I'm saying nothing about Agent Smith's correctness. I'm only saying that Forterre's statement does not support Agent Smith's. This may not be obvious to everyone because both statements connect humans and viruses.
Agent Smith talked about humans being different from mammals. Forterre is not saying the same thing, because mammals all have cells with nuclei, thus all would be descendents of viruses under this hypothesis.
Remember this is an ad-supported site. So for (1), the design features ads prominently and that's what really counts for the real customers. You won't get implosion from (2) or (4) because the site appeals to teens with too much time on your hands. You seem to assume in (3) that these bogus accounts won't draw eyeballs to myspace. By pushing the suggestiveness of the site to the limit that won't be blocked by parental filters, these bogus accounts make myspace even more appealing to young boys.
And why wasn't I counted in the California number? Sure, it's not my state of residence. But I did spend two days there in July, 2000. That's a lot more time than I've spent on myspace, where I'm counted.
Read Paul Graham's Why Nerds are Unpopular for thoughts on the dichotomy between purposefulness and popularity contests. MySpace is set up for popularity contests. Other blogging sites aren't like that.
People with interesting stories to tell often don't have much spare time. The current technology caters to people who want to tweak colors. To attract more writers like Paul Graham ("In a real essay you're writing for yourself. You're thinking out loud."), we need something efficient.
multimedia blogging easier than text-only blogging
on
The Future of the Blog
·
· Score: 1
For busy people, a digital camera actually makes blogging much easier. You take photos of things you do that you want to write about. Five weeks later when you find a little time, you upload those photos and type in a brief sentence or two about what you did on that date. If you have a lot of time you type in interesting details.
After years of failing to keep my extended family updated on what I've been doing, I'm finally succeeding. And this with two kids and a third on the way.
You're right, though, that it may be slow for people to adopt. Life works like this: the more you have to tell, the less time you have to tell it.
same blog entry for different audiences
on
The Future of the Blog
·
· Score: 1, Informative
This is implemented on ourdoings.com already. You can keep your own private site that you tell nobody about, have another to share with friends, and another for the general public. Once you publish on one, you just "edit" and check boxes to publish it on the others as appropriate. There are many uses for this. For example, I put a lot of family activities on my family blog. If any of them is something I want to share with my alumni class I just check a box.
Rob Enderle is telling the truth when he attacks the OSDL study on statistical grounds, but who would benefit from a purely statistical study? To tell whether Linux or Windows would have lower TCO for you, you look for anecdotal evidence from a handful of companies similar to yours. Once the sample size is large enough to be statistically significant, it will be too diverse to apply to your situation.
As a kid signing up for a big, important web site, how are you supposed to say no when they ask you for (at a minimum) your age, zip code and birthday? Surely the creators of that web site know what they're doing, right? And how as a kid are you suppposed to know that people can find you using that information?
You get a sequentially-allocated identity immediately (straightforward to fish for) that is public for whatever window of time it takes you to figure out how to make it private. Of course, getting popular on myspace is a lot easier with a public profile anyway. With a private one, all your friends need to give their personal information to myspace too.
Maybe all companies should standardize on one programming languages. Maybe none of them should. Whichever it is, the last thing we want is a big mess where some companies do and others don't. Sheesh, let's have a standard here!
Do an advanced google search for "google" in Chinese (Traditional) and Chinese (Simplified). Your fantasy about google being virtually unknown will evaporate.
Your assertion that people won't know what google is overlooks the fact that they will be viewing a lot of web pages. To browse the web and not run into references to google is nearly impossible. Calling my argument flimsy was a good move on your part -- it draws attention away from how flimsy yours is.
please explain how Google refusing to participate with China would help a Chinese dissadent
Keeping google out of China would make average citizens more aware of how political oppression affects everybody, not just activists. Now all they get is an innocuous message at the bottom of their search results. Few will read it, and fewer will think about the implications.
In the parent post zielaj makes an astute point, but isn't so astute at slashdot posting. When there are hundreds of posts, most people will see only your subject line. Summarize the point you're making in your subject line and more people will get it.
I agree that the notice at the bottom is too subtle. I think google is contributing to the illusion that things aren't so bad in China. This is evil.
Can you check if the "This page contains secure and nonsecure items" warning can be suppressed? Use this test page. That unsuppressable warning is the biggest reason I steer users clear of IE6. Encrypting every JPEG just isn't worth it, even if encrypting login information is. Hopefully IE7 lets users make this judgment themselves rather than endlessly haranguing them about it as IE6 does.
It should be that the worst consequence of clicking a mysterious link is seeing something you don't want to see. Preventing XSS requires more work than it probably should when you want to allow a subset of HTML. Putting the onus on the user isn't right even though the alternative requires a lot of work.
if someone is talking with a known al-Qaeada associate in a suspected terror cell, it would seem altogether reasonable that the government should be able to listen in on that conversation
Indeed. So reasonable, in fact, that 72 hours seems 71 more than you should need to get an after-the-fact warrant approved. Existing law is more than adequate. Bush chose criminal conduct because he wants to wiretap for purposes that are harder to justify. And don't forget that 9/11 could have been prevented by competently handling existing intelligence. Illegally gathering additional intelligence would have been superfluous.
Truong being decided post-FISA is irrelevant. It was not tried based on FISA because the law had not been established. Please cite those 2002 and 2003 rulings.
Slashdot Mirror
Carrier pigeons are legal because no copy is made. That's just one of the ways they're superior to smoke signals.
I'm saying nothing about Agent Smith's correctness. I'm only saying that Forterre's statement does not support Agent Smith's. This may not be obvious to everyone because both statements connect humans and viruses.
Agent Smith talked about humans being different from mammals. Forterre is not saying the same thing, because mammals all have cells with nuclei, thus all would be descendents of viruses under this hypothesis.
Remember this is an ad-supported site. So for (1), the design features ads prominently and that's what really counts for the real customers. You won't get implosion from (2) or (4) because the site appeals to teens with too much time on your hands. You seem to assume in (3) that these bogus accounts won't draw eyeballs to myspace. By pushing the suggestiveness of the site to the limit that won't be blocked by parental filters, these bogus accounts make myspace even more appealing to young boys.
And why wasn't I counted in the California number? Sure, it's not my state of residence. But I did spend two days there in July, 2000. That's a lot more time than I've spent on myspace, where I'm counted.
Read Paul Graham's Why Nerds are Unpopular for thoughts on the dichotomy between purposefulness and popularity contests. MySpace is set up for popularity contests. Other blogging sites aren't like that.
People with interesting stories to tell often don't have much spare time. The current technology caters to people who want to tweak colors. To attract more writers like Paul Graham ("In a real essay you're writing for yourself. You're thinking out loud."), we need something efficient.
After years of failing to keep my extended family updated on what I've been doing, I'm finally succeeding. And this with two kids and a third on the way.
You're right, though, that it may be slow for people to adopt. Life works like this: the more you have to tell, the less time you have to tell it.
This is implemented on ourdoings.com already. You can keep your own private site that you tell nobody about, have another to share with friends, and another for the general public. Once you publish on one, you just "edit" and check boxes to publish it on the others as appropriate. There are many uses for this. For example, I put a lot of family activities on my family blog. If any of them is something I want to share with my alumni class I just check a box.
Give an exhaustive list of covariates that significantly affect TCO and I'll concede that my earlier post was wrong.
Rob Enderle is telling the truth when he attacks the OSDL study on statistical grounds, but who would benefit from a purely statistical study? To tell whether Linux or Windows would have lower TCO for you, you look for anecdotal evidence from a handful of companies similar to yours. Once the sample size is large enough to be statistically significant, it will be too diverse to apply to your situation.
(> (like-instances your-sentence) 2) ==> #f
As a kid signing up for a big, important web site, how are you supposed to say no when they ask you for (at a minimum) your age, zip code and birthday? Surely the creators of that web site know what they're doing, right? And how as a kid are you suppposed to know that people can find you using that information?
You get a sequentially-allocated identity immediately (straightforward to fish for) that is public for whatever window of time it takes you to figure out how to make it private. Of course, getting popular on myspace is a lot easier with a public profile anyway. With a private one, all your friends need to give their personal information to myspace too.
Maybe all companies should standardize on one programming languages. Maybe none of them should. Whichever it is, the last thing we want is a big mess where some companies do and others don't. Sheesh, let's have a standard here!
Do an advanced google search for "google" in Chinese (Traditional) and Chinese (Simplified). Your fantasy about google being virtually unknown will evaporate.
Your assertion that people won't know what google is overlooks the fact that they will be viewing a lot of web pages. To browse the web and not run into references to google is nearly impossible. Calling my argument flimsy was a good move on your part -- it draws attention away from how flimsy yours is.
In the parent post zielaj makes an astute point, but isn't so astute at slashdot posting. When there are hundreds of posts, most people will see only your subject line. Summarize the point you're making in your subject line and more people will get it.
I agree that the notice at the bottom is too subtle. I think google is contributing to the illusion that things aren't so bad in China. This is evil.
Can you check if the "This page contains secure and nonsecure items" warning can be suppressed? Use this test page. That unsuppressable warning is the biggest reason I steer users clear of IE6. Encrypting every JPEG just isn't worth it, even if encrypting login information is. Hopefully IE7 lets users make this judgment themselves rather than endlessly haranguing them about it as IE6 does.
It should be that the worst consequence of clicking a mysterious link is seeing something you don't want to see. Preventing XSS requires more work than it probably should when you want to allow a subset of HTML. Putting the onus on the user isn't right even though the alternative requires a lot of work.
If you want to allow users to put in any HTML except for malicious javascript, it gets a little more tricky than that.
Aldrich Ames spy case is not an example of illegal warrantless wiretaps or searches by the Clinton Administration.
Truong being decided post-FISA is irrelevant. It was not tried based on FISA because the law had not been established. Please cite those 2002 and 2003 rulings.