I specifically stated that I was talking about individual acts of terrorism. Basically, put another way, I was pointing out that the capabilities of terrorists to kill are geometrically increasing. This is undeniable, and I cited 3 well-known "events" that demonstrate this. Of course that does not mean that every terrorist act reflects their full capabilities. Obviously there will still be lesser-scoped acts of terrorism.
So just to be clear, is it your position that it will never be possible for terrorists to kill 10s or 100s of thousands of people with one strike? If that is the case, then we are indeed foolish to worry about terrorism as the OP claimed. We could simply let them kill thousands of people at a time (their current demonstrated capability) and treat each "event" like a crime and try to lock up the perpetrators (if they haven't incinerated themselves already).
I implied nothing of the kind. What I "implied" is clearly written up above. I merely took issue with the OP's sarcastic claim that we should not be so worried about terrorism because the real killers of people are famine, disease and car accidents. I pointed out that, at the rate at which terrorists are increasing their capabilities, it is plausible, perhaps even likely, that there will be a terrorist act that kills 10s or 100s of thousands of people at one time, within the next decade. As regards extinguishing all human life (by extrapolating a factor of 10 per decade for 30 years), this is obviously not going to happen until/unless some developed nation produces a weapon capable of such a deed, and the terrorists manage to get their hands on it. Of course should such a weapon become available, the probability does then become non-zero, unfortunately.
It doesn't matter what 90% of IT professionals want. What matters is what 90% of the users want. The days of IT running the show are long gone. Those days ended when the PC came out.
Well, I can't really vouch for the accuracy of this reference (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm#Total), but according to a chart on that web page the overall worldwide death rate per capita (due to all causes, old age, disease, war, famine, etc) has been steadily (roughly linearly) falling, and is at its lowest level ever. Now, as I pointed out, the number of deaths resulting from individual acts of terrorism (not the aggregate) has been increasing geometrically over the past 3 decades. This is not rocket science, and it is not debatable. The 3 major terrorist incidents I cited demonstrate this phenomenon. And only a fool would "pretend" that those responsible for these terrorist acts would not use a nuke or chemical weapon in a large Western city if they had the chance. And I think we all know that would kill 10s or 100s of thousands. It amazes me that people on \. are so limited in their mathematical skills that they cannot recognize a simple geometric progression when they see one. Or they simply refuse to extrapolate it to its logical next data-point. Regardless, I stand by my original comment and await someone with a clue to refute it.
extrapolating way off into the future and treating it as fact.
Where did I treat it as fact? I cited facts. The trend is undeniable. True, the trend could stop, or reverse. But so far, it hasn't. Ignore trends at your own peril.
Hunger, disease, motor cars, lightning,... All these things have killed far more people than terrorists
It's about the derivative. Terrorism deaths are growing geometrically. The other causes of death you mention are essentially steady-state. Think about it. In the 70s terrorism acts killed in the single digits (Munich). In the 80s, individual acts of terror killed in the 100s (Lockerbie). In the 90s/00's they have upped the ante to 1000's. And if they get their hands on a dirty bomb or chemical weapon, they will kill 10s or 100s of thousands. This is called geometric growth, and it doesn't take more than a 7th grade math background to easily predict that deaths due to terrorism will eventually (within 10 years at current rates) eclipse all those examples you gave. This is why people are concerned.
I'll grant you "free", but "great" it most certainly isn't. Here's a fun parlor trick. Use Open Office calc, fill 2 columns with numbers (1000 rows is a good size). Generate an XY graph from those numbers. Oh, and be prepared to wait a llloooonnngggg time, even on a dual core, 2GB beast. You will think your machine has crashed. And when it finally finishes, the generated graph is UGLY - far from usable without alot of massaging. Now I'll grant you this is a fairly specific shortcoming of OO, but I will say it happens to be the very first (and last) thing I used it for.
It didn't occur to you to blame Java? I am forever getting annoying popups asking me if I want to update my JVM. And they'll even throw in a free copy of Open Office! Oh, and I run XP.
I actually hadn't considered the difference between "persistent state" online games and XBox Live. I am not really a gamer and have thus far not allowed my kids to use any pay-for online game, so I was not aware of that distinction. That said, I can only assume that, as long as the competition provides free online gaming, they will continue to remain viable for people who cannot afford to pay monthly. And since a large component of online gamers are kids with no income to speak of, it seems like this situation will persist. Of course it may (and probably will) come to pass that the "pay-for" experience offered by Microsoft will be superior to the "free" competitors, but hey, that's capitalism. If there is lots of money to be made in that venue, others (Apple? Sony? Nintendo?) will enter it as well.
Soon we'll have HD movies, and gaming and internet all wrapped up in one device
This doesn't sound like a bad thing to me, nor does it sound bad for the consumer. Kudos to Microsoft for considering the big picture. They actually have a longterm strategy that they are executing (quite well, apparently). It's funny, but we often complain about companies that only focus on the next quarter's results, forgoing all longterm planning and strategies. And yet, in the same breath we complain about Microsoft for its dominance. Maybe, just maybe, their dominance is related to their ability to look ahead and plan accordingly. Nah, they're just teh evil.
Damned armchair inventors, entrepreneurs, and capitalists.
Why in the world would you lump "entrepeneurs [sic] and capitalists" with "armchair inventors"? Am I correct in assuming you view all 3 as evil or somehow undesirable? And you say this in defense of Google, who are the ultimate capitalists making untold billions on advertising? Let's be clear... Google is not "innovating" here for the sake of "building something", they are looking for the next big advertising market and see cellphones as that opportunity. They are, in fact, behaving as entrepreneurs and capitalists.
What exactly is the BIG DEAL? I would still need to buy a disk drive ($50), some RAM ($30), a box/supply ($30), a monitor ($100), a keyboard and mouse ($20), and perhaps some speakers ($15)... the motherboard and CPU are no longer the major expense in putting together a PC. Heck, newegg has the Celeron D315 (2.26GHz) for $38, and an MSI barebones system (box, 300W power supply, motherboard) for $70. Add in another $100 for HD/RAM/KB/Mouse an you have a pretty decent system for $208.
Google on the other hand tends to provide free service for things that used to be costly (email, data mining) and only asking money for the premium services.
Baloney. Why can't people understand that Google is an advertising company. In fact, they are the dominant web-based advertising company by a wide margin. Check out their finances. They have massive revenues which come from their customers - businesses. They generate very little revenue from their "premium" services that are purchased by consumers. And guess where Google's customers get the money they pay Google for their advertising? Why they pass it on to us, the consumers of course. I sort of think of this as the "Google tax", and it is getting bigger and bigger and more pervasive everyday. Additionally, given the undeniable trend towards more-and-more web-based advertising, and given Google's dominance therein, the fact that they are well on their way to becoming a Microsoft-like monopoly is not only possible, it's very likely. And with their incredibly detailed databases on each and every one of us (from our gmail, our online office apps, our google search history, our google chats, etc), they can make it virtually impossible for their customers (businesses) to switch to another advertiser, since the effectiveness of Google's ads will greatly exceed that of their competitors.
We have been using their service for years. We have uploaded many gigabytes of pictures. There is no charge for, nor any limit on storage. Their prints are very good, and they make it pretty easy to create and share your digital albums. And except for the prints it's all free.
15% currency devaluation since 2004? If MSFT invested the 500 million since then they would be way ahead of the game; they easily would have (and probably did) exceeded a 15% return over 3 years. Of course the extra $280 million is a little harder to account for.
Could you point me to the laptop or desktop I can buy that doesn't have Windows on it?
Ummm, I think Apple might make a few laptop models that come without Windows. Of course then you'd have to pay the "Apple tax", which is, by the way, significantly higher than Microsoft's.
You are correct. In fact, it seems to me that Microsoft's contributions correlate pretty well with the party in power or about to be in power. In 2004 the handwriting was on the wall that the Democrats were going to take over the House and possibly the Senate, so they cranked up their donations to Democrats. In 1992 and 1996 when Clinton was on the ascendency they also gave more to Democrats. So on balance it looks like they do the smart thing and try to butter up whoever is in charge.
It seems that the facts disprove your theory: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000115 In the past 4 years Microsoft has been giving more to Democrats than Republicans. In fact they gave almost twice as much in 2004 to Democrats as they did to Republicans. In 1992 they gave 4X as much to the Dems. In 1996 they gave 2X as much to the Dems.
But, let's not forget the single most important thing any generation does... raise and teach the next generation. In the case of the "Greatest Generation", I believe the next generation is called the "Baby Boomers". Unfortunately, based on all the negative press the boomer generation garners (much of it warranted I might add), I would have to conclude that the "Greatest Generation" failed miserably in fulfilling its most significant responsibility. Can you really be considered the greatest if you fail to achieve your primary objective?
Don't get me wrong, I have tremendous respect for the WWII generation. But like every generation (boomers included), they made plenty of mistakes. So, to call them the "Greatest Generation" is, in my mind silly, especially given my first point above.
Slashdot Mirror
I specifically stated that I was talking about individual acts of terrorism. Basically, put another way, I was pointing out that the capabilities of terrorists to kill are geometrically increasing. This is undeniable, and I cited 3 well-known "events" that demonstrate this. Of course that does not mean that every terrorist act reflects their full capabilities. Obviously there will still be lesser-scoped acts of terrorism.
So just to be clear, is it your position that it will never be possible for terrorists to kill 10s or 100s of thousands of people with one strike? If that is the case, then we are indeed foolish to worry about terrorism as the OP claimed. We could simply let them kill thousands of people at a time (their current demonstrated capability) and treat each "event" like a crime and try to lock up the perpetrators (if they haven't incinerated themselves already).
I implied nothing of the kind. What I "implied" is clearly written up above. I merely took issue with the OP's sarcastic claim that we should not be so worried about terrorism because the real killers of people are famine, disease and car accidents. I pointed out that, at the rate at which terrorists are increasing their capabilities, it is plausible, perhaps even likely, that there will be a terrorist act that kills 10s or 100s of thousands of people at one time, within the next decade. As regards extinguishing all human life (by extrapolating a factor of 10 per decade for 30 years), this is obviously not going to happen until/unless some developed nation produces a weapon capable of such a deed, and the terrorists manage to get their hands on it. Of course should such a weapon become available, the probability does then become non-zero, unfortunately.
It doesn't matter what 90% of IT professionals want. What matters is what 90% of the users want. The days of IT running the show are long gone. Those days ended when the PC came out.
Well, I can't really vouch for the accuracy of this reference (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm#Total), but according to a chart on that web page the overall worldwide death rate per capita (due to all causes, old age, disease, war, famine, etc) has been steadily (roughly linearly) falling, and is at its lowest level ever. Now, as I pointed out, the number of deaths resulting from individual acts of terrorism (not the aggregate) has been increasing geometrically over the past 3 decades. This is not rocket science, and it is not debatable. The 3 major terrorist incidents I cited demonstrate this phenomenon. And only a fool would "pretend" that those responsible for these terrorist acts would not use a nuke or chemical weapon in a large Western city if they had the chance. And I think we all know that would kill 10s or 100s of thousands. It amazes me that people on \. are so limited in their mathematical skills that they cannot recognize a simple geometric progression when they see one. Or they simply refuse to extrapolate it to its logical next data-point. Regardless, I stand by my original comment and await someone with a clue to refute it.
Just curious. Was the DVD player you were running written in Java?
It didn't occur to you to blame Java? I am forever getting annoying popups asking me if I want to update my JVM. And they'll even throw in a free copy of Open Office! Oh, and I run XP.
I actually hadn't considered the difference between "persistent state" online games and XBox Live. I am not really a gamer and have thus far not allowed my kids to use any pay-for online game, so I was not aware of that distinction. That said, I can only assume that, as long as the competition provides free online gaming, they will continue to remain viable for people who cannot afford to pay monthly. And since a large component of online gamers are kids with no income to speak of, it seems like this situation will persist. Of course it may (and probably will) come to pass that the "pay-for" experience offered by Microsoft will be superior to the "free" competitors, but hey, that's capitalism. If there is lots of money to be made in that venue, others (Apple? Sony? Nintendo?) will enter it as well.
This is not "evil"; nor is it unusual. WOW and Everquest and many others are also pay-to-play.
Oh, and Microsoft doesn't make people do any such thing. People choose to.
Is my face red? It's funny, re-reading it with your (obviously correct) interpretation makes more sense contextually. I apologize.
What exactly is the BIG DEAL? I would still need to buy a disk drive ($50), some RAM ($30), a box/supply ($30), a monitor ($100), a keyboard and mouse ($20), and perhaps some speakers ($15) ... the motherboard and CPU are no longer the major expense in putting together a PC. Heck, newegg has the Celeron D315 (2.26GHz) for $38, and an MSI barebones system (box, 300W power supply, motherboard) for $70. Add in another $100 for HD/RAM/KB/Mouse an you have a pretty decent system for $208.
Don't you love how you get modded "Troll" (twice, no less) just for making valid points that go against /. group-think?
I have a URL for you: http://www.shutterfly.com/
We have been using their service for years. We have uploaded many gigabytes of pictures. There is no charge for, nor any limit on storage. Their prints are very good, and they make it pretty easy to create and share your digital albums. And except for the prints it's all free.
I can only assume it will be sold in the toy department.
15% currency devaluation since 2004? If MSFT invested the 500 million since then they would be way ahead of the game; they easily would have (and probably did) exceeded a 15% return over 3 years. Of course the extra $280 million is a little harder to account for.
You are correct. In fact, it seems to me that Microsoft's contributions correlate pretty well with the party in power or about to be in power. In 2004 the handwriting was on the wall that the Democrats were going to take over the House and possibly the Senate, so they cranked up their donations to Democrats. In 1992 and 1996 when Clinton was on the ascendency they also gave more to Democrats. So on balance it looks like they do the smart thing and try to butter up whoever is in charge.
It seems that the facts disprove your theory: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000115 In the past 4 years Microsoft has been giving more to Democrats than Republicans. In fact they gave almost twice as much in 2004 to Democrats as they did to Republicans. In 1992 they gave 4X as much to the Dems. In 1996 they gave 2X as much to the Dems.
But, let's not forget the single most important thing any generation does ... raise and teach the next generation. In the case of the "Greatest Generation", I believe the next generation is called the "Baby Boomers". Unfortunately, based on all the negative press the boomer generation garners (much of it warranted I might add), I would have to conclude that the "Greatest Generation" failed miserably in fulfilling its most significant responsibility. Can you really be considered the greatest if you fail to achieve your primary objective?
Don't get me wrong, I have tremendous respect for the WWII generation. But like every generation (boomers included), they made plenty of mistakes. So, to call them the "Greatest Generation" is, in my mind silly, especially given my first point above.