I disagree: this really depends on the field the person seeking the internship is entering, and whether or not that person is planning on graduate/postdoc studies leading to a career in academia. Certain areas of study (some of the engineering disciplines come to mind) pay very well for most of the positions available for doing very similar work, and it pays to look around. And as for those going to grad school long-term: getting a well-paying internship ahead of the stipend makes the bank account much less stressful to look at.
Then again, there's something to be said for actually enjoying the summer's (or semester's) work, and not everyone actually needs the money. So it really comes down to what's most important or necessary to the individual.
And Google's Booksearch really isn't geared towards very comprehensive libraries, though it likely has more than they do and in an easily-searchable format that complements an already great library. What it's really for are the many libraries that are underfunded and do not have an extensive collection of even common out-of-print books.
Twitter's user base includes a lot of people who would be sharing computers with family members who may also be using Twitter. Would you propose an IP block for them, too?
But here in southern states (U.S.) it would only be light until about 7 PM for most of the summer if we were always in standard time, while it is dark by 6PM for most of the winter. Sure, the days are a lot more consistent here than further up north, but DST does make it a lot nicer. Again, this is why it's so hard to change the way the system works in the U.S. now: while Minnesotans would probably be fine if they used standard time in the summer and didn't have light at 9:30PM +, I love being able to see and do things outdoors in Florida til 8PM +.
It was implemented before mankind had the ability to control light.
Be that as it may, I'm one to prefer natural light over artificial light, and it is simply not an option to change my schedule. The way I see it, DST year-round is much better. It really comes down to personal preference, though, which makes it really hard for any democratic-ish countries to change it.
Seriously, why doesn't Microsoft spend its considerable resources helping fix UAC for Vista?
At this point, why would they when they could just charge people to upgrade? So many people stuck with XP that fixing UAC in Vista wouldn't do anything for them.
Or are they admitting defeat and preparing for the next battle (a.k.a. Windows 7)???
Not in words, but in actions. I have a feeling that in the future this version of Windows is going to be referred to in much the same way as we refer to Windows Me now.
No, the noscript site is on your whitelist by default (along with googlesyndication.com so the developer can collect ad revenue off his site). The demo on his blog was an example of what would happen if you removed noscript.net from your whitelist and went to his site with the blocker enabled.
Nice job looking at the page source, but you've really got to look at the javascript.
Note this bit (this is only a part; see the source for the rest): document.getElementById("amo-install").innerHTML +=
'<iframe id="amo-installer" width="1" height="1" style="visibility: hidden; filter: alpha(opacity=0)" scrolling="no"></iframe>';
Yep. Looks like this is exactly what I was talking about.
Well, an example is the "Get Add-on" link on the NoScript website: clicking it causes an iframed link from Mozilla's add-on page to be "clicked" instead.
You handily glossed over the fact she only thought the book did not belong, and never did anything about it.
And you handily glossed over the fact that the GP used a poor quote to support his argument, and you're both missing something important. From the same article (emphasis mine):
The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.
"People would bring books back censored," recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin's predecessor. "Pages would get marked up or torn out."
Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.
Note: One of these contemporary reports from a different article/reporter claim that it was a little more than a simple request. Now back to the main point:
This presents one heck of a conflict: believe the witness accounts of her constituents garnered from the investigative reporting of news organizations that are trying desperately to dig up dirt on all fronts (yes, all. Just because someone has more dirt than another does not mean that the reporting is unfair.) or the words of the campaign that's trying desperately to get elected. Is there a truth to this? Of course, but it means one side is deliberately lying, spinning the truth, or honestly believes one way or the other despite being wrong. It really comes down to who you believe, if either.
Its far more likely to be a more simpler reason, like the recession.
...or that Blu-ray offers nothing better for the average consumer than SACD does for sound. It's great for videophiles and those with really expensive setups, but at the end of the day it's the same movie at a higher cost.
I know you're just trolling, but for those who actually feel this way, look at it like this:
Canonical knows that a large proportion of Ubuntu users download and use the "illegal" codecs without paying the license fees (either directly, where it applies, or indirectly by using the programs that the codec can be legally used for). Canonical does not own these codecs and cannot legally provide or create free alternatives due to all of the craziness surrounding patent law. So they offer an option for their legally-conscious users and business users: fully-supported, license-fee-paid codecs that will not put their users in legal jeopardy.
Actually, it's why democracy breaks down in a highly polarized setting. If two groups have radically different ideas on what they want their country to be and split the population into roughly half each, how can an election actually make a difference for the whole population? I'd say it's because people will eventually come around if the elected leaders are good, but personal experience says that's not going to happen.
I'm sorry: did you really just place flame wars and spam on the same level as teenage suicide?
But more to the point: the reason why so many people see a problem with anonymity is that they themselves choose not to be anonymous on the internet. So many of us learned long ago to keep our online lives separate from our real lives, and so for us we have virtually nothing to lose. The only real damage that can be done by anonymous users is to people who post personal information in blogs, use email addresses with their real names on public forums, etc.
I see no reason to remove anonymity from the internet, only a need to educate users.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree: this really depends on the field the person seeking the internship is entering, and whether or not that person is planning on graduate/postdoc studies leading to a career in academia. Certain areas of study (some of the engineering disciplines come to mind) pay very well for most of the positions available for doing very similar work, and it pays to look around. And as for those going to grad school long-term: getting a well-paying internship ahead of the stipend makes the bank account much less stressful to look at.
Then again, there's something to be said for actually enjoying the summer's (or semester's) work, and not everyone actually needs the money. So it really comes down to what's most important or necessary to the individual.
And Google's Booksearch really isn't geared towards very comprehensive libraries, though it likely has more than they do and in an easily-searchable format that complements an already great library. What it's really for are the many libraries that are underfunded and do not have an extensive collection of even common out-of-print books.
Twitter's user base includes a lot of people who would be sharing computers with family members who may also be using Twitter. Would you propose an IP block for them, too?
But here in southern states (U.S.) it would only be light until about 7 PM for most of the summer if we were always in standard time, while it is dark by 6PM for most of the winter. Sure, the days are a lot more consistent here than further up north, but DST does make it a lot nicer. Again, this is why it's so hard to change the way the system works in the U.S. now: while Minnesotans would probably be fine if they used standard time in the summer and didn't have light at 9:30PM +, I love being able to see and do things outdoors in Florida til 8PM +.
It was implemented before mankind had the ability to control light.
Be that as it may, I'm one to prefer natural light over artificial light, and it is simply not an option to change my schedule. The way I see it, DST year-round is much better. It really comes down to personal preference, though, which makes it really hard for any democratic-ish countries to change it.
... or vote one party into the white house and the other into congress in the hopes that they spend more time bickering than doing anything..
Like how it is now? Yeah, that's working out really well at the moment.
I think you need Google's Mail Goggles.
Or less beer. Or a computer breathalyser.
Or running a 64-bit system?
Do you love me?
*two blinks*
Yes and yes...wonderful.
Seriously, why doesn't Microsoft spend its considerable resources helping fix UAC for Vista?
At this point, why would they when they could just charge people to upgrade? So many people stuck with XP that fixing UAC in Vista wouldn't do anything for them.
Or are they admitting defeat and preparing for the next battle (a.k.a. Windows 7)???
Not in words, but in actions. I have a feeling that in the future this version of Windows is going to be referred to in much the same way as we refer to Windows Me now.
No, the noscript site is on your whitelist by default (along with googlesyndication.com so the developer can collect ad revenue off his site). The demo on his blog was an example of what would happen if you removed noscript.net from your whitelist and went to his site with the blocker enabled.
Nice job looking at the page source, but you've really got to look at the javascript.
Note this bit (this is only a part; see the source for the rest):
document.getElementById("amo-install").innerHTML +=
'<iframe id="amo-installer" width="1" height="1" style="visibility: hidden; filter: alpha(opacity=0)" scrolling="no"></iframe>';
Yep. Looks like this is exactly what I was talking about.
Pleaseread.
Well, an example is the "Get Add-on" link on the NoScript website: clicking it causes an iframed link from Mozilla's add-on page to be "clicked" instead.
Clickjacking's new in terminology only.
Have you tried Xubuntu or a different windowing manager? That could be a start.
The way my laptop is oriented, the direction is right on.
This might be hard to believe but less than ten years ago virtual all passwords were transmitted in plain text.
This just in: man wakes from 10 year slumber to find that the internet has changed and no one cares about Monica Lewinsky anymore. Story at 11.
You handily glossed over the fact she only thought the book did not belong, and never did anything about it.
And you handily glossed over the fact that the GP used a poor quote to support his argument, and you're both missing something important. From the same article (emphasis mine):
The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.
"People would bring books back censored," recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin's predecessor. "Pages would get marked up or torn out."
Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.
Note: One of these contemporary reports from a different article/reporter claim that it was a little more than a simple request. Now back to the main point:
This presents one heck of a conflict: believe the witness accounts of her constituents garnered from the investigative reporting of news organizations that are trying desperately to dig up dirt on all fronts (yes, all. Just because someone has more dirt than another does not mean that the reporting is unfair.) or the words of the campaign that's trying desperately to get elected. Is there a truth to this? Of course, but it means one side is deliberately lying, spinning the truth, or honestly believes one way or the other despite being wrong. It really comes down to who you believe, if either.
It would be much better to use a small fleet of high altitude autonomous drones with communications gear on board.
Or even better: giant balloons and a couple of routers. Plus a lot of cable.
Its far more likely to be a more simpler reason, like the recession.
...or that Blu-ray offers nothing better for the average consumer than SACD does for sound. It's great for videophiles and those with really expensive setups, but at the end of the day it's the same movie at a higher cost.
The evil is that doing so validates the evil concepts of proprietary codecs and DRM encumberance.
Does it? Or is it simply that the focus of Ubuntu is to provide an operating system and not an alternate array of data formats and codecs?
I know you're just trolling, but for those who actually feel this way, look at it like this:
Canonical knows that a large proportion of Ubuntu users download and use the "illegal" codecs without paying the license fees (either directly, where it applies, or indirectly by using the programs that the codec can be legally used for). Canonical does not own these codecs and cannot legally provide or create free alternatives due to all of the craziness surrounding patent law. So they offer an option for their legally-conscious users and business users: fully-supported, license-fee-paid codecs that will not put their users in legal jeopardy.
Please tell me what the evil in this is.
Actually, it's why democracy breaks down in a highly polarized setting. If two groups have radically different ideas on what they want their country to be and split the population into roughly half each, how can an election actually make a difference for the whole population? I'd say it's because people will eventually come around if the elected leaders are good, but personal experience says that's not going to happen.
As long as my guy wins, who cares right?
Only if your guy is also my guy.
I'm sorry: did you really just place flame wars and spam on the same level as teenage suicide?
But more to the point: the reason why so many people see a problem with anonymity is that they themselves choose not to be anonymous on the internet. So many of us learned long ago to keep our online lives separate from our real lives, and so for us we have virtually nothing to lose. The only real damage that can be done by anonymous users is to people who post personal information in blogs, use email addresses with their real names on public forums, etc.
I see no reason to remove anonymity from the internet, only a need to educate users.