I agree 100%. I was being a little bit tounge-in-cheek. A good scientist (almost) by definition is one who is always willing to put forward new theories to fit the data he's been given, even in the presence of established theories that already fit the data. Said scientist will also be classified as "good" when he is happy to accept that his theory was wrong on even the smallest amount of hard data which contradicts his theory.
This is a good thing. One of two things will happen from this
:
The scientists are right and Einstein wasn't 100% correct.
The scientists are wrong and let dust onto the damn sensors again
If option (1) is true, it means we're entering that sort of post-Einsteinian "What the hell's going on here" phase in science, where we have a theory that we thought is good and we have some measurements which we also know are good and conflict with the theory. This will lead to lots more experiments being done and allow us to invent hyperspace faster.
If option (2) is true, it means that the scientists in question will be metaphorically shot by the scientific community for daring to question the great reletivity laws, and remove bad scientists from the community.
It's not that they're not able to, they don't need to. Look at their target market - Joe Public.
Joe Public has heard some mumblings in the press about "security" and keeps hearing about this "firefox" thing that everyone says is "more secure". But he likes IE, he's got all his favourites saved, and he doesn't want to (doesn't know how to) go through the faff of installing something else. So MS make IE7, with boasts about "better security" etc. Joe goes and gets this because it's familiar, and he perceives it to be better. He's happy that he's got something that he thinks is more secure, but is still like the old IE. He's pleased to find things like tabs which he's never seen before.
Does Joe Public give a crap about CSS? Standards? Of course not.
You make it sound like MS have a duty towards web designers to make better software. Of course they don't, they have a duty towards customers, the vast majority of whom don't give a crap about most things that web designers care about. They're a business. They're job is to make the customer happy and to make money. Not please a minority set of developers.
Now, before the world flames me with MS-fanboy accusations, I'm a web developer. I don't like it either. But I recognise that a market is a market, and different products offer different things. Most products offer nice features like standards compliance which I care about, so I use them. Different parts of the market care about different things, and perceive IE to fulfil those needs, so they use that. Part of the problem we have is that most of the target audience don't know what products (browsers) are out there and don't do any research about it. It's like 90% of people buying the same make and model of car, because they're not aware of any other car manufacturers existing. Even if they became aware of the other car manufacturers, why should they buy there cars, when everyone else owns (and is happy with) the majority car. Doesn't matter that the other cars have things like airbags and stuff, the public doesn't think they need it.
Nice poem to remember the decimal places of pi:
3
.
I
Wish
I
Could
Determine
Pi,
Eureka!
Cried
The
Great
Inventor.
Christmas
Pudding,
Christmas
Pie
Is
The
Problem's
Very
Centre
A few reasons. Reuters brought out Reuters Messaging a while back, and the main focus there was to rival Bloomberg's offering of their lightning quick Bloomberg Mail.
Essentially, if you're a financial institution (and if you want financial regulation complience, then you probably are), you don't want to have all your employees part of a directory that is also full of the general public. Then you have cases where you don't know who someone is, people might have multiple accounts etc. The model preferred is that of a closed directory, where if you're talking to joe.blogs@db.com, you can be pretty sure that that really is him, and the administrators of the IM system won't grant him infinitely many accounts. Similarly, if Joe Bloggs decides to misbehave and hack in to the system, his single corporate email address can be banned.
That's one of the few reasons why companies looking to comply don't want some consumer based IM system with everyone on.
I want an extension that lets me run linux within windows.
Seriously, better extensions are always good, it's partly what makes firefox the great thing it is.
Slashdot Mirror
The very title of the video indicates that the quirky, sense-of-humour absense is still rife amongst particle physicists.
I agree 100%. I was being a little bit tounge-in-cheek. A good scientist (almost) by definition is one who is always willing to put forward new theories to fit the data he's been given, even in the presence of established theories that already fit the data. Said scientist will also be classified as "good" when he is happy to accept that his theory was wrong on even the smallest amount of hard data which contradicts his theory.
This is a good thing. One of two things will happen from this
:If option (1) is true, it means we're entering that sort of post-Einsteinian "What the hell's going on here" phase in science, where we have a theory that we thought is good and we have some measurements which we also know are good and conflict with the theory. This will lead to lots more experiments being done and allow us to invent hyperspace faster.
If option (2) is true, it means that the scientists in question will be metaphorically shot by the scientific community for daring to question the great reletivity laws, and remove bad scientists from the community.
It's a win-win!It's not that they're not able to, they don't need to. Look at their target market - Joe Public.
Joe Public has heard some mumblings in the press about "security" and keeps hearing about this "firefox" thing that everyone says is "more secure". But he likes IE, he's got all his favourites saved, and he doesn't want to (doesn't know how to) go through the faff of installing something else. So MS make IE7, with boasts about "better security" etc. Joe goes and gets this because it's familiar, and he perceives it to be better. He's happy that he's got something that he thinks is more secure, but is still like the old IE. He's pleased to find things like tabs which he's never seen before.
Does Joe Public give a crap about CSS? Standards? Of course not.You make it sound like MS have a duty towards web designers to make better software. Of course they don't, they have a duty towards customers, the vast majority of whom don't give a crap about most things that web designers care about. They're a business. They're job is to make the customer happy and to make money. Not please a minority set of developers.
Now, before the world flames me with MS-fanboy accusations, I'm a web developer. I don't like it either. But I recognise that a market is a market, and different products offer different things. Most products offer nice features like standards compliance which I care about, so I use them. Different parts of the market care about different things, and perceive IE to fulfil those needs, so they use that. Part of the problem we have is that most of the target audience don't know what products (browsers) are out there and don't do any research about it. It's like 90% of people buying the same make and model of car, because they're not aware of any other car manufacturers existing. Even if they became aware of the other car manufacturers, why should they buy there cars, when everyone else owns (and is happy with) the majority car. Doesn't matter that the other cars have things like airbags and stuff, the public doesn't think they need it.
That was a rather bad analogy, I apologise.
Does it run Linux?
Nice poem to remember the decimal places of pi: 3 . I Wish I Could Determine Pi, Eureka! Cried The Great Inventor. Christmas Pudding, Christmas Pie Is The Problem's Very Centre
A few reasons. Reuters brought out Reuters Messaging a while back, and the main focus there was to rival Bloomberg's offering of their lightning quick Bloomberg Mail. Essentially, if you're a financial institution (and if you want financial regulation complience, then you probably are), you don't want to have all your employees part of a directory that is also full of the general public. Then you have cases where you don't know who someone is, people might have multiple accounts etc. The model preferred is that of a closed directory, where if you're talking to joe.blogs@db.com, you can be pretty sure that that really is him, and the administrators of the IM system won't grant him infinitely many accounts. Similarly, if Joe Bloggs decides to misbehave and hack in to the system, his single corporate email address can be banned. That's one of the few reasons why companies looking to comply don't want some consumer based IM system with everyone on.
I want an extension that lets me run linux within windows. Seriously, better extensions are always good, it's partly what makes firefox the great thing it is.