It'll never happen. Same problem that killed the pen based computers, the tablets and finally trimmed the PDA market to a mere ghost of its former self.
Data entry is a real pain. Imagine the swolen thumbs you'd get from trying to enter a 50 page theme into the phone. (Lets see, happenstance, h... 33 a...1 p...!!! never mind, I'd rather flunk out.) The mind just boggles.
They threw a big sounding number out there to impress gullible journalists.
None of this matters until they cite specific patents and specific applications. Then, those patents have to be found valid. The applications have to also be shown to be actually infringing, not just in some lawyers imagination. None of this has happened. This is just meaningless marketing noise. Microsoft is now trying to pull an SCO. They will need far more than SCO had to make it mean anything. Microsoft should look at the history of these things. The only winners will be the lawyers on both sides.
The real upshot of this will be another antitrust suit against them. I wonder if it's worth it to Balmer to have the company broken up? All other remedies have been tried and failed. Since the company cheats on every agreement, that's all that is left. If they follow through with these threats, look for 3 or 4 baby microsofts in a few years. Also, look for large corporations to fund some lobbyists asking for serious congressional restrictions in the patent system.
See, every dark cloud has a silver lining somewhere.
So, the patent mess is going to be fixed by the same people who fixed the copyright mess with the DCMA?
Fixes by Congress have never done anything but make things worse. In my lifetime I've seen them fix campaign funding, pornography availability, fuel shortages, inflation, and several foreign governments. Every time, they just made things worse. Isn't the patent situation here bad enough already??
Come on guys, this is a computerworld article. It's just a come on to get you to look at the ads. They routinely run pieces that were written by an advertizers marketing department.
Do you really think that Microsofts marketing department will ever conclude that Windows is insecure, or that any other system might be remotely as good? If they did, they'd be out of a job, fast! Exactly the same as expecting Sun to ever admit that Linux might beat Solaris in some respects, or Red Hat saying that Windows is better for something (besides landfill) than Linux. It's not about facts, it's about spin. This is marketing. Computerworld is just an enabler.
Why worry about cloned meat. You've been eating cloned fruit all your life. You have to be an agricultural scientist to have ever eaten an orange that wasn't cloned. Every apple in the markets is cloned. So are a lot of the other fruits. All the giant strawberries are cloned. Why single out meat?
I could understand if the problem was geneticly modified meats. The geneticly modified fruits, vegetables and meats most of us eat have been modified over thousands of years, so there has been extensive product testing. Newer GM's haven't been through such rigorous tests. In a hundred years, the bad ones will be gone, and what's left will be safe. We need that safety testing. But a clone is the same as the origional. If the origional cow or chicken was good to eat, so is the clone. There may be some real worry about future genetic diversity, but for the meat on your plate, it's too late for that to be a real problem. The only unmodified natural food most people ever eat or even see is seafood. We're running out of that.
Only hunters and gatherers eat anything that hasn't been modified from it's origional form. We can't all be Bushmen. Without modified foods, the Earth would only support a couple of million inhabitants. So, why complain? Your about 6,000 years too late.
The Browser Wars are over when Microsoft bundles Firefox with Windows. (They will of course also have the latest IE, maybe opera too, possibly a Konquerer spin-off.)
I wonder what is going to happen when the politicians who have sold thier souls to the record industry group realize that the people who they sold out are VOTERS. it doesn't take a very large group of extreemly motivitated people to swing an election.
I predict an interesting time in Aussie politics in about 3 years. Then, Payback time.
Something is wrong there. There is only so much power in sunlight. The best current cells have about 20% efficency. The cheapest are around 5% efficient. Using the low end, 60 X.05 = 3! These things either get 3X the power of the sunlight falling on them (300% effecinecy!), or the article is misleading at the least. I think they mean the cells use a smaller area. (they are concentrating units after all.) This is not a new idea. The problem is that concentrators need direct sunlight. diffuse light (cloudy day) won't concentrate well. Power drops dramaticly. large cells only drop a little (diffuse light is less intense.)
I've seen claims like this every couple of years for the last 25+ years. Before that, I just wasn't paying attention. They still haven't captured the market.
Why is it that the Russians claim to have invented everything first. Rockets refrigerators, aircraft, computers, now transisters and LED's. But somehow they never got around to building any of them until others invented them and built them and were using them. I've even seen the claim that Russians developed steel and writing before anybody else, but it 'mysteriously' died out before the items could be exported or used.
I have to say that it looks suspiciously like they have a minor industry going in backdating proposals and papers.
Not that it really matters. Most things have several independant inventors before someone has the opportunity and ability to make it 'the next big thing'. Who gets the credit will change many times, but it won't really mean a thing. Also, there is a big difference between a proposal and an invention that produces a real product. I don't believe an invention has happened until there is a working unit.
Wouldn't it be better to get our legal advice from a lawyer? I'm not sure that either side in this war of words really knows what the legal issues are.
The professional lawyers I've seen comment on this have all said 'Wait and see what it actually says before deciding.' It's still months too early to say what the end result will be. Linus has come from 'Hell No' to 'We'll See' as the process has advanced. They aren't done yet, and I hope that it continues to get better. It is after all still in the comment stages. They are floating trial ideas, and seeing what works, and what gets shot down. The shot down ideas don't mean the end of Free Software, or the end of Linux. They just mean that that idea might not work. Or that one idea needs to be modified or clarified before it works.
But
Let's wait to pass judgement until we know what we are judging.
As usual, a lot of semi-informed people jumped into this one with both feet.
The law wasn't passed to make searches on Google illegal, it was to prevent lying to you to get you to unrelated sites. I have to agree with the Utah guy on this. (I agreed with a politician? Scary thought!) When I search for something, I want that thing, not what some advertizer paid to force me to endure. If Google starts to go down that path, then I will abandon Google. Like I did MSN and Yahoo. (Yahoo, I've been told is not so bad any more. We'll see.)
From the Open Office Help on my OOo 2.0, 2 ways to create/use a bibliography. Both from within the document, while you are typing it. If this doesn't do what you want, maybe you should be a little clearer on what it is you need. For my simple needs, it seems to work.
Creating a Bibliography A bibliography is a list of works that you reference in a document. Storing Bibliographic Information OpenOffice.org stores bibliographic information in a bibliography database, or in an individual document. To store information in the bibliography database: 1.Choose Tools - Bibliography Database. 2.Choose Insert - Record. 3.Type a name for the bibliography entry in the Short name box, and then add additional information to the record in the remaining boxes. 4.Close the Bibliography Database window. To store bibliographic information in an individual document: 1.Click in your document where you want to add the bibliography entry. 2.Choose Insert - Indexes and Tables - Bibliography Entry. 3.Select From document content and click New. 4.Type a name for the bibliography entry in the Short name box. 5.Select the publication source for the record in the Type box, and then add additional information in the remaining boxes. 6.Click OK. 7.In the Insert Bibliography Entry dialog, click Insert, and then Close.
When you save a document that contains bibliography entries, the corresponding records are automatically saved in a hidden field in the document.
Inserting Bibliography Entries From the Bibliography Database 1.Click in your document where you want to add the bibliography entry. 2.Choose Insert - Indexes and Tables - Bibliography Entry. 3.Select From bibliography database. 4.Select the name of the bibliography entry that you want to insert in the Short name box. 5.Click Insert and then click Close.
HELP, a powerful, seldom used feature of many programs, including both MS Word and Open Office.
Attack enough customers, they won't be your customers any more. Looks like it's true. You really do reap what you sow.
I wonder if they'll listen.
Nah. Never have, never will.
In a couple of years, we'll look back and say that P2P file sharing was the only thing that saved the recording industry. It is becomming increasingly obvious that they don't want to be saved.
This is yet another attempt to juggle numbers to make what you are selling look better. Not really different in kind from Microsofts 'get the facts' campaign that tells us that MS Windows with Office, at about $1,000.00 per seat is cheaper than Debian Linux, at $0.00 per seat. There will be a few who beloeve it. As P. t. famously said, "There's one born every minute."
Energy costs to manufacture a vehicle are directly reflected in the cost. The Hummer costs (and weighs) several times what the prius costs (and weighs). the gas milage (taken from EPA figures) reflect this too. About the only figure where I see a real win for the Hummer is in batteries. The prius has more battery mass than the Hummer. Batteries only last about 3 years, then they have to be replaced. (Typcal for lead acid batteries.) It's a simple question of mass. More weight of metal means more fuel to recycle it or to refine it. You could express it in pounds of car per year to manufacture. By that metric, then both would loose out to a Mercedes. Most cars last about 7 years. Mercedes commonly are driven for 20 years or more. 300,000 miles on the odometer at end of life is not uncommon.
It'll be an interesting dynamic when light weight electrics using ultra capacitors instead of lead acid batteries become available. I hope some of us are still alive when that happens.
I realize that this is Slashdot, so I'll get modded down, but graphic violence is getting worse on US prime time television.
It's gotten to the point that I don't even want to watch TV most days. I find that when I do, it is upsetting. The commercial networks are all busy chasing each other down the gory path. I don't see them finding anything better on thier own.
Well, it's worked for CNN for 25 years now. It's also worked for CBS for around 80 years. Some newspapers have used advertising as thier major revenue source for over 200 years. If that's just a flash in the pan, it's an awfully long flash.
Balmers company makes it's money from charging for software. A business revenue stream that is only 25 years old or so, and is now trying to compete on price with free. Who's really at risk here.
Looks like Google is relying on an older more tested revenue model.
Corn is not a ballanced diet. There are a couple of amino acids that animals need that corn does not make. That's why vegatarians need to combine corn and beans in thier diets.
It's not just corn, many grains have the same problem if you try to exist on a diet of only one crop. We need variety in our diets. Ask any dietician.
So, they modified the corn plants to produce an insecticide. Turns out it's not good for us either. No surprises there. Just read the label on a bottle of Malithion or DDT. Those are not good for us either.
Poor Monsanto, they spent a bundle geneticly engineering a plant, and it's not good for what they wanted. Too much tried too fast. That is usually a recipee for failure in any engineering endevor. Looks like Genetic Engineering isn't really all that different from auto design (Edsil) or bridge design (Seattle Narrows). Time to kill that project and start again. (First hint, making a plant poisonous for a general class of animals [insects] will probably make it unsuitable as a food crop for ALL animals. Including Human animals.)
Slow progress is still progress. Test every change. Drop the bad ones. That's how successful engineering is done. There are always unanticipated side effects. Trying to hide the inevetable problems only makes them worse.
A few authors to check out. The Science is close to real (or was when they were written). These people know what they are talking about.
Isaac Asimov. Major biochemist. suggest Robots series, Foundation series.
Robert Forward. Physicist, Nobel stature. Suggest Dragons Egg series.
Arthur Clark. Biologist. Any of his older short stories. He had the first depiction of a communications satelite..
Fred Hoyle, Astronomer. Several good books here. The science is good too. Most were written in the 50's or 60's, so some of the science is dated.
Larry Niven. just a writer. Good treatment in his short stories though. Suggest A Gift From Earth.
Hal Clement. High School Science Teacher (Chemistry?). Suggest Mission of Gravity.
Robert Heinline. writer. get any of his old juviniles from the 50's. space Cadet, Rolling Stone, Farmer in the Sky, Have Spacesuit will Travel, Star Beast etc. Some border on fantasy, but Heinline liked the science to work. Avoid anything he wrote after 1965. He tried to combine SF with erotic fantasy for several years.
If you are really gifted with explainations, you could try some of the more popular soft SF authors. These often are fantasy tech though. Andre Norton, Any Star Trek or Star Wars book, McCaffery (Dragonriders of Pern is a good series.)
You don't understand real capitolism. Read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'. You are not really against Capitolism, which just means favoring a system where no one is forced to do anything, and all transactions are voluntary. You are against the monopolism of commerce that goes under the name of 'capitolism' in modern politics.
The first thing you need to understand is that ALL political labels are lies. On all sides. Look at the actions, then make your decisions. You will be better for it.
Most US universities mandate courses that are essentially pro 'leftist' political indoctrination. Some of it takes. Hence the leftward leanings of university students. But...
The longer you wait after graduation, the fewer 'leftists' you find in the group. Seems lifelong learning is possible. People learn by observation that they were lied to in college. People change thier views base on thier experience. These changes are often not as simple as 'left' and 'right'.
You will find a similar correlation with readers of large city newspapers, where the same bias and slanted presentation takes place. Take a New Yorker out of New York, and over time, the politics shifts. Like the above, you just don't know where they shift to.
Slashdot Mirror
Burning food is just not a good idea.
It'll never happen. Same problem that killed the pen based computers, the tablets and finally trimmed the PDA market to a mere ghost of its former self.
Data entry is a real pain. Imagine the swolen thumbs you'd get from trying to enter a 50 page theme into the phone. (Lets see, happenstance, h... 33 a...1 p...!!! never mind, I'd rather flunk out.) The mind just boggles.
Nope, this one's going to die.
They threw a big sounding number out there to impress gullible journalists.
None of this matters until they cite specific patents and specific applications. Then, those patents have to be found valid. The applications have to also be shown to be actually infringing, not just in some lawyers imagination. None of this has happened. This is just meaningless marketing noise. Microsoft is now trying to pull an SCO. They will need far more than SCO had to make it mean anything. Microsoft should look at the history of these things. The only winners will be the lawyers on both sides.
The real upshot of this will be another antitrust suit against them. I wonder if it's worth it to Balmer to have the company broken up? All other remedies have been tried and failed. Since the company cheats on every agreement, that's all that is left. If they follow through with these threats, look for 3 or 4 baby microsofts in a few years. Also, look for large corporations to fund some lobbyists asking for serious congressional restrictions in the patent system.
See, every dark cloud has a silver lining somewhere.
So, the patent mess is going to be fixed by the same people who fixed the copyright mess with the DCMA?
Fixes by Congress have never done anything but make things worse. In my lifetime I've seen them fix campaign funding, pornography availability, fuel shortages, inflation, and several foreign governments. Every time, they just made things worse. Isn't the patent situation here bad enough already??
Come on guys, this is a computerworld article. It's just a come on to get you to look at the ads. They routinely run pieces that were written by an advertizers marketing department.
Do you really think that Microsofts marketing department will ever conclude that Windows is insecure, or that any other system might be remotely as good? If they did, they'd be out of a job, fast! Exactly the same as expecting Sun to ever admit that Linux might beat Solaris in some respects, or Red Hat saying that Windows is better for something (besides landfill) than Linux. It's not about facts, it's about spin. This is marketing. Computerworld is just an enabler.
Get over it.
Why worry about cloned meat. You've been eating cloned fruit all your life. You have to be an agricultural scientist to have ever eaten an orange that wasn't cloned. Every apple in the markets is cloned. So are a lot of the other fruits. All the giant strawberries are cloned. Why single out meat?
I could understand if the problem was geneticly modified meats. The geneticly modified fruits, vegetables and meats most of us eat have been modified over thousands of years, so there has been extensive product testing. Newer GM's haven't been through such rigorous tests. In a hundred years, the bad ones will be gone, and what's left will be safe. We need that safety testing. But a clone is the same as the origional. If the origional cow or chicken was good to eat, so is the clone. There may be some real worry about future genetic diversity, but for the meat on your plate, it's too late for that to be a real problem. The only unmodified natural food most people ever eat or even see is seafood. We're running out of that.
Only hunters and gatherers eat anything that hasn't been modified from it's origional form. We can't all be Bushmen. Without modified foods, the Earth would only support a couple of million inhabitants. So, why complain? Your about 6,000 years too late.
It's just thier way of saying they don't want your business. Take the hint and just shop elsewhere.
The Browser Wars are over when Microsoft bundles Firefox with Windows. (They will of course also have the latest IE, maybe opera too, possibly a Konquerer spin-off.)
Until then, it's all just wishful thinking.
That's how new parties get formed. We're getting close to that in the US right now. Both major parties have lost touch with all but the lobbiests.
I wonder what is going to happen when the politicians who have sold thier souls to the record industry group realize that the people who they sold out are VOTERS. it doesn't take a very large group of extreemly motivitated people to swing an election.
I predict an interesting time in Aussie politics in about 3 years. Then, Payback time.
Something is wrong there. There is only so much power in sunlight. The best current cells have about 20% efficency. The cheapest are around 5% efficient. Using the low end, 60 X .05 = 3! These things either get 3X the power of the sunlight falling on them (300% effecinecy!), or the article is misleading at the least. I think they mean the cells use a smaller area. (they are concentrating units after all.) This is not a new idea. The problem is that concentrators need direct sunlight. diffuse light (cloudy day) won't concentrate well. Power drops dramaticly. large cells only drop a little (diffuse light is less intense.)
I've seen claims like this every couple of years for the last 25+ years. Before that, I just wasn't paying attention. They still haven't captured the market.
Why is it that the Russians claim to have invented everything first. Rockets refrigerators, aircraft, computers, now transisters and LED's. But somehow they never got around to building any of them until others invented them and built them and were using them. I've even seen the claim that Russians developed steel and writing before anybody else, but it 'mysteriously' died out before the items could be exported or used.
I have to say that it looks suspiciously like they have a minor industry going in backdating proposals and papers.
Not that it really matters. Most things have several independant inventors before someone has the opportunity and ability to make it 'the next big thing'. Who gets the credit will change many times, but it won't really mean a thing. Also, there is a big difference between a proposal and an invention that produces a real product. I don't believe an invention has happened until there is a working unit.
Wouldn't it be better to get our legal advice from a lawyer? I'm not sure that either side in this war of words really knows what the legal issues are.
The professional lawyers I've seen comment on this have all said 'Wait and see what it actually says before deciding.' It's still months too early to say what the end result will be. Linus has come from 'Hell No' to 'We'll See' as the process has advanced. They aren't done yet, and I hope that it continues to get better. It is after all still in the comment stages. They are floating trial ideas, and seeing what works, and what gets shot down. The shot down ideas don't mean the end of Free Software, or the end of Linux. They just mean that that idea might not work. Or that one idea needs to be modified or clarified before it works.
But
Let's wait to pass judgement until we know what we are judging.
As usual, a lot of semi-informed people jumped into this one with both feet.
The law wasn't passed to make searches on Google illegal, it was to prevent lying to you to get you to unrelated sites. I have to agree with the Utah guy on this. (I agreed with a politician? Scary thought!) When I search for something, I want that thing, not what some advertizer paid to force me to endure. If Google starts to go down that path, then I will abandon Google. Like I did MSN and Yahoo. (Yahoo, I've been told is not so bad any more. We'll see.)
From the Open Office Help on my OOo 2.0, 2 ways to create/use a bibliography. Both from within the document, while you are typing it. If this doesn't do what you want, maybe you should be a little clearer on what it is you need. For my simple needs, it seems to work.
Creating a Bibliography
A bibliography is a list of works that you reference in a document.
Storing Bibliographic Information
OpenOffice.org stores bibliographic information in a bibliography database, or in an individual document.
To store information in the bibliography database:
1.Choose Tools - Bibliography Database.
2.Choose Insert - Record.
3.Type a name for the bibliography entry in the Short name box, and then add additional information to the record in the remaining boxes.
4.Close the Bibliography Database window.
To store bibliographic information in an individual document:
1.Click in your document where you want to add the bibliography entry.
2.Choose Insert - Indexes and Tables - Bibliography Entry.
3.Select From document content and click New.
4.Type a name for the bibliography entry in the Short name box.
5.Select the publication source for the record in the Type box, and then add additional information in the remaining boxes.
6.Click OK.
7.In the Insert Bibliography Entry dialog, click Insert, and then Close.
When you save a document that contains bibliography entries, the corresponding records are automatically saved in a hidden field in the document.
Inserting Bibliography Entries From the Bibliography Database
1.Click in your document where you want to add the bibliography entry.
2.Choose Insert - Indexes and Tables - Bibliography Entry.
3.Select From bibliography database.
4.Select the name of the bibliography entry that you want to insert in the Short name box.
5.Click Insert and then click Close.
HELP, a powerful, seldom used feature of many programs, including both MS Word and Open Office.
Attack enough customers, they won't be your customers any more. Looks like it's true. You really do reap what you sow.
I wonder if they'll listen.
Nah. Never have, never will.
In a couple of years, we'll look back and say that P2P file sharing was the only thing that saved the recording industry. It is becomming increasingly obvious that they don't want to be saved.
This is yet another attempt to juggle numbers to make what you are selling look better. Not really different in kind from Microsofts 'get the facts' campaign that tells us that MS Windows with Office, at about $1,000.00 per seat is cheaper than Debian Linux, at $0.00 per seat. There will be a few who beloeve it. As P. t. famously said, "There's one born every minute."
Energy costs to manufacture a vehicle are directly reflected in the cost. The Hummer costs (and weighs) several times what the prius costs (and weighs). the gas milage (taken from EPA figures) reflect this too. About the only figure where I see a real win for the Hummer is in batteries. The prius has more battery mass than the Hummer. Batteries only last about 3 years, then they have to be replaced. (Typcal for lead acid batteries.) It's a simple question of mass. More weight of metal means more fuel to recycle it or to refine it. You could express it in pounds of car per year to manufacture. By that metric, then both would loose out to a Mercedes. Most cars last about 7 years. Mercedes commonly are driven for 20 years or more. 300,000 miles on the odometer at end of life is not uncommon.
It'll be an interesting dynamic when light weight electrics using ultra capacitors instead of lead acid batteries become available. I hope some of us are still alive when that happens.
I realize that this is Slashdot, so I'll get modded down, but graphic violence is getting worse on US prime time television.
It's gotten to the point that I don't even want to watch TV most days. I find that when I do, it is upsetting. The commercial networks are all busy chasing each other down the gory path. I don't see them finding anything better on thier own.
Only one source of revenue?
Well, it's worked for CNN for 25 years now. It's also worked for CBS for around 80 years. Some newspapers have used advertising as thier major revenue source for over 200 years. If that's just a flash in the pan, it's an awfully long flash.
Balmers company makes it's money from charging for software. A business revenue stream that is only 25 years old or so, and is now trying to compete on price with free. Who's really at risk here.
Looks like Google is relying on an older more tested revenue model.
I wonder which one will work longer.
Corn is not a ballanced diet. There are a couple of amino acids that animals need that corn does not make. That's why vegatarians need to combine corn and beans in thier diets.
It's not just corn, many grains have the same problem if you try to exist on a diet of only one crop. We need variety in our diets. Ask any dietician.
So, they modified the corn plants to produce an insecticide. Turns out it's not good for us either. No surprises there. Just read the label on a bottle of Malithion or DDT. Those are not good for us either.
Poor Monsanto, they spent a bundle geneticly engineering a plant, and it's not good for what they wanted. Too much tried too fast. That is usually a recipee for failure in any engineering endevor. Looks like Genetic Engineering isn't really all that different from auto design (Edsil) or bridge design (Seattle Narrows). Time to kill that project and start again. (First hint, making a plant poisonous for a general class of animals [insects] will probably make it unsuitable as a food crop for ALL animals. Including Human animals.)
Slow progress is still progress. Test every change. Drop the bad ones. That's how successful engineering is done. There are always unanticipated side effects. Trying to hide the inevetable problems only makes them worse.
(No, I don't have a spell checker.)
A few authors to check out. The Science is close to real (or was when they were written). These people know what they are talking about.
Isaac Asimov. Major biochemist. suggest Robots series, Foundation series.
Robert Forward. Physicist, Nobel stature. Suggest Dragons Egg series.
Arthur Clark. Biologist. Any of his older short stories. He had the first depiction of a communications satelite..
Fred Hoyle, Astronomer. Several good books here. The science is good too. Most were written in the 50's or 60's, so some of the science is dated.
Larry Niven. just a writer. Good treatment in his short stories though. Suggest A Gift From Earth.
Hal Clement. High School Science Teacher (Chemistry?). Suggest Mission of Gravity.
Robert Heinline. writer. get any of his old juviniles from the 50's. space Cadet, Rolling Stone, Farmer in the Sky, Have Spacesuit will Travel, Star Beast etc. Some border on fantasy, but Heinline liked the science to work. Avoid anything he wrote after 1965. He tried to combine SF with erotic fantasy for several years.
If you are really gifted with explainations, you could try some of the more popular soft SF authors. These often are fantasy tech though. Andre Norton, Any Star Trek or Star Wars book, McCaffery (Dragonriders of Pern is a good series.)
You don't understand real capitolism. Read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'. You are not really against Capitolism, which just means favoring a system where no one is forced to do anything, and all transactions are voluntary. You are against the monopolism of commerce that goes under the name of 'capitolism' in modern politics.
The first thing you need to understand is that ALL political labels are lies. On all sides. Look at the actions, then make your decisions. You will be better for it.
Most US universities mandate courses that are essentially pro 'leftist' political indoctrination. Some of it takes. Hence the leftward leanings of university students. But...
The longer you wait after graduation, the fewer 'leftists' you find in the group. Seems lifelong learning is possible. People learn by observation that they were lied to in college. People change thier views base on thier experience. These changes are often not as simple as 'left' and 'right'.
You will find a similar correlation with readers of large city newspapers, where the same bias and slanted presentation takes place. Take a New Yorker out of New York, and over time, the politics shifts. Like the above, you just don't know where they shift to.
At least here in the US.
Yeah, I know that a lot of those are conflicting views, but here in the US, most parties are internally conflicting anyway.