IE6 Sucks. Windows XP is still stable is works great. What's the comparison now?

Embed that word file as part of a chart in a Powerpoint (including all sorts of images), and email that off.

Seriously. I've seen that happen - I was supposed to put up something that should have been a GIF, but it was given as a Powerpoint file... losers

They could just cut spending. No one needs to pay more because someone pays less. Just cut spending.

Taxes are taken from people against their will. The people who receive the money can just accept less.

How much of Microsoft's software did the state of Washington write?

There are plenty of places to do business where you don't have to pay a huge tribute to satisfy the greed of the local warlords. Some of them are even in the United States.

The State of Washington should try being less greedy. They should do less and ask the dependent class to do more for themselves.

As always, my first suggestion is for anyone on government housing assistance to be required to live with a roommate to share housing expenses. It's good enough for college students, it should be good enough for welfare recipients.

Having finally read this book (despite low expectations), I can confirm that per the poor reviews it offers very little that's new. When it does forward a unique point of view, such as this suggestion that public communicator become part of the job of 'the scientist' (as in just about every scientist), it's absolutely ridiculous. Scientists usually have enough on their plates with little things like research, grant writing, internal politics, etc., without some science writers who completely lack data to back up their thesis telling them to start up and maintain a blog, column, or attend even more conventions. Those who do maintain such things tend to be either 1) incredibly busy, busier than I'd like to be, or 2) have a lighter research load than is desired by many. I'm not badmouthing option 2), it includes scientists who do try to focus more on public outreach and teaching, which is very admirable and valuable. Just don't expect every person interested in scientific research to want to devote their time to it.

All of this is a little beside the point, too. Sheril and Chris make a large part of their thesis into blaming the scientists for a lack of communication. It's why this recommendation quoted in this article is one of their only unique ones, unique in how extreme it is. While you can blame scientists for misrepresenting the importance of their research (not all research has a direct practical benefit, even if it's fantastic), blaming them for not being in the public sphere is difficult when we already have so many teaching scientists and public scientists who would love to come on television or radio and do attend conventions. The thing is, when they can even get on a show relevant to their expertise, they get a 2 minute blurb at best to dumb down their subject and try not to mess things up. They get paired with a creationist or 'holistic doctor' or just general ignoramus and have to spend their time (again, just a few minutes) attempting to debunk the inanity. That is not an environment conducive to educating the general public nor for raising appreciation for the sciences. The (partial) exception is public radio, where scientists can speak about their research for twenty minutes to an hour on something like Science Friday.

By focusing on scientists, they avoid the larger problems with the public's appreciation of science. Everyone here at slashdot knows about the fantastic solar cells that are 'just around the corner' and other tech predictions which never come to market and the same applies to science articles in general: there's a glut of misrepresented research which has been illegitimately hyped up for sensationalism, especially in medicine. Such irresponsible journalism, supported by low-level science journalists as well as their editors (either one can make a piece way too hyped), leads to a mistrust of news about scientific breakthroughs. Now, I don't have data for that (just like Sheril and Chris!), but I know that I ignore every article about a scientific breakthrough just around the corner unless I have to 1) debunk it or 2) it's related to my major and I know that other people do the same. Furthermore, journalists often simply don't understand the science they're reporting and make serious errors. Chris knows this, he's criticized shoddy science journalism in the past on his blog and made it into a theme. He knows that it hurts the reputations of scientists and the general undestanding of science. Apparently, however, rather than promoting good science reporting directly or finding a market solution to avoiding too much hype, it's time to blame the scientists for not reaching out enough.

Sorry, got on a bit of a rant there. Aside from poor journalism and a generally inhospitable media, there's also the problem of science education in school (mine was atrocious, in retrospect) and the elephant in the room: anti-intellectualism in all its forms, including a number of religious and political movements. Despite all of these forces working against the public's acceptance of science, scientists are still held in very high regard and science in general is still acceptable - at least in the minds of of the public. That's something for which there is real polling data and very recent data, too. Despite this, when it comes down to specific things like global warming, evolution, or basic science literacy, those same people will more often hold to the unscientific option. That's a problem which requires a multi-pronged approach due to the multiple forces shaping science illiteracy and acceptance, a more nuanced solution which somehow manages to be more specific than these expert communicators. Let's try some basics: teach the sciences using scientifically-proven teaching methods and have them taught by people who are scientifically literate (within reason, 1st grade teachers don't need to understand evolution). That doesn't seem like much to ask, does it? Yet even in my home state, Montana, where we get extremely high testing scores, I had a handful of teachers who outright didn't understand the basics of their subject, the research behind it, the scientific method, and how to teach it. This is absolutely unacceptable, particularly considering the high demand for teaching jobs in my locale. The underlying problem is surely due to administrative incompetence, hiring practices which are inadequate, keeping the incompetent employed for whatever reason, and a lack of funds to properly hire enough teachers. I often had history teachers trying to teach physics... I had to correct them as a 12-year-old and again in retrospect I knew very little about science. Before we blame scientists for a problem largely outside their control (there's plenty of good science communicators who simply get ignored), let's overhaul education. Let's fire the science journalists who do a terrible job - in fact, dropping the science section from your local newspaper might not be a bad idea if all it offers is boredom intermixed with misrepresentation. Let's do what we can to lobby politicians so that they'll at least stop fighting science when it's convenient, or do it less. Let's fight religious groups who oppose science and scientific literacy through lies and misrepresentation. Let's fight nonreligious groups who oppose science and scientific literacy through lies and misrepresentation.

That was a good place to end it, but I don't want to miss anything in my rant. A lot of people here have been saying that science is already political enough, keep scientists out of the public sphere. I disagree. I think that we need more scientific experts (we can quibble about whether we want to call them scientists) involved in education and public outreach as their main activity. People with PhDs and MScs in a relevant field who can make open commentary and actually, you know, want to do that. I know people (again from my hometown) who have Master's degrees and PhDs in a scientific field but work as grocery managers, business owners, civil serveants, etc., and would love to write articles - if there were an incentive. Combine that with a competent editor and it would be better than most science journalism today. Put someone like that into teaching and then - *gasp* - pay them a competitive rate. I would focus all of my efforts on teaching if I could make $60K/year within 5 years, but it's just no reasonable and I'm not willing to sacrifice my children's future financial security due to a love of teaching. I doubt I'm alone. We need all these things and more to change science literacy and acceptance (rather than claims of acceptance) in this country. We need it so it is no longer wonkish to talk about basic genetics, but interesting. We need it to stay competitive. We need it for crafting policy.

I'm pretty tired of hearing about these two wingnuts. Their poorly-constructed attempt at a book says nothing productive and heaps blame on the New Atheists, even though the movement is incredibly recent compared to scientific illiteracy.

Be is one of a long list of non-mainstream technologies which I've seen wither on the vine, again for the simple reason that they were too good. There is a status quo in virtually every area in this world, including computer software. If something shows up which is intelligent, positive, and therefore radical to the point where it exceeds the "just good enough," status quo, it tends to slip back below the surface, very rapidly.

I've often wondered how much more positive the world would be, if all of the things which have been repressed or destroyed because they were too innovative, too positive, or too endangering to a scarcity based economy, had actually been allowed to survive and be used.

I don't agree, but I will admit this is how things pan out. Here's my theory as to a possible cause...

When I bought my first BMW, the salesmen had a very very easy job. Any hardwork that might have befallen him, was taken care of by the engineers of BMW. When I got in a BMW at the dealership, and turned the key, the car started, first time with confidence. The steering wheel seemed in tune to my expectations of how much the car should turn given how much I rotate the wheel (most american cars, regardless of sport or luxury status, seem to have a ridiculous amount of play before response is perceived). The gas seemed to follow suit. The suspension wasn't too tight, but tight enough to compliment handling. The Germans make damn fine automobiles, and the BMW is by far one of the best cars I have ever driven. I bought that BMW, and plan to buy another one.

I would assert that BMW is one of those "very very good products, well deserving of their marketing slogan 'the ultimate driving machine'". But, they are here, alive and well and they have yet to die a sad and lonely death.

But, one could argue that BMW doesn't rule the automotive world. General Motors probably is yet larger than BMW. And other fabulous car companies like Bugatti, Lamborghini and Ferrari have rich histories yet often find themselves owned by larger companies. Not just cars, but Omega watches is owned by Swatch (plastic toy watch company). But this can be attributed to the simple fact that selling a lot of cheap stuff renders more income than selling a few very expensive items. The industries realize these high-end companies are the source for much innovation and technical excellence, so rather than letting them die, they get bought out and preserved in a way.

So, what happens market wise to companies who we think are too good but still fail? I think it boils down to what I first talked about. Anyone selling a BMW really only needs to be present to manage the formalities of the sale. The product will sell itself, it really is that good. The downside of this Led Zeppelin tactic (kudos if you get this reference; if you don't, you suck and need to wiki their fourth album), is that the consumer isn't so vulnerable to a clever sales pitch, and perhaps BMW may even realize their own excellence and choose not to hire the "best" salesmen.

So the best salesmen get hired by the people who know their product is crap, and they are willing to divert funds from R&D to a talented salesman. Cut that man a huge paycheck, because he can sell a fridge to an eskimo! As the joke goes. The salesman can provide results more consistently and quicker than some engineer in the R&D department. You don't want to wait for some product to manifest, you want to sell what you already have now. If in doubt of a products quality, well that's where the salesman comes in to persuade you... help you... guide you to a purchase. Crap companies have lots of talented bullshitters, bullshiting consumers into buying bottled tap water all over the world.

In the end, Be Inc. had their problems. They tried to compete, with a proprietary OS, in a market at war with FOSS. Today, there really is only one major proprietary OS left, that being Windows. AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, IRIX, UNICOS, MacOS (classic)... they have either all majorly revamped their models to be more FOSS friendly or at least in regards to (Open Solaris, MacOS X et al).... or they are on a steady and rapid decline.

Just my two cents...

This is not just about Apple. In America at least, consumers have been trained to have fanatical brand loyalty. Apple sticks out (in this case) because they made a phone that people like. I see all of my friends phones quite often... I'd say 90% of the time that any of us get together phones come out at some point. And most of those are utterly forgettable, probably because most cell phones aren't that great to begin with, while the iphone is unmistakable.
Back to my point, any time your friends get a new toy - from a camera to a car, if they like it, they show it off (obviously this does not apply to everyone). And they are also mostly going to talk up the good points of said item. It's just not that often your friends buy cars or cameras in comparison.

2500 feet sounds far too low. In Canada and the US I have found that coverage is good until about 8000' AGL. Sometimes depending on the area you can get coverage up to about 12,000' ALG. You can normally get Data Service as well, although it is somewhat more spotty.

I'll agree with this. I'm no Apple fanboi, but I recently got a iPhone 3G for $49 through AT&T. I was looking for a smartphone, and it just made sense. It has completely changed the way I keep up with my day-to-day life, too. I sync my Google Calendar and Gmail contacts over-the-air, and set up my emails to poll every 15 minutes.* I use it to keep track of everything from going to the gym to my vehicle maintenance. I've not jailbroken it yet, but that's only because I've not seen anything I just have to have.

I really like the phone. Its easy to keep clean, and I've just about stopped lugging around my laptop most of the time.

I *am* considering a Macbook Pro, though, after my experience with the iPhone. I don't care much about OSX (I've not used it), but I do like the unibody construction and the keyboard - I tend to break keyboards and laptop hardware after a year or two of hard use. The magnetic power cord is genius, as the last 3 laptops I've had have failed eventually due to the power port working its way off the motherboard one too many times, which eventually gets to the point there's nothing left to solder it back to. That one feature alone is worth $500 to me, as it probably extends the productive life of the machine 2-3x.

*This part sucks. You can only have one Exchange account, and even though I can set up my webserver to provide push notifications for my gmail, I can't do that *and* sync my calendar/contacts. I deemed the calendar more important, and every 15 minutes acceptable for email.

Americans will become interested in Science again if they know they or their children can have a future perusing it.
That will only happen if America stops outsourcing its R&D and limits the number of scientists it imports.

Dropping no child left behind, and actually promoting achievements instead of preventing failures wouldn't hurt either.

An Atom N270 at 1.7 GHz is weak (3300 MIPS) - not even as powerful as my ancient Pentium 4 (~9500 MIPS). At Atom is about the same as an old AMD Athlon or a P3 clocked at 1.2 GHz.

hajime ni go,
sorede nana mei,
mata, gomei.

(it's not just 17 for the whole thing, it's arranged in three lines - 5-7-5. And strictly speaking it's 17 moras, not syllables - but I don't even know how to do that in English so I won't fault anybody for that. I'm just having fun here...)

There *is* one Microsoft version that does this. Try popping out the CDROM after the %11 mark on a Windows ME installation, and see what happens.

And are surprised when Bernanke answers the phone.