If you are applying for a job, and you have any question as to whether or not something might keep you from getting hired, why would you risk it? It's so easy just to create a new email address. Don't risk losing the job over something so easy to fix.
But suddenly it's about climate change therefor you're now all more qualified experts than those with the data. Why is that? What is it about climate change that suddenly everyone and their dog can tell you how wrong the scientists are?
If you're looking for a reason, it's about money. The skepticism comes from governments trying to impose new taxes while propaganda machines try to convince people that we're all gonna die if we don't do something NOW. Typically, when someone tries to rush/scare you into parting with your money, there is some sort of scam involved.
And therein lies the problem with this whole "debate"; there's too much money changing hands. It is easy to understand the skepticism behind politicians and economic institutes talking about scientific issues.
So instead of moving slowly, opening up the data, and removing any doubts on the issue, we're hearing propaganda such as "Save the Earth before it's too late" and other garbage.
Any time someone tries to rush you in to action, especially when it involves money, you should be skeptical.
Not necessarily true. There are risks associated with new employees, as well as costs for training. Plus, it could mean that deadlines are missed. So basically, by giving your boss an ultimatum, you are forcing your boss to consider whether or not it is worth the costs and risks to get rid of the "squeak." A new cog could be even squeakier than the last.
With that said, pick your freaking battles for goodness sake. It's good to have a job in these times; consider your options carefully before giving it up. Plus, you don't want to jeopardize the relationship between you and your boss by giving an ultimatum. Look for better solutions; that should come naturally to good programmers anyways.
The reason for detecting a cloaked object has nothing to do with whether or not there actually is a cloaked object present. Rather, the reason has to do with your situation, such as if you are in a hostile environment or trying to defend something.
So, I would imagine if a stone was your detection scheme, you would be hurling stones constantly in random directions to see if it bounced off something that isn't there. And if you're lucky, you might hear someone cry out in pain:)
Actually, IE 8 passes the Acid 2 test (yes, they are last, but its an improvement). Not to mention that Microsoft contributed 2524 test cases to the CSS 2.1 test suite. I'm a web developer, and I know the horrors of developing for multiple browsers (especially IE), but I have to give Microsoft some credit for their interest in standards in this coming IE version.
Also, the acid tests are just one indicator of how well a browser does standards. To make it the defining standards test would not be completely fair. More info on that here.
Interesting. Although, not only IE8 has this problem; IE6 appears to crash out as well.
The latest Firefox handles it fine.
It's nice to have a simple way to discourage IE users.;)
This kind of thing is precisely why a third party should decide on hardware requirements for an operating system. Otherwise, marketing is sure to get in the way of the facts.
If only Microsoft had realized this sooner... not only would they have avoided ticking off a business partner, but they may have been more inclined to improve some of Vista's benchmarks so that more machines were "actually" capable of running Vista. But now, they are left with a failed OS and a few less friends. Better luck with Windows 7.
HP shouldn't be complaining too much though... they sold plenty of machines as "Vista capable" that had no business running Vista. Selling a machine with half a GB of RAM, and running Vista? There's no excuse for that.
The test is flawed.
The test is supposed to see whether or not students would respond to fake popups in their normal browsing. However, these students were told to sit and watch as pre-determined and supposedly "safe" pages were loaded.
There is a difference between getting a popup from a respected medical site, and getting one from a page that has never been visited.
before people learn not to post stories that they don't want the whole world reading? I hear stories like this time after time, and its always, "They should respect my privacy." Well, guess what... if you post information publicly over a global connection that EVERYONE has access to, then you have no privacy.
That said, I do think the media are idiots for taking "credible" information from the social networking page of a 15 year old girl. I think that they should absolutely be held responsible, especially for a story that is so damaging to a person's character. There's a reporter somewhere that should be fired for this.
I like the idea behind this, but I think I would rather see a third party develop standards rather than a company so closely tied to ATI. To me, it sounds like an attempt to control the market more than an attempt to enhance PC gaming.
Also, different games need different requirements, and games need a combination of good hardware (memory, processor, video card, etc) in order to perform adequately. I am skeptical of whether any rating system would be completely accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are applying for a job, and you have any question as to whether or not something might keep you from getting hired, why would you risk it? It's so easy just to create a new email address. Don't risk losing the job over something so easy to fix.
But suddenly it's about climate change therefor you're now all more qualified experts than those with the data. Why is that? What is it about climate change that suddenly everyone and their dog can tell you how wrong the scientists are?
If you're looking for a reason, it's about money. The skepticism comes from governments trying to impose new taxes while propaganda machines try to convince people that we're all gonna die if we don't do something NOW. Typically, when someone tries to rush/scare you into parting with your money, there is some sort of scam involved.
And therein lies the problem with this whole "debate"; there's too much money changing hands. It is easy to understand the skepticism behind politicians and economic institutes talking about scientific issues.
So instead of moving slowly, opening up the data, and removing any doubts on the issue, we're hearing propaganda such as "Save the Earth before it's too late" and other garbage.
Any time someone tries to rush you in to action, especially when it involves money, you should be skeptical.
Not necessarily true. There are risks associated with new employees, as well as costs for training. Plus, it could mean that deadlines are missed. So basically, by giving your boss an ultimatum, you are forcing your boss to consider whether or not it is worth the costs and risks to get rid of the "squeak." A new cog could be even squeakier than the last.
With that said, pick your freaking battles for goodness sake. It's good to have a job in these times; consider your options carefully before giving it up. Plus, you don't want to jeopardize the relationship between you and your boss by giving an ultimatum. Look for better solutions; that should come naturally to good programmers anyways.
The reason for detecting a cloaked object has nothing to do with whether or not there actually is a cloaked object present. Rather, the reason has to do with your situation, such as if you are in a hostile environment or trying to defend something. So, I would imagine if a stone was your detection scheme, you would be hurling stones constantly in random directions to see if it bounced off something that isn't there. And if you're lucky, you might hear someone cry out in pain :)
A good product has better results for a company than advertising...
Shocking!
Actually, IE 8 passes the Acid 2 test (yes, they are last, but its an improvement). Not to mention that Microsoft contributed 2524 test cases to the CSS 2.1 test suite. I'm a web developer, and I know the horrors of developing for multiple browsers (especially IE), but I have to give Microsoft some credit for their interest in standards in this coming IE version.
Also, the acid tests are just one indicator of how well a browser does standards. To make it the defining standards test would not be completely fair. More info on that here.
Interesting. Although, not only IE8 has this problem; IE6 appears to crash out as well. The latest Firefox handles it fine. It's nice to have a simple way to discourage IE users. ;)
This kind of thing is precisely why a third party should decide on hardware requirements for an operating system. Otherwise, marketing is sure to get in the way of the facts. If only Microsoft had realized this sooner... not only would they have avoided ticking off a business partner, but they may have been more inclined to improve some of Vista's benchmarks so that more machines were "actually" capable of running Vista. But now, they are left with a failed OS and a few less friends. Better luck with Windows 7. HP shouldn't be complaining too much though... they sold plenty of machines as "Vista capable" that had no business running Vista. Selling a machine with half a GB of RAM, and running Vista? There's no excuse for that.
The test is flawed. The test is supposed to see whether or not students would respond to fake popups in their normal browsing. However, these students were told to sit and watch as pre-determined and supposedly "safe" pages were loaded. There is a difference between getting a popup from a respected medical site, and getting one from a page that has never been visited.
before people learn not to post stories that they don't want the whole world reading? I hear stories like this time after time, and its always, "They should respect my privacy." Well, guess what... if you post information publicly over a global connection that EVERYONE has access to, then you have no privacy. That said, I do think the media are idiots for taking "credible" information from the social networking page of a 15 year old girl. I think that they should absolutely be held responsible, especially for a story that is so damaging to a person's character. There's a reporter somewhere that should be fired for this.
I like the idea behind this, but I think I would rather see a third party develop standards rather than a company so closely tied to ATI. To me, it sounds like an attempt to control the market more than an attempt to enhance PC gaming. Also, different games need different requirements, and games need a combination of good hardware (memory, processor, video card, etc) in order to perform adequately. I am skeptical of whether any rating system would be completely accurate.