incremental gains to welfare, and only for the rich.
Things that are "only for the rich" invariably trickle down to us "poor folk". I am more than happy to have rich people around overpaying for cellphones, electric cars, plasma TVs, life-extending medicines, etc., funding the research to develop better, cheaper replacements that can then become available to the masses (i.e. me).
No, what's sad is that both of you were modded +5 insightful (as of when I wrote this comment). When I read his remark about the feds at the door I laughed, because I know the odds *against* that happening in the US are astronomical. We all love to talk like we live in some oppressive state with spies behind every door just waiting to pounce on us, torture us, and/or put us away in some unknown prison for the rest of our lives. But in reality, this just doesn't happen here. Sure, there are some non-citizens at Gitmo, but I happen to believe that most, if not all, were actively plotting against this country, or knowingly helping others who were. Now perhaps I am naive, but frankly, I know *lots* of people who are very vocal against the government, and *not one* of them has mysteriously disappeared. Do either of you have first-hand experience with someone who spoke out against the government and then "heard the fed knocking"?
No, I have never voted for a Republican -- and I doubt I ever will
So going back to my original statement that there is a chunk of the electorate that automatically votes Democrat (you used to be one of them), there is a chunk that automatically votes Republican, and there is a chunk that bases their votes on the issues (which you now seem to be a member of, though taking both Democrats and Republicans "off the table" suggests otherwise). That last chunk is the only group in play in the general election. Clearly during the primaries, the other two groups demand the most attention. Of course complicating things during the primaries is that middle group again, who can often instigate mischief (that is usually my approach since often there is one candidate in the "other" party that terrifies me more so than there is a candidate in the party that I plan to vote for excites me).
As to figuring out what the "50th percentile positions" would be, that's pretty easy. Just listen to what both the candidates are saying now -- their polling has told them what that position is. Stay in Iraq until the country is stable (Obama is tacking to this position as I write this), ban so-called partial birth (aka late term) abortions (Obama is also tacking "to the middle" on this one http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/obama_backs_late_abortions_on.html, do not privatize social security (McCain is moving to the center, coming out against it now), ending the off-shore drilling ban (McCain has boldly jumped to this position after being staunchly opposed http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731.html). I didn't look up what they are saying about the mortgage crisis, the so-called Bush tax cuts or Global Warming, but rest assured, whatever they are saying is what the polls say most people *in the middle group* believe (today). And remember, that distinction (in the middle group) is crucial because, as I've said multiple times, the other two groups are basically "in the bag".
Compare this to our dear present day carriers, whose primary mode of "innovation" appears to be writing ever more incomprehensible contracts.
That is so not true! They are very innovative at figuring out ways to charge their customers for add-on services. For instance - sell them a camera phone and then *charge* them to get the pictures out of the phone. Sell them a "music" phone that uses proprietary headphones only. Sell them their favorite song as a ringtone, then sell it again to them as a full track, and then sell it to them again as a ringback tone -- brilliant!
Interesting. OK, then as a far-leftie, have you ever voted for a Republican? If not, then you are making my point which, to reiterate, was simply that the left will reflexively vote for the Democrats (regardless as to whether their positions are "centrist") and the right will reflexively vote for the Republicans (again, regardless of their positions). The unwashed masses in the middle will decide based on some key issues (key to them, that is). Now, as to whether today's typical Democrat could be described as a "centrist", that is a different discussion. From my perspective, the "center" refers to the positions held by the 50th percentile of the populace-- not the center of the two positions "government controls all" and "individual liberty trumps all".
It's "centrist" because it's all about balance. There is obviously a great gulf between the two extremes: the government can do whatever it wants, and the government has absolutely no power over the individual. Even the constitution, which may seem totally clear and unambiguous to some, is subject to a different interpretation by others. And so we look for that balance between giving the government power and restricting the government's power, trading off "security" and "liberty". Inasmuch as the "right" is usually more associated with "law and order" and the left with "civil liberties", it stands to reason that they pull in opposite directions when looking for this balancing point. Hence, those in the middle get to decide until/unless the left or right become the majority.
The bigger slap in the face is the fact that the person [hillaryclinton.com] who opposed Obama actually had the balls to vote against this.
I've seen this sentiment several times in this thread and so I had to comment. It doesn't take guts to cast a vote against this *if you aren't the nominee*. We all know that Hillary would have voted 'Yea' if she was her party's nominee, since the strategy is to appeal to the center for the general election. And there is plenty of evidence in this thread that that is the correct strategy. How many people have said they would still vote for Obama? The fact is, Obama will not lose votes from the left of center no matter what he does. Oh sure, maybe a stray vote will go to Nader, but no significant number of lefties will jump over to McCain based on anything Obama says or does between now and the election. No, it's all about the 33% in the middle, and who they vote for. The committed lefties and righties are already decided.
Thanks. I always figured that whatever hardware was "good for Direct3D" would also be good for OpenGL. But now I'm confused. Per the poster's comment, how does Microsoft's sponsorship/pushing of DirectX cause me to lose control of my PC? I must be slow because I can't seem to connect the dots. If OpenGL can just as easily take advantage of the hardware features that make Direct3D go faster, it seems to me that DirectX gives me *more* control over my PC by giving me choices: lots of different hardware vendors and 2 3D APIs. Am I missing something here?
hardware designers are bound to follow the direction of MS in order to have financially viable offerings.
Eg, DirectX over OpenGL.
You are implying that there are aspects/requirements of Direct3D that cause "hardware designers" to conform to Microsoft's specifications, which must then, by your logic make OpenGL less viable. Do you have a specific examples of this? I'm really curious to know.
I would think a CS degree could be quite useful in an SQA position. Understanding how software is built is very helpful when trying to figure out test strategies. Plus, there is oftentimes a need for scripting for automated testing, so the ability to code is also highly valued. Depending on how much of your coursework was devoted to testing philosophies, techniques and tools, you might consider taking a course or two to come up to speed on this branch of computer science. Another advantage of this path is there is a clear growth path from tester, to test-writer, to test plan writer to SQA group manager.
Actually, the range we were discussing was the "late 80s", so the duration is more like 20 years, which is a return of more like 9.3%, which I will happily take. True, inflation takes a big bite out of that, but 9.3% non-inflation adjusted is considered a really decent return. And because it's capital gains, it gets much better tax treatment than, say, simple interest.
They're doomed in the same way IBM was doomed back in the late 80's./blockquote>
In the late 80's IBM stock was in the mid $20s. Now it is 6X higher at $120. As a Microsoft stockholder, I sure hope you are right!
Who are you calling an old wife? This happened to me less than 6 months ago. Now perhaps my warranty isn't really void, but that is when the fellow told me would happen. Based on your statement, perhaps I would have legal recourse should I need to exercise my warranty rights after having personally upgraded the memory.
I bought a MAC mini a few months back at the local MAC store. I asked if there were any spare DIMM slots so I could increase the memory. The answer was "no, and besides you have to do memory upgrades through us or else you void your warranty". Well, I told him I was able to install the memory myself and would do so rather than pay their high prices. As we closed the sale he asked me if I wanted to buy the extended warranty. I said "I just told you I am going to void the warranty as soon as I get it home... why would I buy the extended warranty?"
Interesting... though way over my head. I listened all the way through the first presentation and, if I followed it correctly, it sounded like the experiments whereby they "evolve" life is comprised of starting with an RNA molecule (ie, the necessary self-replicating ingredient), and then doing lots of human/computer manipulations to coax it to evolve. No doubt I missed some subtleties, but this sounds suspiciously like "intelligent design" to me. I particularly enjoyed how they wanted to "get the human out of the picture" so instead they substituted a computer driving microfluidics chips -- of course the computer is simply a proxy for the human and is "intelligently" "guiding" the evolution. The talk was fascinating, and it seems much has been learned and is being learned, but as long as you start with RNA molecules that already have the ability to self-replicate, it seems not to answer the question as to how life began. But again, most of it was over my head, so I probably missed some key thing that renders my skepticism moot.
Creationism does not dispute nor does it contradict the evolution of species. Creationism is about the origin of life. Evolution is about what happened AFTER life began. Evolution has NOTHING to say about the origin of life.
I acknowledged there was some luck. And I acknowledged that IBM, in their own bumbling way, obviously played a key role. But there is no denying that Gates did have this vision of a software company at a time when operating systems and most applications were bought bundled with the hardware in EVERY case. Look at the company name: Microsoft. A pure software business. One of the first ever, and as history has shown, by far the most successful of them all.
It doesn't disprove a thing. I said they were successful because they saw software as a viable business and acted/invested accordingly. Whether they wrote the software or bought/cross-licensed it doesn't matter. The genius was recognizing that the computer market was evolving to a point where hardware and operating systems could and would be decoupled. Yes, there were others with the same view at the time, but not many, and as history as shown, only one company pulled it off (with the help of a bumbling IBM).
The difference being that Microsoft had their monopoly to fall back on when their other attempts failed.
I knew this thread would fall into the trap of recursive "reasoning". Repeat after me, "a company cannot exploit its monopoly to become a monopoly". When they started they were a small scrappy company. Yes, there was luck involved, but they also had "the vision thing" going for them. MS viewed software as a viable business. They did not subscribe to the widely believed notion that software was just the necessary evil you bought from your hardware vendor to get your hardware to work. That vision led them to make decisions, like hiring business people and engineers, with the goal of building a long-term, sustainable business selling software that ran on *other* people's hardware. I am not saying they were the only ones to have such a view, nor even that they were the best. But it was somewhat controversial at the time, at least among the big computer hardware makers, and so I admire them for pulling it off and for being a major player in the "re-wiring" of the computer industry.
The mini-notebook phenom has most definitely highlighted the Windows tax on computer hardware./blockquote>
Since Windows is *optional* on these notebooks I think calling it a Windows *tax* is no longer warranted. FWIW, I strongly suspect that for only $100 more, many (most?) will opt to purchase Windows on these devices. But I agree with you... making Windows optional is the way it should be. From my perspective, I hope each flavor garners about half of the market so the competition remains stiff. That is when we the consumers win.
And you really better not install any closed-source image editing software, since finding malicious code in that case is a thousand times harder.
As this contest proves, and as anyone who has debugged code where you have the source AND a debugger and you still have difficulty finding the misbehaving code knows, the probability that code has unexpected or, worse, undesired behavior is very high, whether open or closed source. On this, I think, we can agree.
Everyone knows that you can quite easily hide malicious code in a closed-sourced project.
Ah, but consider the *likelihood* that a company like Adobe, or Apple, or Microsoft or other closed source vendors would distribute, knowingly, malicious code (queue MS jokes here). Note, I am not discussing security gaps, I am refering to deliberately inserting malicious backdoors such as this contest solicits. In my view, closed source companies all have a lot to lose if their transgressions are discovered. They will most likely be sued into chapter 11, or worse. Conversely, consider a rogue OSS developer. They have nothing to lose (or at least, much less), and we all know one can fairly easily hide malicous behavior (as this contest and the existence of bugs in reviewed/tested code proves). So from a rational viewpoint, I would take my chances with closed source from a reputable vendor with a lot to lose and frankly, very little to gain if they are caught, versus open source from unknown developers with very little to lose, and potentially much to gain.
Google toolbar has a bookmarks button that is a nice and easy way to make your bookmarks available wherever you browse (even across browsers).
As to the note in the OP about Google having all our personal data on their servers... I laughed out loud when I read that. S/he is living in some parallel universe if s/he thinks Google doesn't have plenty of information about our browsing history or tendencies. Do you use Gmail? Do you use Google to search? Do you use the Google toolbar? Adding my bookmarks to the mix doesn't seem to make my "personal data" any less secure.
OK, it is generally believed that OSS is inherently secure because so many eyeballs can examine and vet it. But as this contest shows, it is possible to include backdoor behavior "in the source for everyone to see" without it being discovered. Oh, and note to self, don't download any open source image editing software in the future...
Slashdot Mirror
Things that are "only for the rich" invariably trickle down to us "poor folk". I am more than happy to have rich people around overpaying for cellphones, electric cars, plasma TVs, life-extending medicines, etc., funding the research to develop better, cheaper replacements that can then become available to the masses (i.e. me).
No, what's sad is that both of you were modded +5 insightful (as of when I wrote this comment). When I read his remark about the feds at the door I laughed, because I know the odds *against* that happening in the US are astronomical. We all love to talk like we live in some oppressive state with spies behind every door just waiting to pounce on us, torture us, and/or put us away in some unknown prison for the rest of our lives. But in reality, this just doesn't happen here. Sure, there are some non-citizens at Gitmo, but I happen to believe that most, if not all, were actively plotting against this country, or knowingly helping others who were. Now perhaps I am naive, but frankly, I know *lots* of people who are very vocal against the government, and *not one* of them has mysteriously disappeared. Do either of you have first-hand experience with someone who spoke out against the government and then "heard the fed knocking"?
So going back to my original statement that there is a chunk of the electorate that automatically votes Democrat (you used to be one of them), there is a chunk that automatically votes Republican, and there is a chunk that bases their votes on the issues (which you now seem to be a member of, though taking both Democrats and Republicans "off the table" suggests otherwise). That last chunk is the only group in play in the general election. Clearly during the primaries, the other two groups demand the most attention. Of course complicating things during the primaries is that middle group again, who can often instigate mischief (that is usually my approach since often there is one candidate in the "other" party that terrifies me more so than there is a candidate in the party that I plan to vote for excites me).
As to figuring out what the "50th percentile positions" would be, that's pretty easy. Just listen to what both the candidates are saying now -- their polling has told them what that position is. Stay in Iraq until the country is stable (Obama is tacking to this position as I write this), ban so-called partial birth (aka late term) abortions (Obama is also tacking "to the middle" on this one http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/obama_backs_late_abortions_on.html, do not privatize social security (McCain is moving to the center, coming out against it now), ending the off-shore drilling ban (McCain has boldly jumped to this position after being staunchly opposed http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731.html). I didn't look up what they are saying about the mortgage crisis, the so-called Bush tax cuts or Global Warming, but rest assured, whatever they are saying is what the polls say most people *in the middle group* believe (today). And remember, that distinction (in the middle group) is crucial because, as I've said multiple times, the other two groups are basically "in the bag".
By the way, I stumbled across a really good site when looking for links for this post: http://www.pollingreport.com/index.html
That is so not true! They are very innovative at figuring out ways to charge their customers for add-on services. For instance - sell them a camera phone and then *charge* them to get the pictures out of the phone. Sell them a "music" phone that uses proprietary headphones only. Sell them their favorite song as a ringtone, then sell it again to them as a full track, and then sell it to them again as a ringback tone -- brilliant!
Interesting. OK, then as a far-leftie, have you ever voted for a Republican? If not, then you are making my point which, to reiterate, was simply that the left will reflexively vote for the Democrats (regardless as to whether their positions are "centrist") and the right will reflexively vote for the Republicans (again, regardless of their positions). The unwashed masses in the middle will decide based on some key issues (key to them, that is). Now, as to whether today's typical Democrat could be described as a "centrist", that is a different discussion. From my perspective, the "center" refers to the positions held by the 50th percentile of the populace-- not the center of the two positions "government controls all" and "individual liberty trumps all".
It's "centrist" because it's all about balance. There is obviously a great gulf between the two extremes: the government can do whatever it wants, and the government has absolutely no power over the individual. Even the constitution, which may seem totally clear and unambiguous to some, is subject to a different interpretation by others. And so we look for that balance between giving the government power and restricting the government's power, trading off "security" and "liberty". Inasmuch as the "right" is usually more associated with "law and order" and the left with "civil liberties", it stands to reason that they pull in opposite directions when looking for this balancing point. Hence, those in the middle get to decide until/unless the left or right become the majority.
I've seen this sentiment several times in this thread and so I had to comment. It doesn't take guts to cast a vote against this *if you aren't the nominee*. We all know that Hillary would have voted 'Yea' if she was her party's nominee, since the strategy is to appeal to the center for the general election. And there is plenty of evidence in this thread that that is the correct strategy. How many people have said they would still vote for Obama? The fact is, Obama will not lose votes from the left of center no matter what he does. Oh sure, maybe a stray vote will go to Nader, but no significant number of lefties will jump over to McCain based on anything Obama says or does between now and the election. No, it's all about the 33% in the middle, and who they vote for. The committed lefties and righties are already decided.
Thanks. I always figured that whatever hardware was "good for Direct3D" would also be good for OpenGL. But now I'm confused. Per the poster's comment, how does Microsoft's sponsorship/pushing of DirectX cause me to lose control of my PC? I must be slow because I can't seem to connect the dots. If OpenGL can just as easily take advantage of the hardware features that make Direct3D go faster, it seems to me that DirectX gives me *more* control over my PC by giving me choices: lots of different hardware vendors and 2 3D APIs. Am I missing something here?
You are implying that there are aspects/requirements of Direct3D that cause "hardware designers" to conform to Microsoft's specifications, which must then, by your logic make OpenGL less viable. Do you have a specific examples of this? I'm really curious to know.
I would think a CS degree could be quite useful in an SQA position. Understanding how software is built is very helpful when trying to figure out test strategies. Plus, there is oftentimes a need for scripting for automated testing, so the ability to code is also highly valued. Depending on how much of your coursework was devoted to testing philosophies, techniques and tools, you might consider taking a course or two to come up to speed on this branch of computer science. Another advantage of this path is there is a clear growth path from tester, to test-writer, to test plan writer to SQA group manager.
Actually, the range we were discussing was the "late 80s", so the duration is more like 20 years, which is a return of more like 9.3%, which I will happily take. True, inflation takes a big bite out of that, but 9.3% non-inflation adjusted is considered a really decent return. And because it's capital gains, it gets much better tax treatment than, say, simple interest.
Who are you calling an old wife? This happened to me less than 6 months ago. Now perhaps my warranty isn't really void, but that is when the fellow told me would happen. Based on your statement, perhaps I would have legal recourse should I need to exercise my warranty rights after having personally upgraded the memory.
I bought a MAC mini a few months back at the local MAC store. I asked if there were any spare DIMM slots so I could increase the memory. The answer was "no, and besides you have to do memory upgrades through us or else you void your warranty". Well, I told him I was able to install the memory myself and would do so rather than pay their high prices. As we closed the sale he asked me if I wanted to buy the extended warranty. I said "I just told you I am going to void the warranty as soon as I get it home ... why would I buy the extended warranty?"
Interesting ... though way over my head. I listened all the way through the first presentation and, if I followed it correctly, it sounded like the experiments whereby they "evolve" life is comprised of starting with an RNA molecule (ie, the necessary self-replicating ingredient), and then doing lots of human/computer manipulations to coax it to evolve. No doubt I missed some subtleties, but this sounds suspiciously like "intelligent design" to me. I particularly enjoyed how they wanted to "get the human out of the picture" so instead they substituted a computer driving microfluidics chips -- of course the computer is simply a proxy for the human and is "intelligently" "guiding" the evolution. The talk was fascinating, and it seems much has been learned and is being learned, but as long as you start with RNA molecules that already have the ability to self-replicate, it seems not to answer the question as to how life began. But again, most of it was over my head, so I probably missed some key thing that renders my skepticism moot.
Creationism does not dispute nor does it contradict the evolution of species. Creationism is about the origin of life. Evolution is about what happened AFTER life began. Evolution has NOTHING to say about the origin of life.
I acknowledged there was some luck. And I acknowledged that IBM, in their own bumbling way, obviously played a key role. But there is no denying that Gates did have this vision of a software company at a time when operating systems and most applications were bought bundled with the hardware in EVERY case. Look at the company name: Microsoft. A pure software business. One of the first ever, and as history has shown, by far the most successful of them all.
It doesn't disprove a thing. I said they were successful because they saw software as a viable business and acted/invested accordingly. Whether they wrote the software or bought/cross-licensed it doesn't matter. The genius was recognizing that the computer market was evolving to a point where hardware and operating systems could and would be decoupled. Yes, there were others with the same view at the time, but not many, and as history as shown, only one company pulled it off (with the help of a bumbling IBM).
Google toolbar has a bookmarks button that is a nice and easy way to make your bookmarks available wherever you browse (even across browsers).
... I laughed out loud when I read that. S/he is living in some parallel universe if s/he thinks Google doesn't have plenty of information about our browsing history or tendencies. Do you use Gmail? Do you use Google to search? Do you use the Google toolbar? Adding my bookmarks to the mix doesn't seem to make my "personal data" any less secure.
As to the note in the OP about Google having all our personal data on their servers
OK, it is generally believed that OSS is inherently secure because so many eyeballs can examine and vet it. But as this contest shows, it is possible to include backdoor behavior "in the source for everyone to see" without it being discovered. Oh, and note to self, don't download any open source image editing software in the future ...
I don't know how much they get paid, but based on empirical evidence on this forum, bashing Bush and Microsoft must be extremely well compensated.