there are also lots of other handy uses for having a camera in your pocket all the time.
i have often used my phone to take pictures of things like posters and signs that i want to remember but don't feel like writing down telephone numbers, names, email addresses, etc. it's just a handy way to record info and access it later.
i also read once about someone who would always photograph his car in the lot so he could find it later. he also would photograph his door in hotels so that he could remember where he was staying. makes sense to me. it's like having a photographic memory.
then again, though, i don't think feature creep really scares me too much as a treo 600 owner. i like having a calendar, contacts, browser, vindigo, camera, video recorder, audio recorder, etc. in my pocket. i use those things all the time. i actually recorded a small bit of a jazz show i saw last night on my phone to play to my brother later so he could help me identify the standard the band played as an encore. i thought it was 'round midnight and he confirmed that i was right. silly? maybe. but it's kindof cool too.
what about mail?.mac has excellent imap & webmail. their imap has been incredibly stable and i've been using it for my main personal mail for 3+ years now with no hiccups/outages that i've noticed in the past 18 months. that's just as valuable as the 1 gb storage they give me (of which i'm using about 900 mbs right now).
sometimes i think about dumping.mac and going somewhere else but every time i consider it they bump my storage (they went from 250 mb to 1 gb this year) and i stay for another year. plus, posting photos from iphoto to.mac is insanely easy and looks to be much better with their ajax slideshow feature in iphoto 06.
tabs aside, it's hard for me to recommend firefox to anyone when even the 1.5 beta 1 still has a *horrendous memory leak*. i really can't quite understand how this enormous (and well-documented) problem continues to plague firefox.
yes, i have tried the workarounds (changing variables, installing flashblock, uninstalling all other extensions, etc.) and none of these fixes work for me. i'll use firefox for about an hour, check its memory use, and see that - sure enough - it's up to 170 mb. that's ludicrous when you have only two tabs open in a single window. the worst situation is when i use another app for a while (so winxp swaps the firefox ram out to the page file) and then i switch back to firefox. i will open up the task manager and watch as the memory use for firefox goes from, say, 70 mb back up to 150 mb (at ~1 mb/sec) while the hourglass spins and spins. once it finally gets all of its ram back it will let you use the browser again. so yeah, wait 60 seconds and you can hit the back button. intolerable. this machine has 512mb ram - not ideal but should be adequate.
i feel like even more of a sucker because i've convinced everyone in our office of 25 to switch to it, only to now recommend that they restart their browser every few hours so that it will clear out its memory-hogging ways and release some ram so that other apps can function.
someone mentions this problem each time there is a firefox article and it's well-documented all over the web. so why hasn't it been resolved? it's far and away the #1 problem with firefox and why i still can't strongly recommend it.
this is primarily for retailers who want to track how people are getting to their site and how they are converting to purchasers (or arriving and not purchasing, as the case may be). the more accurate this data, the better they are able to allocate your budget to increase sales. did the user come from an affiliate program? from an email (not all email is unsolicited spam, remember)? from a paid search ad on google? if it was a paid google placement, what keyword drove the click and sale? what keywords are costing lots of money and not driving any sales?
as the article points out, the current method of tracking (cookies) is flawed. i agree with the previous posters that the solution presented is not a paradigm shift but it does seem to be a much better way to track visitors: you just use a more complex set of filters and analysis. and really, even though the article doesn't say anything about privacy, i don't think most people are going to be too bothered with the privacy ramifications of doing some (inherently inaccurate) IP analysis about where they think you live and what ISP you're using.
so, while i don't think this is a huge shift in how people can/are tracked on the internet, it's a fairly intelligent improvement on "cookies only" and it really does very little to invade your privacy.
finally, to all of the people who have made arguments about "yeah but what if i SSH from NY to Tokyo smart guy?" wake up: you are.000001% of the internet users out there. they're looking to make general improvements in tracking users, not get to 100% accuracy by keeping track of the 14 people browsing & buying widgets over cross-continental tunnels.. eesh.
i work in this industry and i'm still somewhat confused about what this means so it's not really that surprising to me that people here are not sure what's going on. here's what we know:
1. it's okay to bid on "geico" as a keyword 2. it's not okay to use "geico" in your ad (unless you're geico) if geico has filed a trademark protection request with google 3. google has not allowed anyone to use "geico" in an ad (if they have filled out the paperwork) since april 2004
so here's the problem - google doesn't allow it but they still need to settle the case with geico or enter the penalty phase. is this just for damages incurred prior to april 2004? or does the decision mean that geico shouldn't have had to follow any procedures in the first place to prohibit others from using their trademark in ad copy?
no one seems to be answering those questions very clearly. the judge said that google can't do something that, well, it hasn't been doing for almost a year and a half.. so where's the beef? is it with google's current trademark protection procedure or with offenses prior to april 2004 when they instituted that policy?
you must visit the brick testament: the bible depicted with legos.
sure, it's the bible so it's a bit raunchy at times but each story is conveniently labeled so you'll know if it contains nudity, sexual content, violence or cursing.. whew!
1. there would be no itunes music store without drm because the record labels would never have agreed to it. so i guess either way you wouldn't be using it.
2. final cut pro has had some serious copy protection since its 1.0 release, long before iwork. quicktime pro and osx server also require a key.
i don't get it.. the CEO said that they are "considering" and that there "could be" a role for napster. did anyone RTA?
why does this mean that napster is definitely going into the movie distribution business? lots of companies are considering lots of things - this is not news. and the headline "Napster to Offer Movie Downloads"? wildly inaccurate.
that's not true. in osx, go to your system prefs and select the "cds and dvds" pref pane. there are a variety of autorun settings in there for different media and different associated apps.
you mean to say that it *does* read from SMB, NFS, whatever. i have one and i use it with an NFS share from a linux box to win2k server and it works like a champ.
Slashdot Mirror
there are also lots of other handy uses for having a camera in your pocket all the time.
i have often used my phone to take pictures of things like posters and signs that i want to remember but don't feel like writing down telephone numbers, names, email addresses, etc. it's just a handy way to record info and access it later.
i also read once about someone who would always photograph his car in the lot so he could find it later. he also would photograph his door in hotels so that he could remember where he was staying. makes sense to me. it's like having a photographic memory.
then again, though, i don't think feature creep really scares me too much as a treo 600 owner. i like having a calendar, contacts, browser, vindigo, camera, video recorder, audio recorder, etc. in my pocket. i use those things all the time. i actually recorded a small bit of a jazz show i saw last night on my phone to play to my brother later so he could help me identify the standard the band played as an encore. i thought it was 'round midnight and he confirmed that i was right. silly? maybe. but it's kindof cool too.
what about mail? .mac has excellent imap & webmail. their imap has been incredibly stable and i've been using it for my main personal mail for 3+ years now with no hiccups/outages that i've noticed in the past 18 months. that's just as valuable as the 1 gb storage they give me (of which i'm using about 900 mbs right now).
.mac and going somewhere else but every time i consider it they bump my storage (they went from 250 mb to 1 gb this year) and i stay for another year. plus, posting photos from iphoto to .mac is insanely easy and looks to be much better with their ajax slideshow feature in iphoto 06.
sometimes i think about dumping
may seem obvious to most but, if you're not using 1.5, FF 1.0.x certainly won't tell you that 1.5 RC3 is out with its green arrow either...
tabs aside, it's hard for me to recommend firefox to anyone when even the 1.5 beta 1 still has a *horrendous memory leak*. i really can't quite understand how this enormous (and well-documented) problem continues to plague firefox.
yes, i have tried the workarounds (changing variables, installing flashblock, uninstalling all other extensions, etc.) and none of these fixes work for me. i'll use firefox for about an hour, check its memory use, and see that - sure enough - it's up to 170 mb. that's ludicrous when you have only two tabs open in a single window. the worst situation is when i use another app for a while (so winxp swaps the firefox ram out to the page file) and then i switch back to firefox. i will open up the task manager and watch as the memory use for firefox goes from, say, 70 mb back up to 150 mb (at ~1 mb/sec) while the hourglass spins and spins. once it finally gets all of its ram back it will let you use the browser again. so yeah, wait 60 seconds and you can hit the back button. intolerable. this machine has 512mb ram - not ideal but should be adequate.
i feel like even more of a sucker because i've convinced everyone in our office of 25 to switch to it, only to now recommend that they restart their browser every few hours so that it will clear out its memory-hogging ways and release some ram so that other apps can function.
someone mentions this problem each time there is a firefox article and it's well-documented all over the web. so why hasn't it been resolved? it's far and away the #1 problem with firefox and why i still can't strongly recommend it.
this is primarily for retailers who want to track how people are getting to their site and how they are converting to purchasers (or arriving and not purchasing, as the case may be). the more accurate this data, the better they are able to allocate your budget to increase sales. did the user come from an affiliate program? from an email (not all email is unsolicited spam, remember)? from a paid search ad on google? if it was a paid google placement, what keyword drove the click and sale? what keywords are costing lots of money and not driving any sales?
.000001% of the internet users out there. they're looking to make general improvements in tracking users, not get to 100% accuracy by keeping track of the 14 people browsing & buying widgets over cross-continental tunnels.. eesh.
as the article points out, the current method of tracking (cookies) is flawed. i agree with the previous posters that the solution presented is not a paradigm shift but it does seem to be a much better way to track visitors: you just use a more complex set of filters and analysis. and really, even though the article doesn't say anything about privacy, i don't think most people are going to be too bothered with the privacy ramifications of doing some (inherently inaccurate) IP analysis about where they think you live and what ISP you're using.
so, while i don't think this is a huge shift in how people can/are tracked on the internet, it's a fairly intelligent improvement on "cookies only" and it really does very little to invade your privacy.
finally, to all of the people who have made arguments about "yeah but what if i SSH from NY to Tokyo smart guy?" wake up: you are
i work in this industry and i'm still somewhat confused about what this means so it's not really that surprising to me that people here are not sure what's going on. here's what we know:
1. it's okay to bid on "geico" as a keyword
2. it's not okay to use "geico" in your ad (unless you're geico) if geico has filed a trademark protection request with google
3. google has not allowed anyone to use "geico" in an ad (if they have filled out the paperwork) since april 2004
so here's the problem - google doesn't allow it but they still need to settle the case with geico or enter the penalty phase. is this just for damages incurred prior to april 2004? or does the decision mean that geico shouldn't have had to follow any procedures in the first place to prohibit others from using their trademark in ad copy?
no one seems to be answering those questions very clearly. the judge said that google can't do something that, well, it hasn't been doing for almost a year and a half.. so where's the beef? is it with google's current trademark protection procedure or with offenses prior to april 2004 when they instituted that policy?
you must visit the brick testament: the bible depicted with legos.
sure, it's the bible so it's a bit raunchy at times but each story is conveniently labeled so you'll know if it contains nudity, sexual content, violence or cursing.. whew!
http://www.thebricktestament.com/
two things to point out:
1. there would be no itunes music store without drm because the record labels would never have agreed to it. so i guess either way you wouldn't be using it.
2. final cut pro has had some serious copy protection since its 1.0 release, long before iwork. quicktime pro and osx server also require a key.
i don't get it.. the CEO said that they are "considering" and that there "could be" a role for napster. did anyone RTA?
why does this mean that napster is definitely going into the movie distribution business? lots of companies are considering lots of things - this is not news. and the headline "Napster to Offer Movie Downloads"? wildly inaccurate.
that's not true. in osx, go to your system prefs and select the "cds and dvds" pref pane. there are a variety of autorun settings in there for different media and different associated apps.
you mean to say that it *does* read from SMB, NFS, whatever. i have one and i use it with an NFS share from a linux box to win2k server and it works like a champ.