Why don't they just do it.. instead of announcing it 6 months in advance and having it suck ass in the end? Either that or be specific as to how it'll be better.
This seems more a ploy to "fucking kill google"'s stock price and force them to go into some sort of scramble panic and take risks. I'm sure that they're working on some crap they think can rival google. But from what I've seen of live.com and start.com. They have no idea how to make an easy to use navigatable interface. I of course even did them the courtesy of suggested improvements and well I dunno if they're just gonna throw the suggestions in the trash. Just go to live.com and u'll see.
Anyway.. the point is M$FT's policy of announcing products and then having them turn out to be lame is probably a point for the anti-trusters due to it being a deliberate move to undercut a competitor under false pretenses. Funny thing is i dont agree with the bundling or even OEM stuff being so bad.. or i think AAPL did worse with the whole refusing to allow third parties to play fairplay drm'd songs.
A leaf only converts a small percentage of sunlight falling onto it (i forget the number but it's definitely under 2%) into stored energy. Whereas even cheap solar cells are many times more efficient. Furthermore, the leaves dont cover all the land area where the plant is. So there are more losses.
Ok, you think that is bad? Ok.. another thing is that a plant doesnt store all it's energy continuously.. that is.. plant starch/carbohydrates/oil aren't where 100% of the energy goes. Ultimately the land area to energy produced of a plant is like.1% efficient.
My point is, plants are cheaper initial capital cost than solar cells.. but cannot capture as near as much energy as a solar cell/battery combo.
Now, I don't have the research references to quote for this..writing from memory.. but if you don't believe me please do the research yourself (DOE websites and google are a good place to start). Actually if someone collects the research into one place that would be great.
Like this.. say you have half full jar of water.. and well it starts deteriorating from the top part downwards.. well then you won't notice any loss of water until the jar deteriorates to the half-way point.
If the jar was full.. the deterioration would be noticed faster.
Or, maybe the "undeducated" have more redundancy built in, which is probably why some of them hold on to what the educated consider "strange" beliefs.
I'm just speculating here. Also, as a true slashdotter I havent even read the article, so maybe it's debunked in there. lol.
Well if you are a corporation or government entity you wouldnt want a laptop stolen and data lost. Actually, ideally a corporation would set it up so that the filesystem decryption requires you to be on the company network or VPN prior to being able to access/decrypt files (that is, a part of an individual's encryption/decryption key is always downloaded from the network and stays in memory for the duration of the session). That way a lost company laptop is a lot less of a danger. The windows encryption based on a user password alone is pretty weak and crackable (users often choose dictionary or easily guessable passwords). That's the types of encryption and security a corporation would want.
Why did this get marked troll?? What's he's saying is true.. people are just blind to reality when it come to Apple. It' a sorry state. Show me specs of any Mac OS X machine outperforming the top Windows game. It's not jut performance it's low cost customiation option too that Windows leads in. In my opinion, Apple's snobbish attitude to third parties and refusal to open up their BIOS has led to these problems.
At least for consumer processors, imho they should probably be moving towards chips where each core has it's own specialization, for example.. one core does the general CPU stuff.. the other.. I dunno specializes in graphics or physics vector math or is a GPU. Another core could orient towards all sorts of video/media stuff.
On my home computers, my cpu utilization is minimal. The biggest bottleneck is I/O.
I'm waiting for a reasonable cost computer that can drive multiple wireless lcd touchscreen displays/voice interfaces throughout a house. When not in use these wireless? usb lcds can show pictures or serene screensavers. Fairly large displays can be used to show HDTV or movies.
Next time, when the mayor comes by DURING OFFICE HOURS for a photo opportunity, the right thing to do is say..
"Sorry mayor I am busy, I dont have time to pose in your photo that you'll use for political gain, after all I heard you fire people for having solitaire open without even evidence of them suing the computer during office hours."
The ethics of recording for criminal activities over an extended period of times is dubious. How many of you would like it if your local police department recorded speeders over a period of 1 month on video and sent out notices for every time you sped.. the first time you "get caught"?
Somehow I think many of us would be against that particular thing. But hey privacy is only for those who have soemthing to hide. NOT.
Thanks to boring people, world is moving towards a total lack of privacy. The governments want to be in on every piece of human interaction. Not only that, they wish to record it too.
Soon a day will come..worldwide.. no place to run style.. if it hasn't already for muslims.. where one can no longer can you be silly on the phone. No longer can you make racially biased or culturally insensitive jokes even among non-racist friends. I hope our body is well toned, for it'll be on camera.. you don't want your friendly monitors laughing at you. You have to worry about everything you say on the phone. You can't ask about the weather even because you'll have to worry about whether it'll be interpreted as meaning something else ("why would you care about weather in some other country"). No longer can you raise your voice to your own child. No longer can you tell little white lies to hold on to some image. On the "bright" side.. you won't be able to cheat on your girlfriend.
They already want to be in on every financial interaction (sales/income tax). I rather pay a flat amount every year for "my share" of defense costs and be done with it. Are they going to ta happiness too soon? "You exchanged happiness, we want out fair share cause you wouldnt have been able to exchange happiness was it not for us".. Sorry but I only give to Caesar what belongs to him.
I value my privacy, and I believe that the fourth amendment makes America a strong nation. The founding fathers of the USA understood that the right to privacy is one of those inalienable human rights endowed by our creator. (if you read the first amendment you will see that that it's a right "ot to be violated", rather than a gift from government. I believe the right to privacy is what keeps a nation free from oppression, tyranny, and pathological dictators. Fuck all the fake patriots who'll sell us otherwise.
This means if you bought music for your iPod.. you have to stick to iPod or lose the ability to transport your music? Plus when your HDD dies.. you cant regain your music.
Obviously, if you buy music from Apple, it will play on Apple's player. Don't like it? Don't use an iPod or iTunes. You have a choice.
So basically, you are telling me that if I spend hundreds of dollars on music for my iPod.. and then it dies in 4 or 5 years or whatever (flash or HD failure) I should buy an iPod again if I want to carry that music around?? Or, eat my investment in all the songs I'd bought. That's ridiculous. You are telling me this isn't as bad as giving OEM's a discount for being an exclusive MSFT shop? Tell me, in 5 years, if someone else comes out with an mp3 player that's vastly superior in features and design.. people are going to have to THROW AWAY/re-buy their HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS in music investment in order to switch to it? In other words, because of Apple's propreitery file format lock in.. a better mp3 player will be locked out of the market. It would be illegal for the new mp3 player to "break" the format so that customers can use the iTunes music.
Apple isn't being clear about the fact that when you buy music from iTunes your portable music player is going to be iPod forever unless you plan on re-purchasing your music. It's like getting a tattoo.. it's cool and fun now.. until 10 years from now.
I am not an iPod owner.. but I heard the following is true:
Two major issues-
Apple is taking advantage of their monopoly position disallowing the playing of itunes purchased music on non iPod players. This means if you bought music for your iPod.. you have to stick to iPod or lose the ability to transport your music? Plus when your HDD dies.. you cant regain your music.
Furthermore, because Fairplay DRM is closed.. if you are a band and want to sell your music (with DRM).. you have to do it on the iTunes store.. or your music will not have the protection of DRM if it's to be put on iPods (iPod owners being a massive marketshare.. this is essential for success). The alternative is DRM free mp3.. but then you lose the ability to protect your music. I hate DRM as much as the next guy.. but this isnt helping the situation to have Apple doing this.
His point, however, is that Bill Gates is a hypocrite. The fact that he himself stole, to develop the very product he was pointing out others should not steal, makes him one.
This doesn't mean he's a hypocrit today. People shouldnt be judged o some emotioned rambling of X many years ago when they were in their early twenties.
Why should anyone ever give their name on here? You're insane to expect people to provide their real name or address for the purpose of "accountability".. so ultimately what's the difference between pseudonym and anonymous? You expect me to believe a pseudonym is capable of providing any sort of real accountability? Not everyone thinks it's wise to put their real info online. He/she's providing links to backup his/her claims. It's foolish to believe ANYTHING online, regardless of whether someone gives some name (which could be fake anyway). So you go verifying everyone's real name before you believe things? Why not verify the info they are saying instead? Who fooled you into thinking using a pseudonym provides accountability? Any random anonymous person can create pseudonyms at will on here. Now, you don't have to believe him/her any more than you had to believe an old widow "Silence Dogood" (aka Benjamin Franklin..google it). Pseudonyms are only useful to build an "online" reputation.. (when was the last time anyone checked that btw).. but personally I check out everything anyone says regardless of whether they had said a hundred truths before.. or even whether they had told lies before. The point is that if a source is anonymous it doesn't have to be believed, but if it makes credible assertions it needs to be checked out. If an "anonymous coward" says 10 + 10 = 20.. are you going to force yourself to deny it.. or will you verify it?
Some people want to be indoctrinated. Who will fill the void?
Science is too complicated. Minimum energy path wins. Why do you think people win elections with sound bites? The guy who gives the easiest to understand speech that tugs the most emotions wins. A doctor has to go through 8 years of med school and pass a bunch of exams.. do politicians need certification of any kind? Maybe a certificate in economics at least?
You know when they killed Socrates for basically opposing democracy.. he was bitching that people are stupid and that they choose to do things based on crap/chance.
If evolution should be taught with a disclaimer.. that cavet should be stated at every science class.. from chemistry to physics.
Everything in science is a theory: The sun rose today, yesterday, and the day before, so it's likely it will rise again tomorrow.
While I agree in principle, I think that a general understanding of the process of science and an explanation of the basis of how the theory came about is enough to reinforce that evolution is not "fact". Only a fool would think it's factual then (in which case we might win some of the ID "theorists":) ).
I just checked eEye's upcoming vulnerabilities page.. and it looks like Microsoft has at least 3 serious unpatched vulnerabilties. Including one that they have know about for over 206 days.
It's nice they have all this process in plce. But I hve noticed that just about every "security update" that microsoft has produced thanks someone outside Microsoft for finding the issue. This is commendable for sure, but it's also a sign that Microsoft internally isn't finding these issues.
On Microsoft giving credit to third parties I'd definitely say that is commendible.. from personal experience i can tell you there are other major companies that don't even acknowledge help.
Although it may have come off that way, my point was not an attack on the concept that particles may "appear out of the vacuum". I was reacting because "science" is utilizing theories to build other theories on, not in the Einstein using Maxwell sense but more like how the old astronomers until after Kepler came up with "epicycles" to hold on to their flawed theories. And then it was whacko (until about Newton?) to say otherwise. Likewise when when GR came along few accepted it. As you know, gravitons are at this point still speculation and unobserved (though they may well exist). Maybe some sort of gravitons will be confirmed soon? But until then we should move to solidify the premises first or we may end up with an inertia in the sciences that will inhibit newer and better theories from emerging. It is definitely good to make few leaps of faith but not too many.
Maybe I have been reading too much of Galileo and lesser arxiv these days, a self feeding cycle.
they've had to utilize the theoretical particle, called a graviton, which appears from the vacuum of space wherever stars are densely packed, making gravity stronger
Appears from the vacuum of space?
Since science has now moved into the fantasy realm, why not conjure up a bunch of pixies who can push objects around? I thought we were leaving that to anti-evolution "creationists". After all, if something couldn't come from nothing how did God come about?
It's good to make assumptions in science and theoretical predictions. I believe in gravitons as much as Einstein himself or the next guy. But it is an entirely different thing to make keep piling on assumptions upon assumption.. very quickly that devolves into a flight of fantasy.
That said, the theory is interesting.. and who knows.. probably right.:)
Disney bought a law extending copyrights for 25 more years so they can hold on to Mickey Mouse until 2020. I don't care about a stupid mouse.. but it's unacceptible to have perpetually lasting copyrights. Disney made money from stories like Snow White and Beauty and the Beast without having to py the original authors.. and now they are trying to make perpetual copyrights for themselves.
My Hotmail Inbox averages about 2 spams a week. However, my "junk mail" occasionally has a legitimate email dropped in there too. However all things considered, 2 spams a week in my Inbox isn't that bad.
So, yeah, Microsoft may have "solved" spam.. but their solution has rounding errors.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't they just do it .. instead of announcing it 6 months in advance and having it suck ass in the end? Either that or be specific as to how it'll be better.
.. the point is M$FT's policy of announcing products and then having them turn out to be lame is probably a point for the anti-trusters due to it being a deliberate move to undercut a competitor under false pretenses. Funny thing is i dont agree with the bundling or even OEM stuff being so bad .. or i think AAPL did worse with the whole refusing to allow third parties to play fairplay drm'd songs.
This seems more a ploy to "fucking kill google"'s stock price and force them to go into some sort of scramble panic and take risks. I'm sure that they're working on some crap they think can rival google. But from what I've seen of live.com and start.com. They have no idea how to make an easy to use navigatable interface. I of course even did them the courtesy of suggested improvements and well I dunno if they're just gonna throw the suggestions in the trash. Just go to live.com and u'll see.
Anyway
A leaf only converts a small percentage of sunlight falling onto it (i forget the number but it's definitely under 2%) into stored energy. Whereas even cheap solar cells are many times more efficient. Furthermore, the leaves dont cover all the land area where the plant is. So there are more losses.
.. another thing is that a plant doesnt store all it's energy continuously .. that is .. plant starch/carbohydrates/oil aren't where 100% of the energy goes. Ultimately the land area to energy produced of a plant is like .1% efficient.
.. but cannot capture as near as much energy as a solar cell/battery combo.
..writing from memory.. but if you don't believe me please do the research yourself (DOE websites and google are a good place to start). Actually if someone collects the research into one place that would be great.
Ok, you think that is bad? Ok
My point is, plants are cheaper initial capital cost than solar cells
Now, I don't have the research references to quote for this
Walls eventually turn into tourist attractions.
Wow xenophobia can spawn genius ideas once in a while after all.
One question though..
Who's going to pay for this scheme? The internationals?
With alternative countries (canada, UK, australia, even japan etc), don't expect them to greet the inflated prices in droves.
Maybe the deterioration is just not noticeable.
.. say you have half full jar of water .. and well it starts deteriorating from the top part downwards .. well then you won't notice any loss of water until the jar deteriorates to the half-way point.
.. the deterioration would be noticed faster.
Like this
If the jar was full
Or, maybe the "undeducated" have more redundancy built in, which is probably why some of them hold on to what the educated consider "strange" beliefs.
I'm just speculating here. Also, as a true slashdotter I havent even read the article, so maybe it's debunked in there. lol.
Well if you are a corporation or government entity you wouldnt want a laptop stolen and data lost.
Actually, ideally a corporation would set it up so that the filesystem decryption requires you to be on the company network or VPN prior to being able to access/decrypt files (that is, a part of an individual's encryption/decryption key is always downloaded from the network and stays in memory for the duration of the session). That way a lost company laptop is a lot less of a danger. The windows encryption based on a user password alone is pretty weak and crackable (users often choose dictionary or easily guessable passwords). That's the types of encryption and security a corporation would want.
Why did this get marked troll?? What's he's saying is true .. people are just blind to reality when it come to Apple. It' a sorry state. Show me specs of any Mac OS X machine outperforming the top Windows game. It's not jut performance it's low cost customiation option too that Windows leads in. In my opinion, Apple's snobbish attitude to third parties and refusal to open up their BIOS has led to these problems.
When Mac OS X unbundles Safari, and opens the hardware I'll be using it. And no, I'm not happy with Windows.
At least for consumer processors, imho they should probably be moving towards chips where each core has it's own specialization, for example .. one core does the general CPU stuff .. the other .. I dunno specializes in graphics or physics vector math or is a GPU. Another core could orient towards all sorts of video/media stuff.
On my home computers, my cpu utilization is minimal. The biggest bottleneck is I/O.
I'm waiting for a reasonable cost computer that can drive multiple wireless lcd touchscreen displays/voice interfaces throughout a house. When not in use these wireless? usb lcds can show pictures or serene screensavers. Fairly large displays can be used to show HDTV or movies.
Next time, when the mayor comes by DURING OFFICE HOURS for a photo opportunity, the right thing to do is say ..
"Sorry mayor I am busy, I dont have time to pose in your photo that you'll use for political gain, after all I heard you fire people for having solitaire open without even evidence of them suing the computer during office hours."
The ethics of recording for criminal activities over an extended period of times is dubious. How many of you would like it if your local police department recorded speeders over a period of 1 month on video and sent out notices for every time you sped .. the first time you "get caught"?
Somehow I think many of us would be against that particular thing. But hey privacy is only for those who have soemthing to hide. NOT.
Thanks to boring people, world is moving towards a total lack of privacy. The governments want to be in on every piece of human interaction. Not only that, they wish to record it too.
..worldwide .. no place to run style .. if it hasn't already for muslims .. where one can no longer can you be silly on the phone. No longer can you make racially biased or culturally insensitive jokes even among non-racist friends. I hope our body is well toned, for it'll be on camera .. you don't want your friendly monitors laughing at you. You have to worry about everything you say on the phone. You can't ask about the weather even because you'll have to worry about whether it'll be interpreted as meaning something else ("why would you care about weather in some other country"). No longer can you raise your voice to your own child. No longer can you tell little white lies to hold on to some image. On the "bright" side .. you won't be able to cheat on your girlfriend.
.. Sorry but I only give to Caesar what belongs to him.
Soon a day will come
They already want to be in on every financial interaction (sales/income tax). I rather pay a flat amount every year for "my share" of defense costs and be done with it. Are they going to ta happiness too soon? "You exchanged happiness, we want out fair share cause you wouldnt have been able to exchange happiness was it not for us"
I value my privacy, and I believe that the fourth amendment makes America a strong nation. The founding fathers of the USA understood that the right to privacy is one of those inalienable human rights endowed by our creator. (if you read the first amendment you will see that that it's a right "ot to be violated", rather than a gift from government. I believe the right to privacy is what keeps a nation free from oppression, tyranny, and pathological dictators. Fuck all the fake patriots who'll sell us otherwise.
This means if you bought music for your iPod .. you have to stick to iPod or lose the ability to transport your music? Plus when your HDD dies .. you cant regain your music.
.. and then it dies in 4 or 5 years or whatever (flash or HD failure) I should buy an iPod again if I want to carry that music around?? Or, eat my investment in all the songs I'd bought. That's ridiculous. You are telling me this isn't as bad as giving OEM's a discount for being an exclusive MSFT shop? Tell me, in 5 years, if someone else comes out with an mp3 player that's vastly superior in features and design .. people are going to have to THROW AWAY/re-buy their HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS in music investment in order to switch to it? In other words, because of Apple's propreitery file format lock in .. a better mp3 player will be locked out of the market. It would be illegal for the new mp3 player to "break" the format so that customers can use the iTunes music.
.. it's cool and fun now .. until 10 years from now.
Obviously, if you buy music from Apple, it will play on Apple's player. Don't like it? Don't use an iPod or iTunes. You have a choice.
So basically, you are telling me that if I spend hundreds of dollars on music for my iPod
Apple isn't being clear about the fact that when you buy music from iTunes your portable music player is going to be iPod forever unless you plan on re-purchasing your music. It's like getting a tattoo
Yes, the OEM's "had a choice" too.
I am not an iPod owner .. but I heard the following is true:
.. you have to stick to iPod or lose the ability to transport your music? Plus when your HDD dies .. you cant regain your music.
.. if you are a band and want to sell your music (with DRM) .. you have to do it on the iTunes store .. or your music will not have the protection of DRM if it's to be put on iPods (iPod owners being a massive marketshare .. this is essential for success). The alternative is DRM free mp3 .. but then you lose the ability to protect your music. I hate DRM as much as the next guy .. but this isnt helping the situation to have Apple doing this.
Two major issues-
Apple is taking advantage of their monopoly position disallowing the playing of itunes purchased music on non iPod players. This means if you bought music for your iPod
Furthermore, because Fairplay DRM is closed
His point, however, is that Bill Gates is a hypocrite. The fact that he himself stole, to develop the very product he was pointing out others should not steal, makes him one.
This doesn't mean he's a hypocrit today. People shouldnt be judged o some emotioned rambling of X many years ago when they were in their early twenties.
Why should anyone ever give their name on here? You're insane to expect people to provide their real name or address for the purpose of "accountability" .. so ultimately what's the difference between pseudonym and anonymous? You expect me to believe a pseudonym is capable of providing any sort of real accountability? Not everyone thinks it's wise to put their real info online. He/she's providing links to backup his/her claims. It's foolish to believe ANYTHING online, regardless of whether someone gives some name (which could be fake anyway). So you go verifying everyone's real name before you believe things? Why not verify the info they are saying instead? Who fooled you into thinking using a pseudonym provides accountability? Any random anonymous person can create pseudonyms at will on here. Now, you don't have to believe him/her any more than you had to believe an old widow "Silence Dogood" (aka Benjamin Franklin ..google it). Pseudonyms are only useful to build an "online" reputation .. (when was the last time anyone checked that btw) .. but personally I check out everything anyone says regardless of whether they had said a hundred truths before .. or even whether they had told lies before. .. are you going to force yourself to deny it .. or will you verify it?
The point is that if a source is anonymous it doesn't have to be believed, but if it makes credible assertions it needs to be checked out. If an "anonymous coward" says 10 + 10 = 20
mast and the stand can't aches.
(the future of speech technology must understand context)
Some people want to be indoctrinated. Who will fill the void?
.. do politicians need certification of any kind? Maybe a certificate in economics at least?
.. he was bitching that people are stupid and that they choose to do things based on crap/chance.
Science is too complicated. Minimum energy path wins. Why do you think people win elections with sound bites? The guy who gives the easiest to understand speech that tugs the most emotions wins. A doctor has to go through 8 years of med school and pass a bunch of exams
You know when they killed Socrates for basically opposing democracy
If evolution should be taught with a disclaimer .. that cavet should be stated at every science class .. from chemistry to physics.
:) ).
Everything in science is a theory: The sun rose today, yesterday, and the day before, so it's likely it will rise again tomorrow.
While I agree in principle, I think that a general understanding of the process of science and an explanation of the basis of how the theory came about is enough to reinforce that evolution is not "fact". Only a fool would think it's factual then (in which case we might win some of the ID "theorists"
I just checked eEye's upcoming vulnerabilities page .. and it looks like Microsoft has at least 3 serious unpatched vulnerabilties. Including one that they have know about for over 206 days.
h tml
http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.
What's that about.
It's nice they have all this process in plce. But I hve noticed that just about every "security update" that microsoft has produced thanks someone outside Microsoft for finding the issue. This is commendable for sure, but it's also a sign that Microsoft internally isn't finding these issues.
.. from personal experience i can tell you there are other major companies that don't even acknowledge help.
On Microsoft giving credit to third parties I'd definitely say that is commendible
Although it may have come off that way, my point was not an attack on the concept that particles may "appear out of the vacuum". I was reacting because "science" is utilizing theories to build other theories on, not in the Einstein using Maxwell sense but more like how the old astronomers until after Kepler came up with "epicycles" to hold on to their flawed theories. And then it was whacko (until about Newton?) to say otherwise. Likewise when when GR came along few accepted it. As you know, gravitons are at this point still speculation and unobserved (though they may well exist). Maybe some sort of gravitons will be confirmed soon? But until then we should move to solidify the premises first or we may end up with an inertia in the sciences that will inhibit newer and better theories from emerging. It is definitely good to make few leaps of faith but not too many.
Maybe I have been reading too much of Galileo and lesser arxiv these days, a self feeding cycle.
they've had to utilize the theoretical particle, called a graviton, which appears from the vacuum of space wherever stars are densely packed, making gravity stronger
.. very quickly that devolves into a flight of fantasy.
.. and who knows .. probably right. :)
Appears from the vacuum of space?
Since science has now moved into the fantasy realm, why not conjure up a bunch of pixies who can push objects around? I thought we were leaving that to anti-evolution "creationists". After all, if something couldn't come from nothing how did God come about?
It's good to make assumptions in science and theoretical predictions. I believe in gravitons as much as Einstein himself or the next guy. But it is an entirely different thing to make keep piling on assumptions upon assumption
That said, the theory is interesting
Disney bought a law extending copyrights for 25 more years so they can hold on to Mickey Mouse until 2020. I don't care about a stupid mouse .. but it's unacceptible to have perpetually lasting copyrights. Disney made money from stories like Snow White and Beauty and the Beast without having to py the original authors .. and now they are trying to make perpetual copyrights for themselves.
s ion_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Exten
Hope this clears things up?
My Hotmail Inbox averages about 2 spams a week. However, my "junk mail" occasionally has a legitimate email dropped in there too. However all things considered, 2 spams a week in my Inbox isn't that bad.
.. but their solution has rounding errors.
So, yeah, Microsoft may have "solved" spam