|
|
I don't claim to be a MS fanboy, I only run XP for games; my laptops/netbooks all run ubuntu. Had any other company in the world released this you wouldn't have commented the way you did. Did you see how the user videos were overlaid right overtop of the existing data?? In google it's just a black, blank canvas (try looking up under the eiffle tower in paris). Who cares if you need a live feed to do that? Their system is infinitely more extensible than google's currently is. As for releasing tech demos, this was done right through their current map beta, which anyone can use. It's not vaporware.
First they came for the men with sportscars, but I did not speak out, for I was not a giant douchebag.
this is serious bullshit. ive been a modder for years now and i know about fair use. the companies that hold the rights of the games i work on LOVE modding as it increases sales and replay value. Activision you are showing your corporate decay.
Ok, I read a bit about it, and it’s actually B cells that would have to be transformed.
Or another way would be, to let the immune system fight the fight outside of the body, in a petri dish. And then inject the now trained cells again.
All the existing antibiotics attack various mechanisms of bacteria. Even though the cellular critters can evolve around these attacks, it generally requires more resources to do so: extra thick cell walls, extra toxin pumps, etc. While any one work-around won't be a major stumbling block for the critter, It seems to me that fairly low doses of many antibiotics would attack enough mechanisms of the critter to slow down its reproduction enough for the human body's defenses to have an edge on it.
It's just like WW2: you bomb their train tracks, bridges, ports, power plants, etc. such that the total result slows them down even though no one attack stops them. It seems the current crop of antibiotics try to be a single magic key, which is unrealistic in the long run.
That should have started, "With $17 million in sales..."
And even more interesting was the estimate of 5.4 million sold to collectors. I don't understand the point of collecting a stamp when there are 46 million others just like it? It's the same notion of collecting all the state quarters I suppose.
Which one?
I just ran it doing a poor man's manual verification (i.e. go to www.browserchoice.eu and refresh it 40 times and see what happens) and it looked pretty freaking random to me. More often than not, IE was somewhere in the middle, as were all the others.
Some people have been complaining that, given the algorithm, IE would end up in the last position about 50% of the time. While 40 hits is not enough to give any real valid statistical data, IE was in the last position 3 times and the first position 6 times. They should be in either first or last position 40% of the time for a truly random function, and about 64% for the flawed function, but in my short test they were only in either position a little over 20% of the time. I'd be very surprised to see that low of a result if the function is biased toward them 64% of the time.
In other words, I call bullshit, and I want you to prove their function is not adequate, and I want real-world verification that what you say is true.
Yeah, I know I'm asking a lot, but it's no more than what all these people talking out their asses are demanding from Microsoft. In fact, it's a lot more realistic - generally in western society the burden of proof is on the accuser. So prove that what they use is not adequate, because it looks good enough to me.
There is something in the pang of change More than the heart can bear, Unhappiness remembering happiness. -- Euripides