1) We all sign up for MS's new service
2) We purchase a single track (at 1$ or so)
3) We download ALL of our previously-owned iTunes tracks, costing MS hundreds of dollars
And can anybody name a better candidate than Apple?
Well, there are these flightless waterfowl, that generally like cold areas, and are currently part-timing as mascots for this other candidate. If only I could remember its name.
It does NOT mean they try and apply that regulation on the rest of the worlds content coming into Australia.
- it also does NOT mean that they will try to apply that regulation to content streamed from within Australia, that isn't from a regulated source. The 'big players' (major networks) that broadcast on TV, and now also do some broadcasting online, won't be free from scrutiny. But your Average Joe (what's the term for that in Australian?) will still be able to webcast his silly antics (so long as they aren't kiddie porn, I guess).
Trying to stop file-sharing is to "not understand the internet". Trying to regulate the major TV networks' online broadcasts is something else.
Any small-town software house can write poorly-documented code - if by some miracle it works, and by another miracle people buy it, then good for them. But a company in possession of a stranglehold monopoly on the desktop OS market has to know that they are held up to a higher standard.
When you're at the bottom of the chart, you can fudge some rules and the referee might miss it. But when you're leading the board, you better be sure you follow every rule to the letter.
They are indeed very secretive about their technology
Yes, so I thought. And indeed the article says, "Google is notoriously secretive about its technology", "Google will not comment on its costs". Yet Bill Gates is quoted as saying "Google doesn't have anything magic here. We spend a little bit more per machine. But to do the same tasks, we have less machines.".
A web search doesn't turn up the reference for that quote (and the article doesn't link to it), so it's hard to know the context. But still, it does seem odd. How can Gates know such details, which are supposedly secret? I don't know whether to doubt the truth of his claim, or to wonder about how he could have found it out.
100% true. Microsoft WANTS people to have a 'free' version of Windows. WGA is only meant at differentiating the paying customers (who get non-critical updates, etc.) from the non-paying customers. This way, they get most (well, in the US anyhow) people to pay, while others will still be using Windows. This is the only way for them to maintain their monopoly: lock down unlicensed copies of Windows, and some people - even a few - will consider alternatives. Those few people switching from Windows scare the sh*t out of Microsoft.
In essence, it's like Adobe giving you a free version of Acrobat alongside the more feature-rich version that costs money - it's a great way to get market share. Except Microsoft do it in a dishonest way. I would hope that this is even legally problematic - if you know a person's copy is illegal (WGA tells him so), can you sue him for copyright infringement later on? After all, you could have stopped him yourself. But my hopes are probably unfounded, IANAL.
"GPS accuracy can be improved further, to about 1 cm (half an inch) over short distances, using techniques such as Differential GPS (DGPS)." - Wikipedia
Yes, exactly. Statistically speaking, the sample size is plenty big enough, if it were a random sample. But, as you say, it isn't a random sample - so we can't be sure of anything, really.
The question is, are the Microsoft employees who use Google correlated with the Microsoft employees who visit that website? Personally, I would gamble that they are not highly correlated, simply because I don't see a good reason for them to be. So, I would - carefully - suggest that the numbers quoted are interesting, and indicate something.
[...] while pirates will still be laughing at M$'s latest attempt at stamping them out!
The real issue is that this is not an attempt to stop piracy, but something else: if they wanted to stop piracy, they would lock down computers, not show popups. I recently blogged about this.
...don't post anything online that you don't want to be known about you. Unless you are using an alias and post no identifying details at all.
Of course employers are looking for information online, why wouldn't they? It's easy, fast, and most importantly: the person you are scanning has no idea about it.
TFA says, "Microsoft is continuing to roll out--slowly but surely--new branding that will be part of its overall Windows Vista campaign". So, supposedly, this is part of the marketing strategy for Vista.
I guess when your product isn't good enough, you need other ways to get it sold.
Well, I think their argument as a whole is bullshit, but it's pretty obvious what they would reply here. People download the torrent, some of them click on the links in the "IMPORTANT! READ THIS!" file included, and get their machine hijacked for profit (botted, adware, whatever).
The reason I call bullshit is that, until I see proof otherwise, I would assume that the money made off this would go to anything - organized crime, lone hackers, who knows. It is up to them to prove a connection to terrorism. But meanwhile they'll just keep making stuff up.
He has a point. The excitement over the eventually-invalidated-results was quite large. At the time, I would not say that the scientific community was 'skeptical'. Yes, there were skeptics, there always are. But to focus on the skeptics now is just 20/20 hindsight.
But it's too bad that the parent post mixes up the issue by comparing it to Iraq.
New for video, perhaps. But Google Print already has DRM, which trys to prevent saving copies of pages that you view (disabling right-clicks and some other stuff). Not that hard to override though.
Disclaimer: I am a doctoral student in a computational neuroscience program.
1) "quantum fluctuations" - there is no sizeable portion of the neuroscience community that believe this. Quantum effects are considered negligible for neuronal behavior.
2) "calcium dendrites which are attached to neurons" - dendrites are PARTS of neurons (the part that gets input from other neurons), not something attached to them. Yes, certain dendrites are sensitive to calcium. But other neurotransmittors are just as important.
But the end seems about right. We have no good idea of the limits of human memory. But also, we have next to no idea of how the brain stores memories. What you mention here is a wildly speculative theory.
You present the negative cases. But how about if they REDUCE your health premiums because they see you go jogging every other day?
You may reply that "they will only raise rates, not lower them." This may be true initially. But I presume that in the long run, the average insurance rate will even out (competition, etc. One of its only benefits). So, overall, some people will pay more, and other people will pay less. Importantly, people will pay more fairly - those that take more health risks pay more, those that take less - less.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's an opportunity for people to write Funny +5 comments.
Apparently, on Slashdot, that is reason enough...
This is all good and well, but what about the poor words that had to be cut to make room for the newbies?
The humanity.
Ok, here's the plan:
1) We all sign up for MS's new service
2) We purchase a single track (at 1$ or so)
3) We download ALL of our previously-owned iTunes tracks, costing MS hundreds of dollars
Who's with me?
FTA:
And can anybody name a better candidate than Apple?
Well, there are these flightless waterfowl, that generally like cold areas, and are currently part-timing as mascots for this other candidate. If only I could remember its name.
I agree completely. Furthermore, regarding
It does NOT mean they try and apply that regulation on the rest of the worlds content coming into Australia.
- it also does NOT mean that they will try to apply that regulation to content streamed from within Australia, that isn't from a regulated source. The 'big players' (major networks) that broadcast on TV, and now also do some broadcasting online, won't be free from scrutiny. But your Average Joe (what's the term for that in Australian?) will still be able to webcast his silly antics (so long as they aren't kiddie porn, I guess).
Trying to stop file-sharing is to "not understand the internet". Trying to regulate the major TV networks' online broadcasts is something else.
If so, then they only have themselves to blame.
Any small-town software house can write poorly-documented code - if by some miracle it works, and by another miracle people buy it, then good for them. But a company in possession of a stranglehold monopoly on the desktop OS market has to know that they are held up to a higher standard.
When you're at the bottom of the chart, you can fudge some rules and the referee might miss it. But when you're leading the board, you better be sure you follow every rule to the letter.
If these two examples are representative of the music linked to by Yahoo China, then this lawsuit has my full backing.
Bravo to them, I say. Bravo.
They are indeed very secretive about their technology
Yes, so I thought. And indeed the article says, "Google is notoriously secretive about its technology", "Google will not comment on its costs". Yet Bill Gates is quoted as saying "Google doesn't have anything magic here. We spend a little bit more per machine. But to do the same tasks, we have less machines.".
A web search doesn't turn up the reference for that quote (and the article doesn't link to it), so it's hard to know the context. But still, it does seem odd. How can Gates know such details, which are supposedly secret? I don't know whether to doubt the truth of his claim, or to wonder about how he could have found it out.
100% true. Microsoft WANTS people to have a 'free' version of Windows. WGA is only meant at differentiating the paying customers (who get non-critical updates, etc.) from the non-paying customers. This way, they get most (well, in the US anyhow) people to pay, while others will still be using Windows. This is the only way for them to maintain their monopoly: lock down unlicensed copies of Windows, and some people - even a few - will consider alternatives. Those few people switching from Windows scare the sh*t out of Microsoft.
In essence, it's like Adobe giving you a free version of Acrobat alongside the more feature-rich version that costs money - it's a great way to get market share. Except Microsoft do it in a dishonest way. I would hope that this is even legally problematic - if you know a person's copy is illegal (WGA tells him so), can you sue him for copyright infringement later on? After all, you could have stopped him yourself. But my hopes are probably unfounded, IANAL.
"GPS accuracy can be improved further, to about 1 cm (half an inch) over short distances, using techniques such as Differential GPS (DGPS)." - Wikipedia
Check with the people at /., maybe things are different there.
The Slashdot tags for this article are "obvious, fud".
How can the content be both obvious and FUD? The terms "obvious" and "uncertainty, doubt" generally don't go so well together...
Yes, exactly. Statistically speaking, the sample size is plenty big enough, if it were a random sample. But, as you say, it isn't a random sample - so we can't be sure of anything, really.
The question is, are the Microsoft employees who use Google correlated with the Microsoft employees who visit that website? Personally, I would gamble that they are not highly correlated, simply because I don't see a good reason for them to be. So, I would - carefully - suggest that the numbers quoted are interesting, and indicate something.
To paraphrase CBG:
Worst. OS. Ever.
I'll be prepared to believe they are turning a new leaf when they release Office for Linux.
Not before.
[...] while pirates will still be laughing at M$'s latest attempt at stamping them out!
The real issue is that this is not an attempt to stop piracy, but something else: if they wanted to stop piracy, they would lock down computers, not show popups. I recently blogged about this.
...don't post anything online that you don't want to be known about you. Unless you are using an alias and post no identifying details at all.
Of course employers are looking for information online, why wouldn't they? It's easy, fast, and most importantly: the person you are scanning has no idea about it.
TFA says, "Microsoft is continuing to roll out--slowly but surely--new branding that will be part of its overall Windows Vista campaign". So, supposedly, this is part of the marketing strategy for Vista.
I guess when your product isn't good enough, you need other ways to get it sold.
Well, I think their argument as a whole is bullshit, but it's pretty obvious what they would reply here. People download the torrent, some of them click on the links in the "IMPORTANT! READ THIS!" file included, and get their machine hijacked for profit (botted, adware, whatever).
The reason I call bullshit is that, until I see proof otherwise, I would assume that the money made off this would go to anything - organized crime, lone hackers, who knows. It is up to them to prove a connection to terrorism. But meanwhile they'll just keep making stuff up.
Sure, Open Source stuff can help the oppressive Chinese government. But it can also help individual Chinese who don't want to be oppressed.
He has a point. The excitement over the eventually-invalidated-results was quite large. At the time, I would not say that the scientific community was 'skeptical'. Yes, there were skeptics, there always are. But to focus on the skeptics now is just 20/20 hindsight.
But it's too bad that the parent post mixes up the issue by comparing it to Iraq.
New for video, perhaps. But Google Print already has DRM, which trys to prevent saving copies of pages that you view (disabling right-clicks and some other stuff). Not that hard to override though.
Disclaimer: I am a doctoral student in a computational neuroscience program.
1) "quantum fluctuations" - there is no sizeable portion of the neuroscience community that believe this. Quantum effects are considered negligible for neuronal behavior.
2) "calcium dendrites which are attached to neurons" - dendrites are PARTS of neurons (the part that gets input from other neurons), not something attached to them. Yes, certain dendrites are sensitive to calcium. But other neurotransmittors are just as important.
But the end seems about right. We have no good idea of the limits of human memory. But also, we have next to no idea of how the brain stores memories. What you mention here is a wildly speculative theory.
+3 Interesting? I guess pseudoscience is always more interesting than science, isn't it.
You present the negative cases. But how about if they REDUCE your health premiums because they see you go jogging every other day?
You may reply that "they will only raise rates, not lower them." This may be true initially. But I presume that in the long run, the average insurance rate will even out (competition, etc. One of its only benefits). So, overall, some people will pay more, and other people will pay less. Importantly, people will pay more fairly - those that take more health risks pay more, those that take less - less.