You could say the same thing about email as a collaboration tool -- it sucks, but for the average user it sucks less than every other option.
The Okham's Razor of technology: What about the good old-fashioned cork bulletin boards?:-D Maybe it should be Knuth's Razor (Prof. Donald Knuth is a vocal critic of email).
That's if Apple are even paying sales tax to the various states, I have a feeling that they are not.
Actually, unless there were a Federal sales tax (which I am , Apple nor song purchasers would be required to pay sales tax. The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) grants Congress the power to regulate commerce between the States. Furthermore, Section 10, Clause 2 of Article I forbids the states from laying taxes or duties on goods from other states without the consent of Congress. Since the transaction (generally) occurs across state lines, Apple nor its customers are required to pay a sales tax. This is why only a Federal Sales Tax could apply to the internet, because the states are barred from regulating interstate commerce.
This enumeration of powers is rooted in the defunct Articles of Confederation, America's first government (it lasted for only 14 years). During rule of the Articles, each state had several powers, many of which are now Federal, and many states had bitter fueds. Crossing state lines, which now is almost unnoticable, was like crossing a guarded border. The Framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid the Articles' problems, thus they granted Congress the sole power to regulate interstate commerce. Keep in mind, the Framers had no idea that the Constitution would today be the oldest written government actually in use (Britain's largely unwritten constitution is technically older); they simply wanted the Constitution to last for a good decade and allow America to stabalize so a better, more "well planned" form of government could be derived. Suffice it to say, they were pleasently surprised. Hope that helped clear any issues
Finally, I'd like to say that when I lived overseas in Germany, the prices for many things were much higher on the German economy than the American. Gasoline (or petrol) was about 4 times the price of gasoline in America. The x price/gallon in America was usually ~1:1 with x price/liter in Germany. Many European goods and services are more expensive because of the (inefficient) nationalized industries. Granted, in the UK, the government is by far the most conservative in Europe, there is still a higher tax rate for some of the national services. US citizens generally favor greater liberty at expense of the government, whereas UK subjects generally favor greater services at the expense of liberty. It's a trade-off; times always change; nothing like that is constant.
Hey, man, I know what you mean. Hold on, I need to open this other page in a new tab... there we go. Alright, I agree. I mean Firefox is definitely better in the standards department than its Microshaft counterpart, but it still isn't perfect. Why the hell doesn't Mozilla get faster volunteers?! They are a "corporation" now, after all. I mean half of the SVG standards don't work on Mozilla browsers. Check out the w3schools tutorial and you'll see that all the animation examples are just static pages. Of course, it is ABM - anything but M$. I really wish Mozilla would demonstrate their dedication to the web and a standardized web by fully standardizing their browser. Hell, I have a T1 connection; I can handle a few extra megabytes. I am also outraged at how MathML doesn't render absolutely perfectly without 3 extra fonts. That is inexcusable to me, working at a lab as I do. And I too wish that CSS was more fully supported. I'd much rather use the flexible steel of predefined CSS than the brittle rubberband known as dynamic JavaScript. So, in summary, browser companies or developers should stop adding so many features but should focus more on keeping up with new standards. One new standard a week is no big deal; any good businessman knows that to keep ahead, you have to develop quality with haste. I swear, I'd switch to Amaya if only it had better features.
Wasn't it called an "orchestral freak out". I actually thought of the same thing. Besides, it ends with the chord that sounds conspicuously like the Macintosh boot chime (I guess that's the source of the bitter fight between Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Corp.) Now I read about this Xenakis guy. Fascinating...
I guess we could even bring up Johann Sebastian Bach, who is widely regarded as among the most brilliant (if not the most brilliant) composer of all time. Bach's works have been analyzed for mathematical excellence as well as aesthetic pleasure.
I wouldn't be so quick to label his comment stupid simply because it is improbable (impossible, anyone?). He has a point. Obviously Apple values its hardware business much more than its software business. Since its beginning, Apple has developed killer software but been very picky as to which hardware will run it. It cost Jobs and Woz big back in the day, and it has the potential to again. If not for Mr. iPod, Apple couldn't be reporting nearly this level of success. If they released their operating system to all x86 machines they could. At this point I think Apple should keep its OS as is. That said, I can definitely foresee a possible Dvorackian outcome (Novell SuSE, anyone?). Of course, Apple would have to be conservative about what they consider "OS". Preinstalled apps like GarageBand and iMovie would still cost. I figure Apple has much of the core OS built on BSD anyway, why not have the Unix wars? BSD v. Linux. Hell, M$ is not in it, everyone wins.
China is obviously an authoritarian and totalitarian state. Instead of putting on this facade of "the Peoples' Republic" they ought to just say, "don't piss Hu off". They arbitrarily incarcerate, punish, and execute people. Why have the false pretenses about it? If they did that, maybe we wouldn't hate them as much.
This is one of those cases where the person and the company both benefit if the company takes the responsibility. Because the person is acting as the "agent" of the company, the company is technically at fault. Though Best Buy would be more likely to fire the persons responsible if the allegations are true, it has the insurance to pay for such allegations, and it has access to much better lawyers.
Also, Isn't this the first time in a while that one party controlled the 3 parts of the government?
Nope, in 1993, when Clinton took over from George HW Bush, the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches were all under control of the Democrats. Needless to say, the Dems made a few mistakes, and the Republicans, rallying behind Newt Gingrich, took control of the House of Representatives, a feat that many Americans (even Republicans) didn't believe would happen for a long time. Remember their plan was called the "Contract with America" (which Clinton referred to as the "Contract on America"). The Republican House passed a lot of good bills, and actually gave Clinton the opportunity to pass some much more moderate reforms (such as the much-needed welfare reforms). So the answer to your question is, "no, from January of 1993 to January of 1995, the Democrats controlled all three branches of government."
It should also be noted that true conservatives favor less government, whereas true liberals favor more government; they both believe that each of their respective paths are conducive to effective interaction between people. Unfortunately in America, the lines have become somewhat blurred: a Republican believes that welfare and affirmative action should be eliminated, but also believes that abortion should be stone cold illegal. A Democrat believes that institutions like the SEC and FDA should exist to provide impartial mediation between people and/or corporate entities, but also believe that killing an unborn fetus (which may have the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") is perfectly alright. It's a touchy line in politics, and people don't really realize how they are being duped by the system. Case in point: a Republican leadership conference in Tennessee recently featured prominent Republican Senators and Representatives, all of which called for fiscal conservativism. However, of those who spoke, John McCain is perhaps the only Senator who is in reality a fiscal conservative. With a Republican House and Senate, we would think that fiscal responsibility would follow. In the words of (conservative) columnist George Will, the current Republicans pay only lipservice to the neoconservative agenda, but act as big-government, heavy-spending liberals.
Now for my disclaimer: I am not a fan of Dubya at all. I was a fan of Clinton. Dubya has made so many mistakes on so many levels, I think even the ultra-liberal John Kerry would have actually done a better job. Bush is just awful. He is eroding liberty and freedom and democracy in their very names. He is continuously lying to the American people and to the World and immediately smears any percieved opposition (i.e. smearing McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 electoral campaign). He has no concept of fiscal conservativism except the words "tax cut", which is perhaps the most irresponsible fiscal action one can take. At least the democrats will fund their big-government projects with interest-free money. I have the satisfaction that this November (210 days from April 10, 2006, for those who are counting) there will be bloodshed in Washington, DC. Bush is a slimy politician and a horrible person. He should be held responsible for his misdeeds and his inaction if he is truly concerned with "democracy" and "liberty".
I thought that when monkeys joke, they throw feces at you. Of course, it is his house, and his rules too. Based on his previous statements (i.e. throwing chairs while swearing profanely, "I'm going to f***ing kill Google!"), then google is likely a "bad word" in all n 100000 square feet of his home. And the fact that he called iPod owners "theives" doesn't help the prospect of those in his massive dwelling either. Maybe when they get angry in the Ballmer household, scenes from "2001: A Space Odyssey" are renacted. Of course, how do we know they didn't give Arthur C. Clark himself that idea... I can hear it now, the overlay of "Developers! Developers!" and so on over "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and "The Blue Danube".
Doesn't seem like a problem to me. Here in VA ("Commonwealth" USA), the state has begun the process of deregulating cable and allowing for competition. As soon as the state lawmakers began the discussion, Cox, the local cable provider, began providing new "services" for free. Coincidence? Capitalism wins the day...
Why? Because there is no centrifugal force. The force that people call "centrifugal force" is really just Newton's First Law in motion (pun intended). A body moving with constant linear velocity will continue moving unless an external force acts upon it. Thus when something turns, there is a centripital force causing it to turn. Consider driving on a curve. As the driver, you turn the wheel and the car turns. Then you feel this outward "force" on your body, tending to "pull" you out of the car. In actuality, the "centrifugal force" isn't really a force at all; it is simply matter's tendency to move with constant linear velocity. You, turning the wheel, are causing the centripital force and thus turn around the curve safely. If you were to let go of the wheel, it would likely turn back to the straight position and you would plunge off of the curve. This is also why some steeper curves are banked for high-velocity turns, as this reduces the effects of the inertial factor. Gravity is simply the attaction between masses. Newton also played an important role here, but really had no understanding of gravity, other than it seemed to be an effect of mass. Einstein, of course, perfected Newton's theory (some would say he completely reworked it.) The oddity is that we understand the atomic and subatomic forces, such as strong nuclear and the electroweak forces. They are in fact very similar. Physicists are attempting to work a "Grand Unified Field Theory" in which the strong nuclear force, electroweak force, and gravitational force are all different "manifestations" of the "same" force. This might even open the possibility of "creating" new forces. Gravity is the least understood, which is an irony as it was the first to be "discovered" in the sense that it was the first studied. I'm excited to read these experimental data and see what insight can be provided.
Conversely, some regions refer to all soda as "coke" regardless of what company manufactures it. I was in Kansas once and was asked, "what kind of coke 'you want?" However, in that case you are still correct. If someone uses the word "coke" in a generic way, Coca-Cola Company has no claim to it. Thus, Marvel and DC may have trademarked "Super Heros" but as long as they are used as a concrete or abstract noun, there is nothing the two big bad evil corporations can do. Donald Trump actually trademarked "you're fired!", but this doesn't give him the sole right to say that. As long as people aren't impersonating Trump and/or his holdings, he can't say anything against them.
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. I'd like to add that many of the problems we have in society are directly rooted in this counterintuitive idea. Consider: if PETA were successful, meat would not be manufactured because the market would not exist. But then neither would PETA. Therefore PETA exists for the sake of PETA existing. It doesn't want to not exist; its administrators and members don't want it to not exist. Thus it will go to great lengths to ensure that it will continue to exist while still preaching some ideology and engaging in soft terror (i.e. egging or defacing Ronald McDonald house charities). This is encapsulated in the "lightbulb concept": a lightbulb could concievably and rather cheaply be manufactured so that it would never burn out, notwithstanding it breaking or being subject to extreme current/voltage. If one were made, however, the maker would certainly go out of business. Making replacements would be hardly lucrative. Today this is best embodied in the drug companies. They will pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to make sure physicians prescribe drugs. TV ads, magazine ads, physician gifts, and DC lobbying are all employed. Meanwhile prescription drugs are getting more and more expensive, and an increasingly older population is getting more confused. Rather than mend a medical problem permanently, however, physicians have great incentive to prescribe drugs. The result? Well first the drug companies make lots of money. Second is the fudging of data, like the Vioxx debacle. Now the companies are saying, "well, making drugs is hard because a single drug may have different effects on different people..." Well not shit, sherlock. They have garbage ads about how much they care, but they don't care. We say they want to make money, but this is not their ultimate goal. They want to exist.
If they installed shit on my computer without my knowledge or permission, I'd serve them a lawsuit. Buying a CD or DVD or anything else never comes with the mention of installing secret software.
See, here on/., people will bash your head in if you ask the wrong questions. Of course, they fail to see that science, from the latin for "knowing", is all about questioning. Allegience to a given theory is completely proposterous in "real" science (although every scientist has his or her 'baby'). Your question is highly valid. And before some militant atheist comes and posts and bashes you, calling you a religious zealot or a "fundamentalist", I'd like to praise you for good questioning. Thank you.
The miracle is that Balmer wasn't throwing chairs and spewing profanities during the interview.
What about sweating and shouting? Informertial, anyone? I can almost see it...
BALLMER: "I-bum, I-bum, I-bum, I-bum,..." a few minutes later
GATES [to BALLMER]: "Stevo, buddy, its I B M, not I-bum."
BALLMER [bald head turning red]: "AHHHHH! I'm going to f***ing kill I-bum!!!!" hurls chair into audience
ZOOLOGIST [with John Cleese accent]: "As you can see, the underevolved apelike human is very territorial over its possessions. It will often attempt to intimidate its enemies while hurling objects toward them, as you just witnessed. This ape will continue to attack the more highly evolved humans, but to no avail, as they will simply stop listening to his drivel and buy something else. Thank you for your attention!"
From a practical perspective, he could have handled MIT. In fact, it probably would have been a better place for him. Anyone who can both bluff about creating a BASIC interpreter and then actually create one within two weeks is no dummy. Hell, he may have turned out less of a prick (though I don't think he's necessarily evil). Gates is like Darth Vader: there is good in him, but you'd have to nearly kill him to get to it.
What's really frightinging is that this audit was done by a congressional committee, who, by our post is inherently incompetent. The incompetent oversight committee actually found security holes, how glaring did the incompetence of DHS have to be???
Actually, the "wasteful" part of government is the executive branch, the ones that "carries out" the laws. The reason? No competition. Congress is also incompetant, but in other ways (i.e. approving an extension of the National Debt to $9 trillion). See, Congress has its best interest in seeing the executive branch mismanage money, because then Senators and Representatives get to tell their constituents, "I asked the tough questions about the use of your tax dollars," whether or not it makes a difference. The whole, "you failed the people!" idea is just a political tool. It's just like the school system: Congresspeople will rant about schools till the cows come home, but they do it to run for reelection. In most cases, the issue is answered, but instead of the original problem just smoldering like it was before, Congress just intensifies the problem into a full-fledged fire (i.e. No Child Left Behind). You see, government can identifying problems and is even worse at solving them. I usually consider ole Ronny Reagan a bit of an imbecile, but he had it right when he said, "The worst words anyone can hear is, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help...'"
Yeah, its the biggest damn con game there is. Someone should be able to just register a name for free, without the damn registration fees or anything. I think I can live with not watching those stupid "GoDaddy" commercials in which the girl has a "peek-a-boob" incident. And one other thing. Why does "security" play into price increases?
Agreed, but he also holds it against MIT that he had to go to Hahvahd (from which he didn't even graduate). He knows he couldn't handle MIT. Bill Gates says all this shit about curing Malaria, but then when this $100 laptop is being made, which could be among the first devices to bring education to the most impoverished, he scoffs. I think Robin Williams was right; "Monopoly is just a game, Senator. I'm trying to rule the fucking world!" Of course, the "Hahvahd effect" probably had some effect on his greed. There is other evidence of Hahvahd's greed: they have the nations top law school. (Please don't take it personally if you or your relatives have attended Harvard, [unless, of course, you're Bill Gates in which case you can go take Windows and every other peice of shit product you manufacture and cram them up your ass]. I simply am playing off of the MIT-Harvard rivalry.)
Why would it be in a company's best interest to send credit cards to crooks? After all of the legal fees for "stolen identities" lawsuits and the company's image, the company really is losing more than it gains. Here's what surprises me: he recieved the mail at address A, then sent it back with the address on the form being address B. They accepted the changed address without any sort of, "we'd like to clarify that your address is correct." Obviously card companies are losing money on these people, so why don't they just go the extra 5 minutes initially and not have to worry about 5 years of crap down the line? Especially when their own "protect yourself from identity theft" advocates cutting up the application and disposing of it. This guy cut his up into 12 peices. If a person just leaves his or her credit card application on the ground or something, completely intact, then he or she almost deserves to be duped. But this is just ridiculous action on part of the company. It is not only not in their best interest, but negligent, especially when they advocate cutting up applications into many peices.
Now, I learned something rather amusing about these applications and other junk mail from a friend of mine. What he has done for a long time is take all of his junk mail and put it into a stack. Then he opens it, and removes the preaddressed envelopes. He places other junk mail "offers" into the envelopes and sends it off. Slowly but surely his junk mail began to wane, as the company obviously realized they had to pay for additional postage for each preaddressed envelope. I heard about another guy who wrote "NO!!!!" on top of every credit card app he recieved in the mail, and the same thing happened. Perhaps you can beat a man at his own game...
Slashdot Mirror
You could say the same thing about email as a collaboration tool -- it sucks, but for the average user it sucks less than every other option.
The Okham's Razor of technology: What about the good old-fashioned cork bulletin boards? :-D Maybe it should be Knuth's Razor (Prof. Donald Knuth is a vocal critic of email).
That's if Apple are even paying sales tax to the various states, I have a feeling that they are not.
Actually, unless there were a Federal sales tax (which I am , Apple nor song purchasers would be required to pay sales tax. The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) grants Congress the power to regulate commerce between the States. Furthermore, Section 10, Clause 2 of Article I forbids the states from laying taxes or duties on goods from other states without the consent of Congress. Since the transaction (generally) occurs across state lines, Apple nor its customers are required to pay a sales tax. This is why only a Federal Sales Tax could apply to the internet, because the states are barred from regulating interstate commerce.
This enumeration of powers is rooted in the defunct Articles of Confederation, America's first government (it lasted for only 14 years). During rule of the Articles, each state had several powers, many of which are now Federal, and many states had bitter fueds. Crossing state lines, which now is almost unnoticable, was like crossing a guarded border. The Framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid the Articles' problems, thus they granted Congress the sole power to regulate interstate commerce. Keep in mind, the Framers had no idea that the Constitution would today be the oldest written government actually in use (Britain's largely unwritten constitution is technically older); they simply wanted the Constitution to last for a good decade and allow America to stabalize so a better, more "well planned" form of government could be derived. Suffice it to say, they were pleasently surprised. Hope that helped clear any issues
Finally, I'd like to say that when I lived overseas in Germany, the prices for many things were much higher on the German economy than the American. Gasoline (or petrol) was about 4 times the price of gasoline in America. The x price/gallon in America was usually ~1:1 with x price/liter in Germany. Many European goods and services are more expensive because of the (inefficient) nationalized industries. Granted, in the UK, the government is by far the most conservative in Europe, there is still a higher tax rate for some of the national services. US citizens generally favor greater liberty at expense of the government, whereas UK subjects generally favor greater services at the expense of liberty. It's a trade-off; times always change; nothing like that is constant.
Hey, man, I know what you mean. Hold on, I need to open this other page in a new tab... there we go. Alright, I agree. I mean Firefox is definitely better in the standards department than its Microshaft counterpart, but it still isn't perfect. Why the hell doesn't Mozilla get faster volunteers?! They are a "corporation" now, after all. I mean half of the SVG standards don't work on Mozilla browsers. Check out the w3schools tutorial and you'll see that all the animation examples are just static pages. Of course, it is ABM - anything but M$. I really wish Mozilla would demonstrate their dedication to the web and a standardized web by fully standardizing their browser. Hell, I have a T1 connection; I can handle a few extra megabytes. I am also outraged at how MathML doesn't render absolutely perfectly without 3 extra fonts. That is inexcusable to me, working at a lab as I do. And I too wish that CSS was more fully supported. I'd much rather use the flexible steel of predefined CSS than the brittle rubberband known as dynamic JavaScript. So, in summary, browser companies or developers should stop adding so many features but should focus more on keeping up with new standards. One new standard a week is no big deal; any good businessman knows that to keep ahead, you have to develop quality with haste. I swear, I'd switch to Amaya if only it had better features.
Wasn't it called an "orchestral freak out". I actually thought of the same thing. Besides, it ends with the chord that sounds conspicuously like the Macintosh boot chime (I guess that's the source of the bitter fight between Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Corp.) Now I read about this Xenakis guy. Fascinating...
I guess we could even bring up Johann Sebastian Bach, who is widely regarded as among the most brilliant (if not the most brilliant) composer of all time. Bach's works have been analyzed for mathematical excellence as well as aesthetic pleasure.
You beat me to it. "Fascinating...."
I wouldn't be so quick to label his comment stupid simply because it is improbable (impossible, anyone?). He has a point. Obviously Apple values its hardware business much more than its software business. Since its beginning, Apple has developed killer software but been very picky as to which hardware will run it. It cost Jobs and Woz big back in the day, and it has the potential to again. If not for Mr. iPod, Apple couldn't be reporting nearly this level of success. If they released their operating system to all x86 machines they could. At this point I think Apple should keep its OS as is. That said, I can definitely foresee a possible Dvorackian outcome (Novell SuSE, anyone?). Of course, Apple would have to be conservative about what they consider "OS". Preinstalled apps like GarageBand and iMovie would still cost. I figure Apple has much of the core OS built on BSD anyway, why not have the Unix wars? BSD v. Linux. Hell, M$ is not in it, everyone wins.
China is obviously an authoritarian and totalitarian state. Instead of putting on this facade of "the Peoples' Republic" they ought to just say, "don't piss Hu off". They arbitrarily incarcerate, punish, and execute people. Why have the false pretenses about it? If they did that, maybe we wouldn't hate them as much.
This is one of those cases where the person and the company both benefit if the company takes the responsibility. Because the person is acting as the "agent" of the company, the company is technically at fault. Though Best Buy would be more likely to fire the persons responsible if the allegations are true, it has the insurance to pay for such allegations, and it has access to much better lawyers.
Say, isn't Broward County one of the places where some "voting irregularities" occured both in 2000 and 2004? I smell a scandal...
Also, Isn't this the first time in a while that one party controlled the 3 parts of the government?
Nope, in 1993, when Clinton took over from George HW Bush, the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches were all under control of the Democrats. Needless to say, the Dems made a few mistakes, and the Republicans, rallying behind Newt Gingrich, took control of the House of Representatives, a feat that many Americans (even Republicans) didn't believe would happen for a long time. Remember their plan was called the "Contract with America" (which Clinton referred to as the "Contract on America"). The Republican House passed a lot of good bills, and actually gave Clinton the opportunity to pass some much more moderate reforms (such as the much-needed welfare reforms). So the answer to your question is, "no, from January of 1993 to January of 1995, the Democrats controlled all three branches of government."
It should also be noted that true conservatives favor less government, whereas true liberals favor more government; they both believe that each of their respective paths are conducive to effective interaction between people. Unfortunately in America, the lines have become somewhat blurred: a Republican believes that welfare and affirmative action should be eliminated, but also believes that abortion should be stone cold illegal. A Democrat believes that institutions like the SEC and FDA should exist to provide impartial mediation between people and/or corporate entities, but also believe that killing an unborn fetus (which may have the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") is perfectly alright. It's a touchy line in politics, and people don't really realize how they are being duped by the system. Case in point: a Republican leadership conference in Tennessee recently featured prominent Republican Senators and Representatives, all of which called for fiscal conservativism. However, of those who spoke, John McCain is perhaps the only Senator who is in reality a fiscal conservative. With a Republican House and Senate, we would think that fiscal responsibility would follow. In the words of (conservative) columnist George Will, the current Republicans pay only lipservice to the neoconservative agenda, but act as big-government, heavy-spending liberals.
Now for my disclaimer: I am not a fan of Dubya at all. I was a fan of Clinton. Dubya has made so many mistakes on so many levels, I think even the ultra-liberal John Kerry would have actually done a better job. Bush is just awful. He is eroding liberty and freedom and democracy in their very names. He is continuously lying to the American people and to the World and immediately smears any percieved opposition (i.e. smearing McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 electoral campaign). He has no concept of fiscal conservativism except the words "tax cut", which is perhaps the most irresponsible fiscal action one can take. At least the democrats will fund their big-government projects with interest-free money. I have the satisfaction that this November (210 days from April 10, 2006, for those who are counting) there will be bloodshed in Washington, DC. Bush is a slimy politician and a horrible person. He should be held responsible for his misdeeds and his inaction if he is truly concerned with "democracy" and "liberty".
My guess is that Steve was just joking.
I thought that when monkeys joke, they throw feces at you. Of course, it is his house, and his rules too. Based on his previous statements (i.e. throwing chairs while swearing profanely, "I'm going to f***ing kill Google!"), then google is likely a "bad word" in all n 100000 square feet of his home. And the fact that he called iPod owners "theives" doesn't help the prospect of those in his massive dwelling either. Maybe when they get angry in the Ballmer household, scenes from "2001: A Space Odyssey" are renacted. Of course, how do we know they didn't give Arthur C. Clark himself that idea... I can hear it now, the overlay of "Developers! Developers!" and so on over "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and "The Blue Danube".
Doesn't seem like a problem to me. Here in VA ("Commonwealth" USA), the state has begun the process of deregulating cable and allowing for competition. As soon as the state lawmakers began the discussion, Cox, the local cable provider, began providing new "services" for free. Coincidence? Capitalism wins the day...
Why? Because there is no centrifugal force. The force that people call "centrifugal force" is really just Newton's First Law in motion (pun intended). A body moving with constant linear velocity will continue moving unless an external force acts upon it. Thus when something turns, there is a centripital force causing it to turn. Consider driving on a curve. As the driver, you turn the wheel and the car turns. Then you feel this outward "force" on your body, tending to "pull" you out of the car. In actuality, the "centrifugal force" isn't really a force at all; it is simply matter's tendency to move with constant linear velocity. You, turning the wheel, are causing the centripital force and thus turn around the curve safely. If you were to let go of the wheel, it would likely turn back to the straight position and you would plunge off of the curve. This is also why some steeper curves are banked for high-velocity turns, as this reduces the effects of the inertial factor. Gravity is simply the attaction between masses. Newton also played an important role here, but really had no understanding of gravity, other than it seemed to be an effect of mass. Einstein, of course, perfected Newton's theory (some would say he completely reworked it.) The oddity is that we understand the atomic and subatomic forces, such as strong nuclear and the electroweak forces. They are in fact very similar. Physicists are attempting to work a "Grand Unified Field Theory" in which the strong nuclear force, electroweak force, and gravitational force are all different "manifestations" of the "same" force. This might even open the possibility of "creating" new forces. Gravity is the least understood, which is an irony as it was the first to be "discovered" in the sense that it was the first studied. I'm excited to read these experimental data and see what insight can be provided.
Yeah, it was like that. Hitler staged an attack on Germany and thus was able to claim emergency powers. Then he eliminated all opponents.
Conversely, some regions refer to all soda as "coke" regardless of what company manufactures it. I was in Kansas once and was asked, "what kind of coke 'you want?" However, in that case you are still correct. If someone uses the word "coke" in a generic way, Coca-Cola Company has no claim to it. Thus, Marvel and DC may have trademarked "Super Heros" but as long as they are used as a concrete or abstract noun, there is nothing the two big bad evil corporations can do. Donald Trump actually trademarked "you're fired!", but this doesn't give him the sole right to say that. As long as people aren't impersonating Trump and/or his holdings, he can't say anything against them.
I see a Googlebomb coming on...
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. I'd like to add that many of the problems we have in society are directly rooted in this counterintuitive idea. Consider: if PETA were successful, meat would not be manufactured because the market would not exist. But then neither would PETA. Therefore PETA exists for the sake of PETA existing. It doesn't want to not exist; its administrators and members don't want it to not exist. Thus it will go to great lengths to ensure that it will continue to exist while still preaching some ideology and engaging in soft terror (i.e. egging or defacing Ronald McDonald house charities). This is encapsulated in the "lightbulb concept": a lightbulb could concievably and rather cheaply be manufactured so that it would never burn out, notwithstanding it breaking or being subject to extreme current/voltage. If one were made, however, the maker would certainly go out of business. Making replacements would be hardly lucrative. Today this is best embodied in the drug companies. They will pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to make sure physicians prescribe drugs. TV ads, magazine ads, physician gifts, and DC lobbying are all employed. Meanwhile prescription drugs are getting more and more expensive, and an increasingly older population is getting more confused. Rather than mend a medical problem permanently, however, physicians have great incentive to prescribe drugs. The result? Well first the drug companies make lots of money. Second is the fudging of data, like the Vioxx debacle. Now the companies are saying, "well, making drugs is hard because a single drug may have different effects on different people..." Well not shit, sherlock. They have garbage ads about how much they care, but they don't care. We say they want to make money, but this is not their ultimate goal. They want to exist.
If they installed shit on my computer without my knowledge or permission, I'd serve them a lawsuit. Buying a CD or DVD or anything else never comes with the mention of installing secret software.
See, here on /., people will bash your head in if you ask the wrong questions. Of course, they fail to see that science, from the latin for "knowing", is all about questioning. Allegience to a given theory is completely proposterous in "real" science (although every scientist has his or her 'baby'). Your question is highly valid. And before some militant atheist comes and posts and bashes you, calling you a religious zealot or a "fundamentalist", I'd like to praise you for good questioning. Thank you.
The miracle is that Balmer wasn't throwing chairs and spewing profanities during the interview.
What about sweating and shouting? Informertial, anyone? I can almost see it...
BALLMER: "I-bum, I-bum, I-bum, I-bum,..."
a few minutes later
GATES [to BALLMER]: "Stevo, buddy, its I B M, not I-bum."
BALLMER [bald head turning red]: "AHHHHH! I'm going to f***ing kill I-bum!!!!" hurls chair into audience
ZOOLOGIST [with John Cleese accent]: "As you can see, the underevolved apelike human is very territorial over its possessions. It will often attempt to intimidate its enemies while hurling objects toward them, as you just witnessed. This ape will continue to attack the more highly evolved humans, but to no avail, as they will simply stop listening to his drivel and buy something else. Thank you for your attention!"
From a practical perspective, he could have handled MIT. In fact, it probably would have been a better place for him. Anyone who can both bluff about creating a BASIC interpreter and then actually create one within two weeks is no dummy. Hell, he may have turned out less of a prick (though I don't think he's necessarily evil). Gates is like Darth Vader: there is good in him, but you'd have to nearly kill him to get to it.
What's really frightinging is that this audit was done by a congressional committee, who, by our post is inherently incompetent. The incompetent oversight committee actually found security holes, how glaring did the incompetence of DHS have to be???
Actually, the "wasteful" part of government is the executive branch, the ones that "carries out" the laws. The reason? No competition. Congress is also incompetant, but in other ways (i.e. approving an extension of the National Debt to $9 trillion). See, Congress has its best interest in seeing the executive branch mismanage money, because then Senators and Representatives get to tell their constituents, "I asked the tough questions about the use of your tax dollars," whether or not it makes a difference. The whole, "you failed the people!" idea is just a political tool. It's just like the school system: Congresspeople will rant about schools till the cows come home, but they do it to run for reelection. In most cases, the issue is answered, but instead of the original problem just smoldering like it was before, Congress just intensifies the problem into a full-fledged fire (i.e. No Child Left Behind). You see, government can identifying problems and is even worse at solving them. I usually consider ole Ronny Reagan a bit of an imbecile, but he had it right when he said, "The worst words anyone can hear is, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help...'"
Yeah, its the biggest damn con game there is. Someone should be able to just register a name for free, without the damn registration fees or anything. I think I can live with not watching those stupid "GoDaddy" commercials in which the girl has a "peek-a-boob" incident. And one other thing. Why does "security" play into price increases?
Agreed, but he also holds it against MIT that he had to go to Hahvahd (from which he didn't even graduate). He knows he couldn't handle MIT. Bill Gates says all this shit about curing Malaria, but then when this $100 laptop is being made, which could be among the first devices to bring education to the most impoverished, he scoffs. I think Robin Williams was right; "Monopoly is just a game, Senator. I'm trying to rule the fucking world!" Of course, the "Hahvahd effect" probably had some effect on his greed. There is other evidence of Hahvahd's greed: they have the nations top law school. (Please don't take it personally if you or your relatives have attended Harvard, [unless, of course, you're Bill Gates in which case you can go take Windows and every other peice of shit product you manufacture and cram them up your ass]. I simply am playing off of the MIT-Harvard rivalry.)
Why would it be in a company's best interest to send credit cards to crooks? After all of the legal fees for "stolen identities" lawsuits and the company's image, the company really is losing more than it gains. Here's what surprises me: he recieved the mail at address A, then sent it back with the address on the form being address B. They accepted the changed address without any sort of, "we'd like to clarify that your address is correct." Obviously card companies are losing money on these people, so why don't they just go the extra 5 minutes initially and not have to worry about 5 years of crap down the line? Especially when their own "protect yourself from identity theft" advocates cutting up the application and disposing of it. This guy cut his up into 12 peices. If a person just leaves his or her credit card application on the ground or something, completely intact, then he or she almost deserves to be duped. But this is just ridiculous action on part of the company. It is not only not in their best interest, but negligent, especially when they advocate cutting up applications into many peices.
Now, I learned something rather amusing about these applications and other junk mail from a friend of mine. What he has done for a long time is take all of his junk mail and put it into a stack. Then he opens it, and removes the preaddressed envelopes. He places other junk mail "offers" into the envelopes and sends it off. Slowly but surely his junk mail began to wane, as the company obviously realized they had to pay for additional postage for each preaddressed envelope. I heard about another guy who wrote "NO!!!!" on top of every credit card app he recieved in the mail, and the same thing happened. Perhaps you can beat a man at his own game...