The agreement with Sun and MS was that all previous contracts in regard to Java were terminated. MS could no longer use the Java Compatible trademark. It was however allowed to continue to ship the existing Java technology developed prior to the agreement for a period of 7 years at the cost of 20 million dollars. SUN would allow for future licensing and distribution of Java technology (with additional charges/fees) on the provision that the end product meet SUN's compliancy criteria.
MS had a choice: continue to fund SUN, a competitor, with no forseeable return on investment. Help to popularize a competitors product line. Market against the companies own languages/api/development platforms. Be constantly accountable to a competitor. OR forget about it and pursue other more worthwhile goals that did have a return.
J++ development was basically dead. The developer community moved on. MS's revenue stream in regards to Java was in dissarray. It had a crap relationship with SUN and the constant lingering ANTITRUST threat (of which SUN was part of).
From a business perspective the safest route I can see is to dump JAVA (which was allowable per the agreement) and favor someone else or an internal product. Continue to ship the version on hand until the agreement runs out or it becomes so outdated as to be useless and eventually drop it all together.
Now from a business perspective on SUNs part I would see it this way. MS doesn't choose a the license option right away. The JVM it is shipping will become useless and discarded. I need to find a way to get the latest JVM into the peoples hands. Partner, partner, partner... hmmmmm... who could I partner with? How do I get the JVM out there without using MS? How do I solidify my market and revenue stream?
Four years later MS has a competing product. Java has moved very little on the client side and still has not found a reliable easy way or a good partner for getting Java into the consumers hands.
Is this MS's fault or simply poor business decisions on SUN's part?
If you design a site under the assumption that not everyone will use the same user agent and that some people will REQUIRE a different sized font then you should never used fixed pixel perfect measures. As a designer you should be advocating to the customer how the site can remain as close to their vision as possible while still maintaining accessibility and flexibility. If you just give in to fixed table layout then you are actually doing harm to the customer by helping them alienate existing and potential customers. No real business (exception:AOL) is going to say "F**k those old half blind ba***rds, we don't need their money" - but if you design your site without accounting for them you might as well have said it.
Style sheets can do much more than simple text styling. Try looking around abit and you'll find plenty of styled sites, standard compliant and cross browser that work beautifully.
I don't think that Dreamweaver and Frontpage actually directly compete. Dreamweaver is a much more professional tool than Frontpage. Frontpage is geared more towards tasks, project management, and overall site maintenance. Dreamweaver to me has always been about modular development - building individual pages quickly and easily. Frontpage can be standards compliant and is easily extensible but it's really geared toward novice use - i.e. you might give it to a documentation team. Dreamweaver is geared toward "designers" with homesite as a good support application for straight "coders".
We use Frontpage, Dreamweaver, and Homesite. Our Communications team uses Frontpage with an IIS webserver to keep Daily Bulletins and some reference material maintained (these people have NO HTML knowledge). Our external site maintainers use Dreamweaver with Vignette and IPlanet servers for more dynamic content. Our more technical intranet sites are maintained using Homesite and Websphere, giving significant control over the code. I think eventually we'll be moving everything into Websphere/Eclipse development.
Could it be that she's a professional reviewer. In this case instead of having her own site like Anandtech or Dansdata or Tom's Hardware she does all her posting at Amazon. Are the ethical issues any different here than they are on the afore mentioned "legitimate" websites? I know that Dansdata just had a post about what the payoff or if there was a payoff for putting up good reviews. Most of his tend to be positive and as he replied any junk that he gets he just doesn't report on it because he'd rather report and test the good stuff.
I'm sure somewhere in there a reviewer wants to keep from publishing negative stuff also so that new products get sent on a regular basis.
I'm assuming that somewhere on Amazon there is a feedback mechanism designed to say that "this persons review helped my purchasing" or "this reviewers review was accurate". A feedback mechanism like that can probably be manipulated but it would take some effort.
The one complaint I've heard repeated hundreds of times is about text recognition. Most people are saying the text recognition is between 75-90%. Personally I've used a hacked e-pods with Caligrapher for over two years now and seen 98-100% recognition during that time. Having said that I will say there are some things I've noticed about writing habits (watching other people use the device). Some people like to write very small - for text recognition the bigger the better. Some people complaining about the recognition level can't write legible text i.e. I have a friend who will write something down for me and I can't read it. Two days later if I give him the same paper back and ask for an explanation he can't read it either. Recognition is relative.
Gates wanted the recognition software to tailor to the user, but the product developers want the recognition to be more generalized and the users would have to adjust. Personally I think there has to be a compromise - people need to pay attention to penmanship and the recognition software should adapt somewhat to the individuals writing (much like speech recognition adapts to the individuals voice).
I seriously suggest that you take a look at wired's site or richinstyle, webstandards.org, alistapart, bluerobot, glish, etc. and see how light weight and flexible their code is. (not a style="font-weight:bolder" in sight) It's obvious that you haven't worked much with html or CSS.
First your asking everyone to pretend. Why should we need to pretend that something works in a way that it doesn't.
Let's say for the sake of argument that I have a four column layout that I want to reflow to a two column layout and possibly a one column layout depending on the screen. With a table I CANNOT DO THIS. Tables are not semantically or structurally designed to do this. Tables are exactly what they imply TABULAR and rigid, they are not designed to reflow or wrap rows or columns. The point of CSS is avoiding all of the dorked up attributes of tables such as spanning. You don't have to add a huge amount of code to get things to appear the same as a table that's not the way it works. Additionally you wouldn't always need to use SPAN and DIV tags CSS can be applied to any element and does not need to be applied inline as your example suggests. This is where a lot of the savings and flexibility comes in - not needing to go into every single tag and add style attributes.
The point is use what works best for what you are doing. Use tables for data and CSS for layout and style. It's easy, it doesn't have to made more complicated, and it can be fast efficient and lightweight.
I will never understand people using phrases like "this late in the game" as if we are at the end or too far into use to go back and do it correctly. The fact is that the newer browsers are becoming more and more standards compliant and the standards are becoming more and more modular. The older browsers are becoming increasingly less used and in most cases you don't want a site to display identically for each user agent. I want a site to reflow based on screen resolution and user agent. A site should not look the same between a PDA and a Desktop browser at 1600x1200 one or both would be unreadable.
To assume that we want these things because we are all highminded bookworms only devoted to the written word of the standards gods is rediculous and ignorant. We want these things because it will make our jobs easier, our content more manageable, and more flexible to a wider range of consumer. Tables serve you - great - keep on using them even as the momentum pushes towards CSS and then play catch up later.
I guess I would want to know which sites you are visiting that could be so slow and is it CSS or script that's causing it to be slow. Just because someone claims CSS use doesn't mean that they are using it correctly or that they don't have other things on the site slowing it down.
From peronal experience I can say that I've used CSS with DIVs and SPANs and the sites are about 25% lighter, display relatively identical in IE5+/Moz/Opera and I haven't noticed any slow downs, quite the contrary.
Why work out the bugs for CSS? - Because it's the right thing to do. Markup should be used for what it works best for. Tables were designed for the structuring of tabular information and got shoehorned into use as a layout mechanism. Since they were not designed from the get go as a layout mechanism that means they are not as flexible or robust. Creating robust sites using tables (sites that reflow in different resolutions or sites that work well with screen readers) is made much more difficult when using tables.
Two factors that you fail to take into consideration are aversion and poverty. Just because technology exists and existed to get the people to where they were doesn't mean that it was either affordable or that they were eager to continue it's use. It's the means to an end debate. Would a group of people in the near future, seeking a puritan lifestyle, use technology to find a world where they could live free from technology? Possibly. Lesser of two evils.
Additionally you don't include the price of war on societies. Then there's disease, climate changes on worlds not fully studied (think Wrath of Khan), and then there are governments and/or people who would choose to control what gets used and by whom.
In today's America where we discuss the digital divide and talk about how to get everyone a computer, meanwhile the Native American population struggle with how to get running water, electricity and phones to more than half of their population that "need" it. And this is with the government being minutes to hours away. What happens when communications takes weeks to months and travel likewise months to years?
In the past we have seen the rich sell everything they have to move to strange new lands. It then often took those families generations of squaller to build it back up. What's to say that the same thing doesn't happen again?
The last point I would make is that you assume that because native peoples of today use some conveniences that it was by choice. Often in today's world it is by necessity and survival that they must take on the modern trappings. Other times it's because someone else told them that they must. Just because the south American tribesman is shown wearing a Camel shirt and has an outboard motor on his boat doesn't mean that he's scrambling to buy an HDTV or has a microwave. To say that we scramble to use the latest in technology is not a true assumption. Even today we have technology in continual use that's been outdated by a generation (space shuttle, air traffic control, automobiles, trains, airplanes, naval fleets, etc). Will that gap shorten or lengthen when space travel occurs between planets.
I think you're on to something. I think people respond much better to simplicity. Especially men. A comedian said "The difference between men and women is that women are complex - men are not". Give a straight simple uncluttered description of what you are selling and men will usually go for it. Women on the other hand will probably look at it just to see if they can find more detail about what they might buy.
It's like going to a car dealership. 99% of the people want to go, browse around, and have someone available to answer questions. They do not want someone hovering and pressuring. Yet at 99% of the car dealerships that's exactly what you get - hover and pressure. Everyone has to buy a car after all. Has the internet turned into the same kind of venue?
Not a problem. But I think it depends on the show. I record and put to VCD episodes of Oprah (I hear raucus laughter from afar). Her show easily can be between 22 and 26 minutes with the remainder being commercial (that means I can fit two to three episodes of Oprah per VCD). Likewise many of the "good" shows (meaning popular) can end up significantly shorter as networks try to sell more and more ad space at increasingly high prices. I would love to see a break down from the networks though of what the "rules" are for programming.
Nice catch:) I forgot to mention the previews for next weeks show, review of last weeks show, and the "late breaking" news they show, and then the few seconds of "fade to black" that gets used as transition to and from segments and commercials.
I get it but don't agree. The logic should be that as users bail out on advertising then it's either time to reevaluate the type of advertising you are doing or reevaluate the business model. If you don't do either that's when you shut down.
Many users are just burnt out on ads. It's been said time and time again. When every show, every channel, every magazine, every newspaper, every website, every shopping cart, every building, every movie, every music CD, every box of cereal, basically every horizontal and vertical surface that a person sees is covered with an ad you get burn out. When an hour long show contains 22 minutes worth of show (2 minutes of beginning and ending + 20 minutes actual plot and acting) and 28 minutes worth of commercials there's a little commercial zone-out going on.
Pop up blockers and similar technology in PVR's are just helping what the brain does automatically - block out the crap. In fact it might even improve some of the ads getting seen since the users aren't overloaded with so much some of it might actually register.
Marketers don't understand "reasonable" or "ethical". They understand marketshare, branding, and placement. If they looked to "reasonable" and "ethical" the economy might look a little better than it does right now.
Do we need to start an Ellen Feiss Switch add campaign to migrate the last few Natalie Portman fans over to being Ellen Feiss fans?
"I kept sending notes and flowers to Natalie but I never got a response. Then one day I got this cease and desist letter and this lawyer said something about a restraining order. That was like totally rude. That was the day I realized Natalie just didn't understand me. That was the day that I found Ellen Feiss on Slashdot. She knew who I was and understood everything about me. She said it like right to me 'these people don't have lives', that was me. We just have so much in common, I don't like that Dell dufus either. "
"My names Bob, I'm a Slashdot geek. I switched"
Re:Lacks any ability to glide
on
Fanwing Planes?
·
· Score: 2
autorotation aside I wonder if a mechanism could be devised to change the angle of the individual fan blades to transform the wing into a solid and glide friendly wing.
There has to be something seriously wrong with your machine. I have 4 XP machines at home. The one I use almost every day I have rebooted for... well I can't really remember the last time but it had to be more than a month or two ago. The computer my kids and wife use the most gets rebooted maybe once a month. I would seriously look at your setup if you have to reboot multiple times a week.
I understand a little where both you and the parent post are coming from.
The parent post is the classic argument that certain people jump towards the buzz word of the day regardless of the lack of any substantial proof of it's long term viability. Likewise others spurn technology/methodologies based on some negative part that they perceive regardless of other potentially positive benefits that are available.
It' difficult to break people out of their habbits to embrace anything new, unless you have some substantial proof to back it up.
So then we should also stick with the original definitions of NERD and GEEK then right and come up with other words for most of the people who visit slashdot or enjoy manga.
How about you just go to France and help them to enforce a perfectly pure and correct language?
Otaku literally translates as "house" and has come to mean (in Japan) someone who has no ability to care for themselves (slovenly, lazy) through their own neglect due to obsessive behavior. America being a blended culture and incorporating other cultures into it took this word to describe people obsessed over manga. So while it bears no resemblance to "house" it does stay at least somewhat in line with the Japanese use describing someone who is obsessed. Unlike the japanese use Americans do not often equate negative feelings with Otaku.
I would love to definitively argue with you on the Shiro/Shirow issue, unfortunately unless you are him (I am not) then what resource do we use for making the determination. I own multiple books and a couple of videos and all of them list Shirow. IMDB as well as other resources do as well. Only a small minority of sites I've seen refer to him as Shiro. So unless you can give a resource that is absolute in it's correctness don't be an ass about it.
Hit google again and do some more research here's at least one link out of thouands returned http://www.altcorp.com/vaccinehistory.htm
Early "vaccination" was done through a procedure called "variolation" where a person was exposed to the puss from someone infected via a scratch or some other insertion of material just under the skin. This typically gave a light case of pox and resulted in about 1% death. After that the person was imune for life. This was done well before the other vaccination was invented and well within Benjamin Franklin's lifetime.
So let me see if I understand this. Courtney Love, the wife of Cobain and heir under the law to his works is fighting two band members with no legal right to the works who decided to publish the work without consulting with her first. She wants control, they want control... she's the bad one.
From all that I've read it's about ONE song, a song that is about her. Lets see if my spouse wrote a song about me and then after their death it was released by people hoping to use it as the next big hit how would I react. HMMMMMM......
In almost every article I've read they've mentioned how this ONE song could be a huge hit commercially and artisticly. Two guys who would seem to have no future career oportunities want to take that hit and put it in a box set and make money off of it. Courtney Love is blocking that, not saying she wants to include it in her own set, but because it's hers. By quoting the law one might infer that she wants to publish it but without specific mention you can't say for sure that it's her intention. If it were her intention to make money off of the song why wouldn't she just strike a deal with the rest of Nirvana.
I'm confused about why Courtney Love is as bad as the rest. Every interview and statement that I've ever read of hers chastized the record industry and points out the failures and fraud that occur. Is she bad because of her music? Because she's branched out into other areas? Because she's a business woman? Because she wants to profit? Can you elaborate on your statement?
Slashdot Mirror
hey that's a great idea put a couple of high powered magnets on the bottom and built into the desk and it would hov... oh... nevermind...
I think there's more to it too.
The agreement with Sun and MS was that all previous contracts in regard to Java were terminated. MS could no longer use the Java Compatible trademark. It was however allowed to continue to ship the existing Java technology developed prior to the agreement for a period of 7 years at the cost of 20 million dollars. SUN would allow for future licensing and distribution of Java technology (with additional charges/fees) on the provision that the end product meet SUN's compliancy criteria.
MS had a choice: continue to fund SUN, a competitor, with no forseeable return on investment. Help to popularize a competitors product line. Market against the companies own languages/api/development platforms. Be constantly accountable to a competitor. OR forget about it and pursue other more worthwhile goals that did have a return.
J++ development was basically dead. The developer community moved on. MS's revenue stream in regards to Java was in dissarray. It had a crap relationship with SUN and the constant lingering ANTITRUST threat (of which SUN was part of).
From a business perspective the safest route I can see is to dump JAVA (which was allowable per the agreement) and favor someone else or an internal product. Continue to ship the version on hand until the agreement runs out or it becomes so outdated as to be useless and eventually drop it all together.
Now from a business perspective on SUNs part I would see it this way. MS doesn't choose a the license option right away. The JVM it is shipping will become useless and discarded. I need to find a way to get the latest JVM into the peoples hands. Partner, partner, partner... hmmmmm... who could I partner with? How do I get the JVM out there without using MS? How do I solidify my market and revenue stream?
Four years later MS has a competing product. Java has moved very little on the client side and still has not found a reliable easy way or a good partner for getting Java into the consumers hands.
Is this MS's fault or simply poor business decisions on SUN's part?
But I don't want Java!
If you design a site under the assumption that not everyone will use the same user agent and that some people will REQUIRE a different sized font then you should never used fixed pixel perfect measures. As a designer you should be advocating to the customer how the site can remain as close to their vision as possible while still maintaining accessibility and flexibility. If you just give in to fixed table layout then you are actually doing harm to the customer by helping them alienate existing and potential customers. No real business (exception:AOL) is going to say "F**k those old half blind ba***rds, we don't need their money" - but if you design your site without accounting for them you might as well have said it.
Style sheets can do much more than simple text styling. Try looking around abit and you'll find plenty of styled sites, standard compliant and cross browser that work beautifully.
I don't think that Dreamweaver and Frontpage actually directly compete. Dreamweaver is a much more professional tool than Frontpage. Frontpage is geared more towards tasks, project management, and overall site maintenance. Dreamweaver to me has always been about modular development - building individual pages quickly and easily. Frontpage can be standards compliant and is easily extensible but it's really geared toward novice use - i.e. you might give it to a documentation team. Dreamweaver is geared toward "designers" with homesite as a good support application for straight "coders".
We use Frontpage, Dreamweaver, and Homesite. Our Communications team uses Frontpage with an IIS webserver to keep Daily Bulletins and some reference material maintained (these people have NO HTML knowledge). Our external site maintainers use Dreamweaver with Vignette and IPlanet servers for more dynamic content. Our more technical intranet sites are maintained using Homesite and Websphere, giving significant control over the code. I think eventually we'll be moving everything into Websphere/Eclipse development.
"it can only mean good things for consumer electronics " ... and bad things for our landfills.
Could it be that she's a professional reviewer. In this case instead of having her own site like Anandtech or Dansdata or Tom's Hardware she does all her posting at Amazon. Are the ethical issues any different here than they are on the afore mentioned "legitimate" websites? I know that Dansdata just had a post about what the payoff or if there was a payoff for putting up good reviews. Most of his tend to be positive and as he replied any junk that he gets he just doesn't report on it because he'd rather report and test the good stuff.
I'm sure somewhere in there a reviewer wants to keep from publishing negative stuff also so that new products get sent on a regular basis.
I'm assuming that somewhere on Amazon there is a feedback mechanism designed to say that "this persons review helped my purchasing" or "this reviewers review was accurate". A feedback mechanism like that can probably be manipulated but it would take some effort.
The one complaint I've heard repeated hundreds of times is about text recognition. Most people are saying the text recognition is between 75-90%. Personally I've used a hacked e-pods with Caligrapher for over two years now and seen 98-100% recognition during that time.
Having said that I will say there are some things I've noticed about writing habits (watching other people use the device). Some people like to write very small - for text recognition the bigger the better. Some people complaining about the recognition level can't write legible text i.e. I have a friend who will write something down for me and I can't read it. Two days later if I give him the same paper back and ask for an explanation he can't read it either. Recognition is relative.
Gates wanted the recognition software to tailor to the user, but the product developers want the recognition to be more generalized and the users would have to adjust. Personally I think there has to be a compromise - people need to pay attention to penmanship and the recognition software should adapt somewhat to the individuals writing (much like speech recognition adapts to the individuals voice).
I seriously suggest that you take a look at wired's site or richinstyle, webstandards.org, alistapart, bluerobot, glish, etc. and see how light weight and flexible their code is. (not a style="font-weight:bolder" in sight) It's obvious that you haven't worked much with html or CSS.
First your asking everyone to pretend. Why should we need to pretend that something works in a way that it doesn't.
Let's say for the sake of argument that I have a four column layout that I want to reflow to a two column layout and possibly a one column layout depending on the screen. With a table I CANNOT DO THIS. Tables are not semantically or structurally designed to do this. Tables are exactly what they imply TABULAR and rigid, they are not designed to reflow or wrap rows or columns. The point of CSS is avoiding all of the dorked up attributes of tables such as spanning. You don't have to add a huge amount of code to get things to appear the same as a table that's not the way it works. Additionally you wouldn't always need to use SPAN and DIV tags CSS can be applied to any element and does not need to be applied inline as your example suggests. This is where a lot of the savings and flexibility comes in - not needing to go into every single tag and add style attributes.
The point is use what works best for what you are doing. Use tables for data and CSS for layout and style. It's easy, it doesn't have to made more complicated, and it can be fast efficient and lightweight.
I will never understand people using phrases like "this late in the game" as if we are at the end or too far into use to go back and do it correctly. The fact is that the newer browsers are becoming more and more standards compliant and the standards are becoming more and more modular. The older browsers are becoming increasingly less used and in most cases you don't want a site to display identically for each user agent. I want a site to reflow based on screen resolution and user agent. A site should not look the same between a PDA and a Desktop browser at 1600x1200 one or both would be unreadable.
To assume that we want these things because we are all highminded bookworms only devoted to the written word of the standards gods is rediculous and ignorant. We want these things because it will make our jobs easier, our content more manageable, and more flexible to a wider range of consumer. Tables serve you - great - keep on using them even as the momentum pushes towards CSS and then play catch up later.
I guess I would want to know which sites you are visiting that could be so slow and is it CSS or script that's causing it to be slow. Just because someone claims CSS use doesn't mean that they are using it correctly or that they don't have other things on the site slowing it down.
From peronal experience I can say that I've used CSS with DIVs and SPANs and the sites are about 25% lighter, display relatively identical in IE5+/Moz/Opera and I haven't noticed any slow downs, quite the contrary.
Why work out the bugs for CSS? - Because it's the right thing to do. Markup should be used for what it works best for. Tables were designed for the structuring of tabular information and got shoehorned into use as a layout mechanism. Since they were not designed from the get go as a layout mechanism that means they are not as flexible or robust. Creating robust sites using tables (sites that reflow in different resolutions or sites that work well with screen readers) is made much more difficult when using tables.
Wait I thought the signature of God wasn't in pi 3.14... but in phi 1.618...
Two factors that you fail to take into consideration are aversion and poverty. Just because technology exists and existed to get the people to where they were doesn't mean that it was either affordable or that they were eager to continue it's use. It's the means to an end debate. Would a group of people in the near future, seeking a puritan lifestyle, use technology to find a world where they could live free from technology? Possibly. Lesser of two evils.
Additionally you don't include the price of war on societies. Then there's disease, climate changes on worlds not fully studied (think Wrath of Khan), and then there are governments and/or people who would choose to control what gets used and by whom.
In today's America where we discuss the digital divide and talk about how to get everyone a computer, meanwhile the Native American population struggle with how to get running water, electricity and phones to more than half of their population that "need" it. And this is with the government being minutes to hours away. What happens when communications takes weeks to months and travel likewise months to years?
In the past we have seen the rich sell everything they have to move to strange new lands. It then often took those families generations of squaller to build it back up. What's to say that the same thing doesn't happen again?
The last point I would make is that you assume that because native peoples of today use some conveniences that it was by choice. Often in today's world it is by necessity and survival that they must take on the modern trappings. Other times it's because someone else told them that they must. Just because the south American tribesman is shown wearing a Camel shirt and has an outboard motor on his boat doesn't mean that he's scrambling to buy an HDTV or has a microwave. To say that we scramble to use the latest in technology is not a true assumption. Even today we have technology in continual use that's been outdated by a generation (space shuttle, air traffic control, automobiles, trains, airplanes, naval fleets, etc). Will that gap shorten or lengthen when space travel occurs between planets.
I think you're on to something. I think people respond much better to simplicity. Especially men. A comedian said "The difference between men and women is that women are complex - men are not". Give a straight simple uncluttered description of what you are selling and men will usually go for it. Women on the other hand will probably look at it just to see if they can find more detail about what they might buy.
It's like going to a car dealership. 99% of the people want to go, browse around, and have someone available to answer questions. They do not want someone hovering and pressuring. Yet at 99% of the car dealerships that's exactly what you get - hover and pressure. Everyone has to buy a car after all. Has the internet turned into the same kind of venue?
Not a problem. But I think it depends on the show. I record and put to VCD episodes of Oprah (I hear raucus laughter from afar). Her show easily can be between 22 and 26 minutes with the remainder being commercial (that means I can fit two to three episodes of Oprah per VCD). Likewise many of the "good" shows (meaning popular) can end up significantly shorter as networks try to sell more and more ad space at increasingly high prices. I would love to see a break down from the networks though of what the "rules" are for programming.
Nice catch :) I forgot to mention the previews for next weeks show, review of last weeks show, and the "late breaking" news they show, and then the few seconds of "fade to black" that gets used as transition to and from segments and commercials.
I get it but don't agree. The logic should be that as users bail out on advertising then it's either time to reevaluate the type of advertising you are doing or reevaluate the business model. If you don't do either that's when you shut down.
Many users are just burnt out on ads. It's been said time and time again. When every show, every channel, every magazine, every newspaper, every website, every shopping cart, every building, every movie, every music CD, every box of cereal, basically every horizontal and vertical surface that a person sees is covered with an ad you get burn out. When an hour long show contains 22 minutes worth of show (2 minutes of beginning and ending + 20 minutes actual plot and acting) and 28 minutes worth of commercials there's a little commercial zone-out going on.
Pop up blockers and similar technology in PVR's are just helping what the brain does automatically - block out the crap. In fact it might even improve some of the ads getting seen since the users aren't overloaded with so much some of it might actually register.
Marketers don't understand "reasonable" or "ethical". They understand marketshare, branding, and placement. If they looked to "reasonable" and "ethical" the economy might look a little better than it does right now.
Do we need to start an Ellen Feiss Switch add campaign to migrate the last few Natalie Portman fans over to being Ellen Feiss fans?
"I kept sending notes and flowers to Natalie but I never got a response. Then one day I got this cease and desist letter and this lawyer said something about a restraining order. That was like totally rude. That was the day I realized Natalie just didn't understand me. That was the day that I found Ellen Feiss on Slashdot. She knew who I was and understood everything about me. She said it like right to me 'these people don't have lives', that was me. We just have so much in common, I don't like that Dell dufus either. "
"My names Bob, I'm a Slashdot geek. I switched"
autorotation aside I wonder if a mechanism could be devised to change the angle of the individual fan blades to transform the wing into a solid and glide friendly wing.
I wonder what this design does to birds?
There has to be something seriously wrong with your machine. I have 4 XP machines at home. The one I use almost every day I have rebooted for... well I can't really remember the last time but it had to be more than a month or two ago. The computer my kids and wife use the most gets rebooted maybe once a month. I would seriously look at your setup if you have to reboot multiple times a week.
I understand a little where both you and the parent post are coming from.
The parent post is the classic argument that certain people jump towards the buzz word of the day regardless of the lack of any substantial proof of it's long term viability. Likewise others spurn technology/methodologies based on some negative part that they perceive regardless of other potentially positive benefits that are available.
It' difficult to break people out of their habbits to embrace anything new, unless you have some substantial proof to back it up.
So then we should also stick with the original definitions of NERD and GEEK then right and come up with other words for most of the people who visit slashdot or enjoy manga.
How about you just go to France and help them to enforce a perfectly pure and correct language?
Otaku literally translates as "house" and has come to mean (in Japan) someone who has no ability to care for themselves (slovenly, lazy) through their own neglect due to obsessive behavior. America being a blended culture and incorporating other cultures into it took this word to describe people obsessed over manga. So while it bears no resemblance to "house" it does stay at least somewhat in line with the Japanese use describing someone who is obsessed. Unlike the japanese use Americans do not often equate negative feelings with Otaku.
I would love to definitively argue with you on the Shiro/Shirow issue, unfortunately unless you are him (I am not) then what resource do we use for making the determination. I own multiple books and a couple of videos and all of them list Shirow. IMDB as well as other resources do as well. Only a small minority of sites I've seen refer to him as Shiro. So unless you can give a resource that is absolute in it's correctness don't be an ass about it.
Hit google again and do some more research here's at least one link out of thouands returned http://www.altcorp.com/vaccinehistory.htm
Early "vaccination" was done through a procedure called "variolation" where a person was exposed to the puss from someone infected via a scratch or some other insertion of material just under the skin. This typically gave a light case of pox and resulted in about 1% death. After that the person was imune for life. This was done well before the other vaccination was invented and well within Benjamin Franklin's lifetime.
So let me see if I understand this. Courtney Love, the wife of Cobain and heir under the law to his works is fighting two band members with no legal right to the works who decided to publish the work without consulting with her first. She wants control, they want control... she's the bad one.
From all that I've read it's about ONE song, a song that is about her. Lets see if my spouse wrote a song about me and then after their death it was released by people hoping to use it as the next big hit how would I react. HMMMMMM......
In almost every article I've read they've mentioned how this ONE song could be a huge hit commercially and artisticly. Two guys who would seem to have no future career oportunities want to take that hit and put it in a box set and make money off of it. Courtney Love is blocking that, not saying she wants to include it in her own set, but because it's hers. By quoting the law one might infer that she wants to publish it but without specific mention you can't say for sure that it's her intention. If it were her intention to make money off of the song why wouldn't she just strike a deal with the rest of Nirvana.
I'm confused about why Courtney Love is as bad as the rest. Every interview and statement that I've ever read of hers chastized the record industry and points out the failures and fraud that occur. Is she bad because of her music? Because she's branched out into other areas? Because she's a business woman? Because she wants to profit? Can you elaborate on your statement?