AOL's roots are in providing "computer network services" to the masses: Simplifying internet services. AOL is still the great at this. However, AOL is massivley deluding itself as to where it should put its effort. How? The early 1990s "online" user is really different from the current "online" user.
AOL is sinking because it's focus is still getting "technophobe grandma" online. That's messed up. (Hell I'm sure it's still the leader there, but grandma is either online or doesn't care at this point).
AOL should focus on providing all the services WE AS GEEKS take for ganted.
Want 3 computers on your broadband? No problem. We'll HELP.
Want power yet easy to use mail support? Done
Want to backup to an online storage facility. Click here
Want to run a website. Buy a domain. Tie your domain to your aol mail. We're at your service. Click for new services.
Everything in.Mac
Continue to ad service and build the values (services prodvide) in AOL. Make
Run a micro-payment system. Want ads off slashdot? Don't pay slashdot 25 cents. Add 25 cents to your AOL bill. AOL pays slashdot it's monthly earnings from all of its users.
Provide premium content. Maybe salon. Maybe... (ok we know what i'm thinking and it's the real way to save AOL;-) )
AOL will work it's ass off to be a broadband provider, but that isn't it's true strength anyway. (It makes things easier for AOL though). AOL is about "value added" and it has to add value for me to pay the "bring your own service" plan.
[Since there are already so many comments, probably no one will read this, but...]
This article is in the wrong section. This is obviously not aimed at Mac users, because they know better. It's aimed at low-knowledge Windows users who hear about all their friends "switching." It's so windows users (many of *us* who have bought windows because "everyone else does" for years), don't start thinking there is another "legitamate" platform
"There's no equivalent for the versatility of Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint®."
Except.. Microsoft Word (Mac), Microsoft Excel (Mac) and Microsoft PowerPoint (Mac)...
It's not the blatant market-speak that gets me. It's that they tout non-existent points for stupid reasons, when there ARE legitimate positives to using XP over OS X. (There are the reverse too)
"Apple, IBM and Motorola declined to comment on the switch, which has been rumored as the processors in Macintosh computers have trailed Windows-based counterparts in clock speed."
Wake me when one of the companies comments please. They will, but be patient before yelling CONFIRMED!
As I understand, this has not been removed from Phoenix, it just hasn't been implemented in the UI (similar to Netscape 6/7). My post details how to add that support to Netscape 7. I haven't actually checked if this will work in Phoenix yet and I'm too lazy to Google it.
So give me one good reason why I would choose to spend my hard-earned dollars on a resource that is (1) dated as soon as the PDF hits the mailbox and (2) replicated by on-line resources?
Depends on how you answer these questions:
How much is your time worth?
Might the Perl Journal save you $12 of time per year?
Might the Perl Journal teach you something in high-quailty (read, short and easily understandable) fasion that is worth $12 during that year. More importantly, might that lesson not only intersted you, but allow you to never need to ask that question.
Author of comment has no knowledge of Perl or Perl Journal, but believes in the value of high quality content.
Q: If someone takes as many pictures in digital format will they be as easily viewable 50 years from now? Will those inkjet printouts have all faded away
No, your ink (if archival quality) will last 100-200 years. Actually longer than your color prints/negatives. Digital, can last forever--at least as long as someone gives them enough care to convert them. Just make sure to save them in an open loss-less format.
I guess color is going the way of black and white film in manual cameras! To the dumpster!
Oh wait...
In a few years, film will be choosen for its properties and qualities--not as default. This is a good thing though.
Still, not all the reviews I've read say color accuracy is quite up to snuff yet. Also, you can't throw a new type of sensor into a camera for a special effect. You can do that with film.
Even more interesting though. When will digital allow camera manufactures to start designing "out of the box" for camera's that are easier to hold etc.
Step one replace film
Step two become primary in the industry's thoughts about the design of a camera.
It's not that the drug companies are sitting on the cure.
They're not LOOKING for it. The private money is funneled into drug possobilities that will pay off. Actually, I'm fine with this. Great, we get treatments. But government has to step up and pay the bill for research that benefits "the public good". Markets arn't the perfect solution for everything. In drug/health care, cooperatives that are put improving health above, investment returns are very important.
Think about it. Any companies that put the amount of money towards vaccines etc that was relative to their health care value WOULD GO OUT OF BUSINESS. Why vaccines aren't profitable. They are one time use (or so). You only get so many years of monopoly anyway. People will (rightly so) riot if you charge $10,000 for a vaccine for polio, which might make it more profitable.
...since I am posting late.. but (haha, pun originally not intended, but it is now)....
Find someone who will turn you away!
One of the big things about this surgery is that, most (all?) Dr's will tell you the average risk. But they will not tell you your specific risk. For people with certain eye characteristics, the rate for having complications is much higher than others. I'd have serious reservations (if I couldn't see 20/20 already:P) if I couldn't get someone to tell me if I was above or below.
In fact, I'd be willing to pay a fair some of money to a doctor to evaluate me who KNEW he wouldn't be getting me as a patient. Second opinion is one thing. Objective opinion is another.
The Court regularly consults public opinion and does so for a reason. Most notably the court takes into effect "evolving standards of decency." More importantly, the court can only make the most logical argument when it sees and understands all of the possibilities. This is an attempt to explain what's possible.
Just curious, but how can the bandwidth be so tight? More to the point: How much would it cost to increase? Just seems like real-time fantastic video/audio/images would be a huge pr win because they would be in the mainstream "look what shuttle Columbia did today" press.
Not mentioned, it cost less than the making of even a medium-sized Hollywood movie.
[Granted I am ignoring the fact that you should include the costs of risks for the not lucky projects that failed to find real cost of a mars mission, but this is thought provoking]
You see, I am a photo editor at a major web site. I also love space photos. People love space photos. (One is winning here at MSNBC right now(not my site). But every time we see astronauts we get low-quality tv screenshots. My god NASA take a pittance of your multi-$billion budget and buy some high res cameras. Most people don't really care that we now know that "Martian dust includes magnetic, composite particles, with a mean size of one micron. " Most people like eye candy. Give it to them!
Step 1
Find a way to transmit at least STILLS at high res. Maybe talk to Canon or Kodak
Step 2
Bring someone else up with you. Make it be IMAX. Make them pay. *I* can't afford even a half price ticket through Russia's program. I'll pay to see ISS IMax.
The first industry will be tourism, the first step is the travel channel's review.
Slashdot Mirror
is anyone actually working on making a point and click interface to active/deactivate functionality
Of course. Step one is to build the feature. Step two is to make interface. It's called "BETA" be patient.
Anyway, with IE, the feature would just exist. It probably wouldn't even HAVE a way to deactivate it.
[sidenote to editors] It's time to create a Mozilla section. Every release doesn't need front page play.
It won't get slashdotted. It's a major news site.
Mod this down. If you like the content, GO TO THE SITE.
Take my karma when above comment is lower than mine
Not a fan of flashy bloated loose things.
They're on street corners near my home a lot though.
someone had to right?
Because the core group probably WORKS for Netscape. (They control what they do)
Mozilla isn't a UNIX app.
Wow. You got to hand it to Gateway. This call took some serious courage to make...impressive to be the first big player to take advantage of it.
Other than HP and Dell (August).
You obvoiusly need less life and more slashdot browsing.
with the rules governing prisoners of war
No. No we are not.
Whether you agree with the "enemy combatent" theory or not, the prisoners do not have POW status or rights.
There is a list of some of the requirements here
Furthermore, they are members of an enemy force. Comparing that to people talking about computer patches is absurd.
Yes, quite.
Internet organizations just don't work! You can't just give things like seti@home away. You have to charge for access.
[Head hangs in depressed manner]
AOL is sinking because it's focus is still getting "technophobe grandma" online. That's messed up. (Hell I'm sure it's still the leader there, but grandma is either online or doesn't care at this point).
AOL should focus on providing all the services WE AS GEEKS take for ganted.
AOL will work it's ass off to be a broadband provider, but that isn't it's true strength anyway. (It makes things easier for AOL though). AOL is about "value added" and it has to add value for me to pay the "bring your own service" plan.
That's the only way it will survive.
[Since there are already so many comments, probably no one will read this, but...]
This article is in the wrong section. This is obviously not aimed at Mac users, because they know better. It's aimed at low-knowledge Windows users who hear about all their friends "switching." It's so windows users (many of *us* who have bought windows because "everyone else does" for years), don't start thinking there is another "legitamate" platform
It's not the blatant market-speak that gets me. It's that they tout non-existent points for stupid reasons, when there ARE legitimate positives to using XP over OS X. (There are the reverse too)
Slashdot: SF Gate: Wake me when one of the companies comments please. They will, but be patient before yelling CONFIRMED!
Thanks
GET AWAY FROM SLASHDOT. Intelligence not located.
;-)
First bad joke?
mod the other posts reduntant
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
-- Margaret Mead
As I understand, this has not been removed from Phoenix, it just hasn't been implemented in the UI (similar to Netscape 6/7). My post details how to add that support to Netscape 7. I haven't actually checked if this will work in Phoenix yet and I'm too lazy to Google it.
Depends on how you answer these questions:
Author of comment has no knowledge of Perl or Perl Journal, but believes in the value of high quality content.
Q: If someone takes as many pictures in digital format will they be as easily viewable 50 years from now? Will those inkjet printouts have all faded away
No, your ink (if archival quality) will last 100-200 years. Actually longer than your color prints/negatives. Digital, can last forever--at least as long as someone gives them enough care to convert them. Just make sure to save them in an open loss-less format.
I guess color is going the way of black and white film in manual cameras! To the dumpster!
Oh wait...
In a few years, film will be choosen for its properties and qualities--not as default. This is a good thing though.
Still, not all the reviews I've read say color accuracy is quite up to snuff yet. Also, you can't throw a new type of sensor into a camera for a special effect. You can do that with film.
Even more interesting though. When will digital allow camera manufactures to start designing "out of the box" for camera's that are easier to hold etc.
Step one replace film
Step two become primary in the industry's thoughts about the design of a camera.
Complete and total trust in the market.
Taxes suck
Copyright isn't a right - it's a set of laws that restrict the right to freedom of speech (right or wrong).
YOu confuse freedom of speech with getting my speech for free. Tell me how copyright infringes against what YOU CAN SAY. Then we can talk.
No, it's right on. It's a well-known problem too.
It's not that the drug companies are sitting on the cure.
They're not LOOKING for it. The private money is funneled into drug possobilities that will pay off. Actually, I'm fine with this. Great, we get treatments. But government has to step up and pay the bill for research that benefits "the public good". Markets arn't the perfect solution for everything. In drug/health care, cooperatives that are put improving health above, investment returns are very important.
Think about it. Any companies that put the amount of money towards vaccines etc that was relative to their health care value WOULD GO OUT OF BUSINESS. Why vaccines aren't profitable. They are one time use (or so). You only get so many years of monopoly anyway. People will (rightly so) riot if you charge $10,000 for a vaccine for polio, which might make it more profitable.
...since I am posting late.. but
:P) if I couldn't get someone to tell me if I was above or below.
(haha, pun originally not intended, but it is now)....
Find someone who will turn you away!
One of the big things about this surgery is that, most (all?) Dr's will tell you the average risk. But they will not tell you your specific risk. For people with certain eye characteristics, the rate for having complications is much higher than others. I'd have serious reservations (if I couldn't see 20/20 already
In fact, I'd be willing to pay a fair some of money to a doctor to evaluate me who KNEW he wouldn't be getting me as a patient. Second opinion is one thing. Objective opinion is another.
Wrong. (Mostly)
The Court regularly consults public opinion and does so for a reason. Most notably the court takes into effect "evolving standards of decency." More importantly, the court can only make the most logical argument when it sees and understands all of the possibilities. This is an attempt to explain what's possible.
Just curious, but how can the bandwidth be so tight? More to the point: How much would it cost to increase? Just seems like real-time fantastic video/audio/images would be a huge pr win because they would be in the mainstream "look what shuttle Columbia did today" press.
[Granted I am ignoring the fact that you should include the costs of risks for the not lucky projects that failed to find real cost of a mars mission, but this is thought provoking]
You see, I am a photo editor at a major web site. I also love space photos. People love space photos. (One is winning here at MSNBC right now(not my site). But every time we see astronauts we get low-quality tv screenshots. My god NASA take a pittance of your multi-$billion budget and buy some high res cameras. Most people don't really care that we now know that "Martian dust includes magnetic, composite particles, with a mean size of one micron. " Most people like eye candy. Give it to them!
Step 1
- Find a way to transmit at least STILLS at high res. Maybe talk to Canon or Kodak
Step 2- Bring someone else up with you. Make it be IMAX. Make them pay. *I* can't afford even a half price ticket through Russia's program. I'll pay to see ISS IMax.
The first industry will be tourism, the first step is the travel channel's review.I think someone pinched my pet peeve
... Liberal Arts majors can't write software.
Hey, some of us work cheap. Yall don't. Sucks to be me I guess.