Regardless of whether disabling InPrivate is the best way to ensure you can track browsing within an organization, yes, InPrivate can be "configured and controlled via Group Policy." (It is confirmed by the IE8 team in the comments on the blog entry announcing the feature http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/08/25/ie8-and-privacy.aspx)
Of course, Slashdot users should not meet up in a social feed reading tool to weed out what's useful for themselves, or even mention these tools... Slashdot's editorial approach would suddenly seem irrelevant.
Perhaps it could post duplicates and incorrect summaries 24-7 to be worth reading, at least for comedic and grits reasons.
But we already passed around those floppies containing OPML files back in 2004.
It doesn't seem they've gone out of the way to do anything different than what VE 3D's done for quite some time in terms of minimal supported OSes, unifying the 2D and 3D JavaScript APIs, and an interactive sample site.
So if in all this time, this is what they've done, they're behaving like they're doing 1, and not very well. You'd suppose 2 is the next competitive move that would come out of Google, but I think it depends on what Microsoft does. If Microsoft adds killer feature X, I think Google's just going to do X' in this case.
Swapping a 10ft cable for a 15ft one is neither more, nor less, wired.
Swapping Wi-Fi for EVDO is neither more, nor less, wireless.
Lets call it truly wireless when no cords, including power cords, come in the box, or are required, ever.
Yes, and it also increases cost to acquire customer, decreases the number of potential customers at the same time(to those who have cell phones.) That would be an idiotic thing to do, when really all Google has to do is balance well-done features against poorly-done features well enough to acquire and keep you from switching away (switching costs on email can be kind of high with "unlimited storage" in play these days.) Ad impressions are ad impressions, even ones taken when composing an email that'll never make it to its destination. Bo hoo.
The old scheme was likely more relevant for early testing, although perhaps putting those spammers-without-cell-phones in the mix earlier on might have been a good idea.
Don't forget to be sure the binary doesn't contain anything its source doesn't, you have to trust the compiler (or similarly compile its source)... and the compiler's compiler... and so on.
I'm not exactly sure what the "shutter speed" of the camera used is, but I'd venture it's not so fast that each frame wouldn't have some blur caused by jittering in it. So it might be possible to crop each frame such that objects don't jitter, but they'd blur like they were. That'd have to be removed as well to get a stable-looking picture.
And what is more complex... "if A and B and not C", or something that asserts that it's actually supposed to be "if A and B and C"... what requires more tests? Are the same standards applied to the level-A test software?
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you; yours is the voice of wisdom I was looking for.
So has Live Search. http://www.intomobile.com/2007/10/19/windows-live-search-mobile-gets-updated-speechvoice-recognition.html Anyone care again? Yeah, no, not really.
Regardless of whether disabling InPrivate is the best way to ensure you can track browsing within an organization, yes, InPrivate can be "configured and controlled via Group Policy." (It is confirmed by the IE8 team in the comments on the blog entry announcing the feature http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/08/25/ie8-and-privacy.aspx)
The curved dishes make decent ponds for birds to splash in. Cover the edges with rocks or something else decorative to hide what it really is.
Of course, Slashdot users should not meet up in a social feed reading tool to weed out what's useful for themselves, or even mention these tools... Slashdot's editorial approach would suddenly seem irrelevant. Perhaps it could post duplicates and incorrect summaries 24-7 to be worth reading, at least for comedic and grits reasons. But we already passed around those floppies containing OPML files back in 2004.
It doesn't seem they've gone out of the way to do anything different than what VE 3D's done for quite some time in terms of minimal supported OSes, unifying the 2D and 3D JavaScript APIs, and an interactive sample site. So if in all this time, this is what they've done, they're behaving like they're doing 1, and not very well. You'd suppose 2 is the next competitive move that would come out of Google, but I think it depends on what Microsoft does. If Microsoft adds killer feature X, I think Google's just going to do X' in this case.
What's the gap between this and the existing Virtual Earth 3D plugin? http://www.google.com/earth/plugin/examples/samples/index.html vs. http://dev.live.com/virtualearth/sdk.
Swapping a 10ft cable for a 15ft one is neither more, nor less, wired. Swapping Wi-Fi for EVDO is neither more, nor less, wireless. Lets call it truly wireless when no cords, including power cords, come in the box, or are required, ever.
Yes, and it also increases cost to acquire customer, decreases the number of potential customers at the same time(to those who have cell phones.) That would be an idiotic thing to do, when really all Google has to do is balance well-done features against poorly-done features well enough to acquire and keep you from switching away (switching costs on email can be kind of high with "unlimited storage" in play these days.) Ad impressions are ad impressions, even ones taken when composing an email that'll never make it to its destination. Bo hoo.
The old scheme was likely more relevant for early testing, although perhaps putting those spammers-without-cell-phones in the mix earlier on might have been a good idea.
Don't forget to be sure the binary doesn't contain anything its source doesn't, you have to trust the compiler (or similarly compile its source)... and the compiler's compiler... and so on.
I'm not exactly sure what the "shutter speed" of the camera used is, but I'd venture it's not so fast that each frame wouldn't have some blur caused by jittering in it. So it might be possible to crop each frame such that objects don't jitter, but they'd blur like they were. That'd have to be removed as well to get a stable-looking picture.
And what is more complex... "if A and B and not C", or something that asserts that it's actually supposed to be "if A and B and C"... what requires more tests? Are the same standards applied to the level-A test software?