I've been using Scholar, from the science lab I work in, for many months. So yeah, it's not news... even I was surprised at the long wait. It'd be news if it were out of beta, but it's not.
It works pretty well and it easily shows how many times a paper has been cited (which is sometimes just fluff but often a hint at how influential a given paper is) and also has an article linker for the university I work for (WUSTL).
What exactly do most web sites have to gain by making me install a crapware browser I don't want just to view their shitty site? Yet over and over I see "Works best in IE..." bullshit.
Well, see, the thing is, you could interpret my comment that way, but either way, it's about one state thinking its laws apply to another. If I'm in another state, and a restriction that's OK in one state isn't OK in the state I'm in, that restriction goes poof for anything I do in the state I'm in.
State law stops at the state border. Always has, always will, otherwise it wouldn't be a state law.
And why would Washington's laws have an effect over a company based in California and therefore operating under CA law, where these things are illegal? The way I see it, MS wrongly believes it can push the laws of one state onto another state because it likes the laws of one state more than another since it can use them to weasel damages out of someone else.
Not everyone here works in the IT field, yaknow... maybe once upon a time that was more likely that most of the readers would know this stuff, but today, there's a lot more people reading slashdot who come from far more varied backgrounds. I'm not a network admin (I do other sorts of IT work as part of my job, but not as all of my job) and I found the article to be of interest.
A friend does not have a contract covering when they may or may not cease to be your friend. That's not a fair comparison. However, you do sign something to get a job, and you can do whatever you want that isn't forbidden by the company, especially concerning things done off the job.
If I sign a contract that doesn't tell me that everything I do or say when not on the job is owned by the company, then the company does not have the right to police what I do when not on the job. If the company pays me to have a certain point of view during an interview, then I will have it. If they are not paying me, then they have no case to complain.
BTW, I work for a university. They pull far less of that sort of bullshit. I refuse to let someone tell me what I can and can't do or say. I'm me, not a paid shill for some some corporate asshole.
It's one thing to be speaking for your company and another to be speaking as yourself. Companies don't own our every thought. I don't care what my position is, high up or not, I'd be suing. This is not the Corporate States of America - yet.
I wouldn't want to work for anyone who doesn't respect my right to say what I want -- outside of work. And any company that got me in trouble for it would get sued for wrongful dismissal.
Original post said that "Widgets are easily the most retarded thing out of Apple since the Dock." meaning Dashboard, then goes on to say "they're available for Windows", referring back to the previous sentence about Dashboard. So it says that widgets are thus available for Windows, but they aren't, because Dashboard isn't cross-platform.
Konfabulator doesn't run widgets, though. You can't take a Dashboard widget and run it on Windows via the windows version of the app. That's my problem with the statement we're replying to.
Since when could you run OS X applications under Windows? Dashboard is part of the OS kernel, and so no, you can't run widgets on Windows. Unless you use a horribly slow emulator app to run OS X inside Windows, which doesn't count.
Nope, not true. The orbiter can't get off the ground on its own without the assistance of some kind of booster. It can keep going on its own to orbit, once it's off the ground and 'started', hence the boosters are cast off only two minutes into the flight. The boosters don't have to be solid, or even segmented, either -- monolithic solids were investigated (and should have been used; they weren't for political reasons) as were liquid boosters.
And I think it possible that a top-mounted spaceplane might have survived the Challenger explosion as well -- it would have been thrown free (or blown free by the crew if they realized what was going on) and could have at least attempted a landing.
SS1 wasn't designed for orbital flight. There are plans in the future for orbital vehicles, but you start somewhere and test your technology before you get really ambitious. This is in part why the Mercury program launched a number of unmanned flights first, then two manned suborbital flights before finally launching a manned orbital mission. They actually cut one suborbital manned flight off the schedule in order to reach manned orbital status sooner.
I'm not a casual gamer, but I don't play MMORPGs because of the endless money drain. I want to pay once, up front, and be done with it. If you want me to pay or kill my fun, I won't buy your game -- and I'm perfectly happy to play single player or use games like Diablo that don't cost extra to play online.
I don't know the specifics, but I suspect Yahoo has operations in France. If the French law couldn't lay a sanction against some entity within their jurisdiction, I don't know what else would force yahoo to change their ".fr" content.
Yeah, they do, and they changed their French site to no longer sell the items... and I seem to recall reading that they were still complaining because users could still buy the 'banned' items through the rest of Yahoo. In other words, were trying to dictate what Yahoo sells to people otuside France.
If I am remembering correctly, I hope they lose, because that's awful unfair of them to start telling me what I should and shouldn't be able to buy.
But yeah, if someone who knows better reads this, do let us know?
Re: sig - thanks! Kinda lame, but I couldn't think of a funny way to say it.
As for the semantics -- hmm, good thought, though what about the no-call laws? The national and Missouri state ones seem to be enforceable for foreign companies due to their specifically attempting to do business in the US.
In the case of stuff like France trying to sue Yahoo for selling stuff that's illegal in France -- my problem with that is that they're still complaining even though Yahoo removed the items from the French site. Who's France (or any other country) to say what a company can and can't sell on sites intended for another country? What if I wanted to buy an item banned in France and Yahoo denied me the ability to due to some other country? Is that fair? I'm not in that other country, so what obligation do I have to follow its laws? If I go there, that's one thing, but if I'm doing something legal in my own country, on a site specific to my own country, that's perfectly OK.
(I live in the US. This is not a France-bash; I think France-bashing is silly; it's just a good example of this issue).
I think the difference is that if you specifically do business in the US with US companies or deal with US-specific brands, then you have more of an obligation to follow the rules. If you're running an untargeted site or service, you should follow the rules of your own country.
And you're sure that every single box out there is up to date? I've ended up with very outdated stuff from stores before, hardware and software wise. The original poster's point still stands so long as there are older boxes out there. Are there any visual differences on the outside of the box to tip off the buyer which version the CD has on it?
Slashdot Mirror
I've been using Scholar, from the science lab I work in, for many months. So yeah, it's not news ... even I was surprised at the long wait. It'd be news if it were out of beta, but it's not.
It works pretty well and it easily shows how many times a paper has been cited (which is sometimes just fluff but often a hint at how influential a given paper is) and also has an article linker for the university I work for (WUSTL).
What exactly do most web sites have to gain by making me install a crapware browser I don't want just to view their shitty site? Yet over and over I see "Works best in IE..." bullshit.
Well, see, the thing is, you could interpret my comment that way, but either way, it's about one state thinking its laws apply to another. If I'm in another state, and a restriction that's OK in one state isn't OK in the state I'm in, that restriction goes poof for anything I do in the state I'm in.
State law stops at the state border. Always has, always will, otherwise it wouldn't be a state law.
But yeah, the entire thing is just dumb.
And why would Washington's laws have an effect over a company based in California and therefore operating under CA law, where these things are illegal? The way I see it, MS wrongly believes it can push the laws of one state onto another state because it likes the laws of one state more than another since it can use them to weasel damages out of someone else.
Great, now I have this mental image of munchkins singing "We represent the Networking Guild" ... ;)
Not everyone here works in the IT field, yaknow... maybe once upon a time that was more likely that most of the readers would know this stuff, but today, there's a lot more people reading slashdot who come from far more varied backgrounds. I'm not a network admin (I do other sorts of IT work as part of my job, but not as all of my job) and I found the article to be of interest.
I use Adblock, you insensitive clod!
A friend does not have a contract covering when they may or may not cease to be your friend. That's not a fair comparison. However, you do sign something to get a job, and you can do whatever you want that isn't forbidden by the company, especially concerning things done off the job.
If I sign a contract that doesn't tell me that everything I do or say when not on the job is owned by the company, then the company does not have the right to police what I do when not on the job. If the company pays me to have a certain point of view during an interview, then I will have it. If they are not paying me, then they have no case to complain.
BTW, I work for a university. They pull far less of that sort of bullshit. I refuse to let someone tell me what I can and can't do or say. I'm me, not a paid shill for some some corporate asshole.
I'm sorry, I don't know this issue at all (honestly, I'm not a troll). What is the problem with this article?
It's one thing to be speaking for your company and another to be speaking as yourself. Companies don't own our every thought. I don't care what my position is, high up or not, I'd be suing. This is not the Corporate States of America - yet.
I wouldn't want to work for anyone who doesn't respect my right to say what I want -- outside of work. And any company that got me in trouble for it would get sued for wrongful dismissal.
Doesn't count if the same word is used elsewhere in such a way that it won't cause confusion.
But I will readily agree that this is all extremely confusing!
Original post said that "Widgets are easily the most retarded thing out of Apple since the Dock." meaning Dashboard, then goes on to say "they're available for Windows", referring back to the previous sentence about Dashboard. So it says that widgets are thus available for Windows, but they aren't, because Dashboard isn't cross-platform.
I hope that made some sort of sense.
Konfabulator doesn't run widgets, though. You can't take a Dashboard widget and run it on Windows via the windows version of the app. That's my problem with the statement we're replying to.
That's a great timesaver, and appreciated. Does anyone have the times yet for the individual movements?
Not to mention, they're available for Windows
Since when could you run OS X applications under Windows? Dashboard is part of the OS kernel, and so no, you can't run widgets on Windows. Unless you use a horribly slow emulator app to run OS X inside Windows, which doesn't count.
Nope, not true. The orbiter can't get off the ground on its own without the assistance of some kind of booster. It can keep going on its own to orbit, once it's off the ground and 'started', hence the boosters are cast off only two minutes into the flight. The boosters don't have to be solid, or even segmented, either -- monolithic solids were investigated (and should have been used; they weren't for political reasons) as were liquid boosters.
And I think it possible that a top-mounted spaceplane might have survived the Challenger explosion as well -- it would have been thrown free (or blown free by the crew if they realized what was going on) and could have at least attempted a landing.
SS1 wasn't designed for orbital flight. There are plans in the future for orbital vehicles, but you start somewhere and test your technology before you get really ambitious. This is in part why the Mercury program launched a number of unmanned flights first, then two manned suborbital flights before finally launching a manned orbital mission. They actually cut one suborbital manned flight off the schedule in order to reach manned orbital status sooner.
I'm not a casual gamer, but I don't play MMORPGs because of the endless money drain. I want to pay once, up front, and be done with it. If you want me to pay or kill my fun, I won't buy your game -- and I'm perfectly happy to play single player or use games like Diablo that don't cost extra to play online.
I don't know the specifics, but I suspect Yahoo has operations in France. If the French law couldn't lay a sanction against some entity within their jurisdiction, I don't know what else would force yahoo to change their ".fr" content.
Yeah, they do, and they changed their French site to no longer sell the items... and I seem to recall reading that they were still complaining because users could still buy the 'banned' items through the rest of Yahoo. In other words, were trying to dictate what Yahoo sells to people otuside France.
If I am remembering correctly, I hope they lose, because that's awful unfair of them to start telling me what I should and shouldn't be able to buy.
But yeah, if someone who knows better reads this, do let us know?
Re: sig - thanks! Kinda lame, but I couldn't think of a funny way to say it.
As for the semantics -- hmm, good thought, though what about the no-call laws? The national and Missouri state ones seem to be enforceable for foreign companies due to their specifically attempting to do business in the US.
In the case of stuff like France trying to sue Yahoo for selling stuff that's illegal in France -- my problem with that is that they're still complaining even though Yahoo removed the items from the French site. Who's France (or any other country) to say what a company can and can't sell on sites intended for another country? What if I wanted to buy an item banned in France and Yahoo denied me the ability to due to some other country? Is that fair? I'm not in that other country, so what obligation do I have to follow its laws? If I go there, that's one thing, but if I'm doing something legal in my own country, on a site specific to my own country, that's perfectly OK.
(I live in the US. This is not a France-bash; I think France-bashing is silly; it's just a good example of this issue).
I think the difference is that if you specifically do business in the US with US companies or deal with US-specific brands, then you have more of an obligation to follow the rules. If you're running an untargeted site or service, you should follow the rules of your own country.
And you're sure that every single box out there is up to date? I've ended up with very outdated stuff from stores before, hardware and software wise. The original poster's point still stands so long as there are older boxes out there. Are there any visual differences on the outside of the box to tip off the buyer which version the CD has on it?