I especially like the home security ads with the "home security bunny" supermodels on them. If you're like me, I'm sure you'll be getting one of these. Now I can monitor my home from work, so when the supermodels in evening wear try to break in again, I'll catch them red-handed.
Be careful, though. I don't know much about the others, but when I bought the "Unix for Dummies" quick reference book, I thought I'd be getting something similar to "Unix in a Nutshell." While it was cheaper, the quality and organization of information turned out to be quite poor compared to the O'Reilly.
Careful. It's not as cut and dry as that. Out of 4 rulings, the appeals court threw one out, sent two back to be entirely reconsidered, and upheld one. The one that was upheld had to with monopoly maintenance. For example, Microsoft gave OEMs large price incentives to sign their contract, which determined what the OEMs could and could not add to / remove from the desktop.
Regarding the bundling of software (one of the two being reconsidered), the appeals court noted, among other things, that the lower court may have overlooked the presence of an economic justification for such bundling. In other words, would it be a better deal (money, convenience, etc.) to the consumer to buy the two products together, rather than separately. This was sent back, partly because the lower court simply assumed there was no economic justification. The appeals court cited several examples, including: 1) decades ago, when starters begam to be sold as part of the car. 2) stain protection being sold built in to the carpet. In both of these cases, there was an economic justification, even though it may have diminished an existing market for the separate product. Bundling MSN messenger would likely fall under this category.
As for the Kodak issue, it may not be the issue we think it is. The Wall Street Journal wrote a long article about this, making it sound like Microsoft would prevent Kodak's software from being able to run when a digital camera was plugged in. Near the end of the article, the writer finally noted that later betas of Windows XP do not do this. When the camera is plugged in, an alphabetical list of imaging programs is displayed, and the user chooses which one he/she wants to use. It's likely that many people would not have read that far. slashdot readers excluded, of course.
Remember the effects temperature can have on sound. If it had been 3 or 4 degrees warmer, the "sonic boom" might have sounded more like a "duck" or "Michael Jackson" A careful reader would have noted this.
Also notice that the sonic boom seemed to go through the windows of their car. Had it been going through the transmission, now that would have been something.
I was quite upset when Windows started doing that. When I get on a new setup, I am quick to go to the folder options and have it display all extensions. But like I said, a careful user can always tell what type of attachment it is.
In fact, you're still skipping a logical step. It could just mean that those smart people who happen to play video games do better at it than everyone else (i.e. smart people could even play games less than others). I'll bet if you did a study at the world bowling championchip you'd find the contestants were also brighter in other areas. This does not necessarily mean that bowlers are smarter than everyone else. [bowlers, please disregard last sentence. It was a comment I pulled out of my hat, not one meant to be flamebait].
Web based e-mail is a pretty good solution for some. However, Netscape Communicator will not stop you from being infected by this virus. It comes as a.COM file that will run on any windows system when you tell the computer to run it. If you get infected, it may choose to wipe out or fill up your hard drive. The virus only relies on the Outlook address book to find e-mail addresses. It would have been just as easy to program it to look at your Netscape address book, once you have run the.COM attachment. If you get an attachment, look at it and figure out what type of file it is. Some people have their computers set to hide file extensions. If none of your other files show extensions, but a certain attachment has an.XLS extension (for example), get the file's real extension. If it's.COM or.EXE, you may be about to open a virus. This is not rocket science. However, since the average user is not this smart, Outlook XP by default keeps you from running program attachments.
My thoughts exactly. Instead, why don't we just set up computers at the voting booths. Everyone gets an ATM-type card used for identification, and then they vote on a closed network of high-security computers found at the same places we used to vote. Instant results. No arguments (assuming the network is running right [knock on wood]). No cheating (ok, less cheating).
Sounds a little exaggerated. Which benchmark tests? Often these "runs 80%" better than claims are based on some obscure benchmark that has nothing to do with running real software.
That has got to be one of the best analogies of information overload (Internet and otherwise) that I have heard:-)
Thank you.
For attribution's sake, did you come up with it yourself or read it somewhere?
It is something I came up with. It evolved out of the thinking I did for a short paper about information overload for a University course. There, my analogy also used water: We are floating on a raft in the middle of an ocean of information, dying of thirst.
Of course, I must credit the person who first used the analogy of drinking from a fire hose.
The good and bad thing about the Internet is that anyone can post information freely. Under the old system, to publish, you generally had to convince a publisher that your information was worth the investment. Walking into a library and picking up a book almost guaranteed you that what was inside had passed some standard.
Really, though we have found new ways to filter information on the net. Slashdot moderation is a perfect example of this. But is the quality better? Posts whose writer obviously did not even read or understand the article often get modded to 5.
The news media has similar problems. People can be critical of governments for filtering news, but isn't the U.S. news also filtered based on money-making potential? Worse still, there is the tendency to exaggerate or distort news, for the sake of making the front page. Take the recent Wall Street Journal article about Windows XP not allowing Kodak's photo software to automatically run. Buried deep, near the bottom of the article, the reporter acknowledged that in the latest XP builds, plugging in a camera actually popped up a box giving the user the option of which photo software to use.
Each time news ratings drop, networks respond by trying to make the news sound more urgent, more critical to our well-being. Why don't they try better quality?
We are standing at the base of a Niagara falls of information with our mouths open. When someone offers to sell us a bottle of pure spring water, we say, no that's ok.
There is the continual feeling that the next click might yield what we am looking for. But it could be dozens of clicks away. For some reason, probably because of conditioning, we choose to gamble time rather than money.
That's one of the downfalls of our capitalist system (not that I know of a clearly better alternative). If there aren't many stories to print, make something into a story. Try to get the words "sex" and "scandal" in the headline if you can. Or "Microsoft" and "opress" or "abuse". Then you'll sell papers, regardless of the facts. Better yet, set up a web site where people read a headline, then write big, long comments about it, and then moderators, who also only read the headlines choose comments that most agree with their political philosophies. Go ahead, mod me down.
This indeed would be quite a nasty thing to do. Unfortunately, the article neglects to mention a crucial fact until the end:
Three weeks ago, Kodak got the latest, numbered "build 2481." Kodak engineers say this version has a new, simpler way to launch photo software after a camera is plugged in. Instead of a nine-click process of setting non-Microsoft photo software as the default, it lists competitors' programs alphabetically in a pop-up box, along with Microsoft's.
I like the clever "send me money" gimick. But what do you mean about "this post?" One of the main points in the post is that the author of the 2001 book often grasps at straws. But I don't see where the post does so.
Stop totalitarian governments? I'm all for freedom of speech; i.e. expressing ideas, criticizing government, etc., but governments that repress this are certain to outlaw this browser. As for the U.S., etc, do we really need more tools to help people hide things like child porn?
Slashdot Mirror
I especially like the home security ads with the "home security bunny" supermodels on them. If you're like me, I'm sure you'll be getting one of these. Now I can monitor my home from work, so when the supermodels in evening wear try to break in again, I'll catch them red-handed.
Be careful, though. I don't know much about the others, but when I bought the "Unix for Dummies" quick reference book, I thought I'd be getting something similar to "Unix in a Nutshell." While it was cheaper, the quality and organization of information turned out to be quite poor compared to the O'Reilly.
Now what are people going to do to tell people their phone is being noisy?
Of course, it has also been discovered that a previously-unrecognised signature exactly matches Bill's.
Careful. It's not as cut and dry as that. Out of 4 rulings, the appeals court threw one out, sent two back to be entirely reconsidered, and upheld one. The one that was upheld had to with monopoly maintenance. For example, Microsoft gave OEMs large price incentives to sign their contract, which determined what the OEMs could and could not add to / remove from the desktop.
Regarding the bundling of software (one of the two being reconsidered), the appeals court noted, among other things, that the lower court may have overlooked the presence of an economic justification for such bundling. In other words, would it be a better deal (money, convenience, etc.) to the consumer to buy the two products together, rather than separately. This was sent back, partly because the lower court simply assumed there was no economic justification. The appeals court cited several examples, including: 1) decades ago, when starters begam to be sold as part of the car. 2) stain protection being sold built in to the carpet. In both of these cases, there was an economic justification, even though it may have diminished an existing market for the separate product. Bundling MSN messenger would likely fall under this category.As for the Kodak issue, it may not be the issue we think it is. The Wall Street Journal wrote a long article about this, making it sound like Microsoft would prevent Kodak's software from being able to run when a digital camera was plugged in. Near the end of the article, the writer finally noted that later betas of Windows XP do not do this. When the camera is plugged in, an alphabetical list of imaging programs is displayed, and the user chooses which one he/she wants to use. It's likely that many people would not have read that far. slashdot readers excluded, of course.
Have you had your brakes checked lately?
"Gateway: Like a Rock."
Also notice that the sonic boom seemed to go through the windows of their car. Had it been going through the transmission, now that would have been something.
I was quite upset when Windows started doing that. When I get on a new setup, I am quick to go to the folder options and have it display all extensions. But like I said, a careful user can always tell what type of attachment it is.
In fact, you're still skipping a logical step. It could just mean that those smart people who happen to play video games do better at it than everyone else (i.e. smart people could even play games less than others). I'll bet if you did a study at the world bowling championchip you'd find the contestants were also brighter in other areas. This does not necessarily mean that bowlers are smarter than everyone else. [bowlers, please disregard last sentence. It was a comment I pulled out of my hat, not one meant to be flamebait].
Web based e-mail is a pretty good solution for some. However, Netscape Communicator will not stop you from being infected by this virus. It comes as a .COM file that will run on any windows system when you tell the computer to run it. If you get infected, it may choose to wipe out or fill up your hard drive. The virus only relies on the Outlook address book to find e-mail addresses. It would have been just as easy to program it to look at your Netscape address book, once you have run the .COM attachment. If you get an attachment, look at it and figure out what type of file it is. Some people have their computers set to hide file extensions. If none of your other files show extensions, but a certain attachment has an .XLS extension (for example), get the file's real extension. If it's .COM or .EXE, you may be about to open a virus. This is not rocket science. However, since the average user is not this smart, Outlook XP by default keeps you from running program attachments.
Yeah, a reliable and trustworthy news source like Slashdot should never stoop to that level.
My thoughts exactly. Instead, why don't we just set up computers at the voting booths. Everyone gets an ATM-type card used for identification, and then they vote on a closed network of high-security computers found at the same places we used to vote. Instant results. No arguments (assuming the network is running right [knock on wood]). No cheating (ok, less cheating).
the wheel .
What do you mean by "lost"? Are you talking about votes that the machines couldn't count?
Of course, those claims do sell computers.
A unified theory of physics.
Solar computers, China made one long ago; It's name: Abacus.
Thank you.
For attribution's sake, did you come up with it yourself or read it somewhere?
It is something I came up with. It evolved out of the thinking I did for a short paper about information overload for a University course. There, my analogy also used water: We are floating on a raft in the middle of an ocean of information, dying of thirst.
Of course, I must credit the person who first used the analogy of drinking from a fire hose.
The good and bad thing about the Internet is that anyone can post information freely. Under the old system, to publish, you generally had to convince a publisher that your information was worth the investment. Walking into a library and picking up a book almost guaranteed you that what was inside had passed some standard.
Really, though we have found new ways to filter information on the net. Slashdot moderation is a perfect example of this. But is the quality better? Posts whose writer obviously did not even read or understand the article often get modded to 5.
The news media has similar problems. People can be critical of governments for filtering news, but isn't the U.S. news also filtered based on money-making potential? Worse still, there is the tendency to exaggerate or distort news, for the sake of making the front page. Take the recent Wall Street Journal article about Windows XP not allowing Kodak's photo software to automatically run. Buried deep, near the bottom of the article, the reporter acknowledged that in the latest XP builds, plugging in a camera actually popped up a box giving the user the option of which photo software to use.
Each time news ratings drop, networks respond by trying to make the news sound more urgent, more critical to our well-being. Why don't they try better quality?
Just thought I'd add my two quarts.
There is the continual feeling that the next click might yield what we am looking for. But it could be dozens of clicks away. For some reason, probably because of conditioning, we choose to gamble time rather than money.
I don't know if this will dissuade them. Look how well AOL is doing today, in spite of endless marketing insults to intelligence.
That's one of the downfalls of our capitalist system (not that I know of a clearly better alternative). If there aren't many stories to print, make something into a story. Try to get the words "sex" and "scandal" in the headline if you can. Or "Microsoft" and "opress" or "abuse". Then you'll sell papers, regardless of the facts. Better yet, set up a web site where people read a headline, then write big, long comments about it, and then moderators, who also only read the headlines choose comments that most agree with their political philosophies. Go ahead, mod me down.
Three weeks ago, Kodak got the latest, numbered "build 2481." Kodak engineers say this version has a new, simpler way to launch photo software after a camera is plugged in. Instead of a nine-click process of setting non-Microsoft photo software as the default, it lists competitors' programs alphabetically in a pop-up box, along with Microsoft's.
Seems more fair to me.
I like the clever "send me money" gimick. But what do you mean about "this post?" One of the main points in the post is that the author of the 2001 book often grasps at straws. But I don't see where the post does so.
Stop totalitarian governments? I'm all for freedom of speech; i.e. expressing ideas, criticizing government, etc., but governments that repress this are certain to outlaw this browser. As for the U.S., etc, do we really need more tools to help people hide things like child porn?