "hardcore" Christians would say God just does whatever He wants and, since they believe God and His sovereignty exceeds the bounds of human understanding, that the only inconsistencies in the occurrence, or lack thereof, of something like a natural disaster are the result of a human understanding that's not just very much small in scope, but also remarkably overrated. Other Christians would shrug and go out and try to get filthy rich, married and divorced 3 times, sleep with their neighbor's wife, etc. And even other Christians would ignore any chatter about the ozone because they've got too much other crap in their lives to deal with already, like someone trying to kill them or that they just lost their spouse or any other number of problems anyone could face. Your problem, that which leads you to draw that there's an "amusing" link here, isn't with Christians -- that's far too general a grouping -- but rather those with whom you disagree, namely on the way they hold beliefs and the behaviors that go with those beliefs in terms of God. This could be a Jew or a Muslim or some animist that thinks the buffalo he saw on vacation is a manifestation of God. But I guess I understand why you picked Christian -- because generally a lot of people say they're Christians? Not sure otherwise.
You need to consider the means by which they were made wealthy, of course, in order to determine how independent they really are. You also need to consider that wealth is a relative term. And finally, you need to consider that independent is a relative term, as well. All that to say that some of the wealthiest people people in the world are completely dependent on many factors to maintain their current wealth and some of the "unwealthiest" people function completely independently from many of those same forces to which the wealthy are beholden. Conversely, as you've said, the "unwealthy" may come to depend so much on the support of others that they lose a great deal of independence that the wealthy have, simply because the wealthy have enough resources to buy themselves time to survive the dry times of life.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with your statement, but I think there are a great number factors more than simply money. Using the example of China, give Foo Long in some rat hole inland Chinese province more money because the garment dyeing factory at which he works is making boatloads of money and his quality of life may improve. But he's still dependent on that factory, as well as restricted in his independence by "his" government. His newfound "wealth" isn't bad, but depending on the situation, could be considered table scraps.
Your use of the word "subsidize" suggests that you believe cable companies are overcharging for certain more popular content and then using a portion of those overages to pay for the niche content. I don't think this is the case. I think the cables companies do "subsidize", but I believe in a converse manner to what you're suggesting (the ESPN situation -- where popular and expensive content is actually "subsidized" by packaging the content).
Also, it seems like you're working under the assumption that the major revenue stream of the niche providers is subscriptions, which I am not 100% sure is the case. I would think that they make more money from advertisers. Granted, the two are not unrelated (advertisers won't pay if there are no subscribers); however, if a channel is able to currently exist, it should be able to exist in the future if it has something that people want. It's disingenuous (and gives the cable companies too much credit) to say that the only reason something like The Science Channel exists is because the cable companies make it part of one of their packages.
All that said, I do indeed agree that a la carte will raise certain costs -- just not to the point of extincting smaller providers. But I am willing to pay those increases, for 1) what I am guessing, but am not certain, will be a lower total cost and 2) more leverage in getting content that is currently not in any existing or reasonably priced *packages* they have anyways.
I'd go even one step further and say that I -WANT- the online and print versions to be the same or similar or at least have some sync or unified feel to them. I dislike seeing a headline in passing or hearing about an article on the radio and then getting online and not being able to find it because the print and online versions of newspapers are so different. I don't know if I'm in the majority or if I'm weird, but that's what I'd prefer.
Yeah. I don't know what to think about helmet laws because I don't feel I can trust any studies either way. Ardent opponents have their studies that show how evil helmets are. Ardent supporters have studies that show the contrary. I just wonder where all the helmet law people are in the discussion about mandatory safety belt use. It seems like the exact same issue -- or at least very closely related. Food for thought, whatever the case may be.
What about a $50,000 hospital bill, which isn't paid because the person dies 2 days later from head trauma, plus a $5,000 funeral bill, plus any potential life insurance payout, plus an employer replacing an employee, plus any other costs related to the accident in the first place? And on and on. More often than not, people dying in vehicle accidents is a bad thing all around.
Who cares is right! Playing the "what-if" game is a complete waste of time. The question can never be satisfactorily answered because Microsoft did and does exist. I hate stuff like this. It's like that one guy in the office that sits around telling you about how things could have been.