Why get something complete and orderly when you can be second to market and still sloppy as a hog's trough?
Still, be at least a year until I decide to stick my nose into an HTML5 book and I'll probably know quite a bit about it before then with one ineffiecient foray into developers forums after another. But this guy contricts that girl and neither one of them actually address why this happens (or does not happen)...
Reminds me of early days of Java, when everyone was and idiot, just some were better at it than others.
Seriously, there is about zero content that isn't badly drawn cartoons, sitcoms/dramas written so as to be palatable to 90-IQ types, straight-up propaganda, or infomercials.
Almost the only things worth watching come from sources other than the networks. And if something DOES come along worth watching, they cancel it right around episode 14.
This is because the average viewer becomes lost and confused, walks into walls, hits their forehead with the fork, doesn't know what to buy, doesn't know who to believe, babbles about their brain hurting from unaccustomed effort and worst of all, changing channel to something less stimulating.
If it weren't for some of the productions you can buy on DVD and Bluray... and some streaming... I don't think I'd even own a TV today. But some of the movies make it all worth it for me.
My dad used to say something along these lines: "Of all the technologies that he was aware of, television both had the greatest potential, and was the furthest from even approaching its potential." It took me some exploring, but I've decided he was spot-on.
Considering how media corporations have done everything they can to cater to the lowest commond denominator and have legislation so deeply in their favor they don't have to really work or even compete with each other, it's no surprise.
Early days of television introduced viewers to drama playhouse productions, singing by people who actually had crafted their talent for decades rather than learned to moan into a microphone at the age of sixteen, presented thoughtful roundtable discussions etc. In short, all the sort of stuff that catered to what was believed to be a cultured public with high expectations. Reality turns out the people aren't interested in culture, they want mindless entertainment. The one venue holding up the early standards is Public Television, which despite costing a pittance to fund (and is also supported by donations). Small wonder they keep trying to kill that one off. It's not just a reminder of what they could be, but it's the last bastion of intellectual Americans.
Television is so chock full of advertising it's almost unwatchable. It's corrupted game-play in sports (TV timeouts) and it's becoming less free than ever before. Most College Bowl games, as an example, are now on cable/satellite channels - channels you have to have a subscription to watch. Several years ago they were on ABC/CBS/NBC, but not many anymore.
HDTV, which was the dream for decades has arrived, but now there's so little worth watching in HD (hey, I can see the pancake makeup on the host's face, yuck!) Writing seems to be at an all-time low in quality, same for acting (good looking or former comedian seems to be the main qualifier)
Can't seem to get that A La Carte bill passed, either. Geez. What's it going to take? Oh, perhaps when the broadcasters and cable/satellite companies aren't twisting arms in capitols... Nice to see the people of the UK have finally won a big one in court, you can watch the continental broadcasts for less than the UK providers for football. That's sweet. Too bad America keeps protecting markets, rather than allowing someone on the West Coast to rather watch a NYC station, because they prefer it over the delivery of the local station.
Yeah, lots wrong with TV. Not likely to get better, either.
Yeah, Google might as well keep giving money to Firefox to avoid the monopolist label (which some places are already starting to level at them; didn't the EU raise some monopoly concerns about Google recently?), in exchange for FF making Google the default search engine. Many users are already abandoning FF for Chrome, so it's not like they need to resort to other means (besides user choice) to get people to use their browser.
Finally, why does Google care if people use their browser anyway? How do they make money off that? It seems to me they make money mainly from people using their search engine, and seeing ads (and clicking on them). If they use Chrome, then obviously the default browser is Google, so they make money that way. But if they use Firefox, and the default browser is still Google (which it probably will be unless Google dumps them and they switch to Bing to get MS money), then they still make their money. The only way Google doesn't make money is when people use IE and use IE's default browser, which is Bing. It seems like anything Google can do to keep people away from Bing will guarantee their profitability, and dumping FF will only succeed in harming their profitability, by pushing more people into IE (if FF dies, some users will switch to Chrome, a few to Opera, and many to IE).
Chrome is Google's way of ensuring users have a choice which works with Google's services. Several years ago MSN decided to break when read via Opera (which lead to a rather amusing Bork-Bork-Bork version of Opera released) which Microsoft could claim was by accident, but anyone with a brain could see was testing the anti-competitive waters. If IE were the largest, by share, browser they could just tweak somethings which would make Google, Gmail, Google News, etc. work badly or not at all - all delivered by 300 million users with Auto Update left on by default. Simply Google keeping their hand in the game. Not a bad move, but as they play this way it's also a good idea to lend a hand to Mozilla as long as Mozilla play nice. If Mozilla were left to the winds of fate and picked up by Microsoft for sponsorship, you can get some idea where the Firefox share of the market would lean. Pennies to Google, hope they keep it up.
It says that this planet's radius is approximately 2.4 the radius of the Earth, but it doesn't say anything about its mass or density. How much you'd weigh depends on the mass of the planet in addition to its size.
Earth size and not rocky means it's going to be largely composed of frozen gas. Not the ideal place to set up shopt after a 600 ly journey, but also not likely to be in the Goldilocks zone, which Kepler 22b is supposed to be in. Question is, does it have water vapor in the atmosphere? When the plant passes in front of a star they can usually get a pretty good spectrum to tell them what's there. Have to wait and see.
Agreed. If it's the same density then 2.4x radius would be 14x the mass. I'm trying to picture a planet with intelligent pancake beings.
Or they'd have a stronger physiology. Or live in the water. Or perhaps a thousand other options we haven't thought of.
Like the difference in atmospheric pressure - assuming, for the fun of it, a similar composition to Earth's atmosphere, N, O, Ar, CO2 and so on. Takes smaller amount of breathing as a lungful of air presents more O2 than Earth's at sea level. Of course, hoofing around, feeling more weight on your legs could tend to favor smaller humans, with subsequently less mass. Imagine your heart trying to get that blood to your brain when you are 6'2".
Mr. Sulu, set a course for Kepler 22b, warp 3, I'll be in my quarters looking over the latest Toupees Monthly.
Someone better start working on this faster than light drive. Of course, should we get there we'll probably find it a very tough planet to stand erect on.
It's because Chrome is the better browser. It shouldn't matter that it comes from a mega company like Google. If a better product comes out, that should be king. Now why people are still using IE is beyond me.
Chrome is a better browser for some things. There are times when I find I'd rather use Firefox because Chrome handles certain operations in frustrating ways - also, if you leave the updating option on (really bad idea) in Chrome you can fire it up in the next morning and find they've changed things on you, again, and in a way not at all to your liking (but don't bother to tell them that, they're never wrong and won't revert some stupid change for the sake of change because they think it's neat.)
Microsoft paying money to pay a competitor to use a Microsoft product?
Now where have I seen this pattern before?
Microsoft gives for two reasons - they want control (maybe not today, but eventually) or it keeps them looking like a monopolist (like their investment in Apple, to prop them up before Apple overtook them in Market Capitalization.)
Keeping Firefox/Mozilla going is really in Google's best interests for avoiding the Monopoly concern. Better to have a few friends who can defend you from assertions of Mighty Evil Master of Monopoly than none.
Read the full sentence: Only 26% admit. The other 74% deny everything:)
Fair point. I know people who I know have peeked. I once put a (I'm such an awful stinker) hook into a program where a certain person was looked up on a certain workstation and it flashed an alarming notice, effectively the user was caught and authorities were being notified. It scared the heck out of the perpetrator (she had a crush on someone and keep bringing up his personal record) and put an end to the behavior. Nobody was harmed or fired over this, ounce of prevention was effective enough.
Salary, yes, birthdate, actual gender (for those you don't know) home address, phone numbers, dependents, etc. are not public knowledge.
I once worked in a payroll department, overseeing annual disbursement of over $1 billion. Lots of sensitive information there and a lot of care goes into ensuring it states private.
It's quite another to share it, through gossip, careless revelation or horrors passing on to nefarious individuals with criminal intent in their black hearts.
Initiate several processes on your desktop to just go about the web looking at random sites, following links, etc. You don't even need to load all content from pages, just do it like Lynx would and scan for HREF tags. Enough people do this and the government's storage will become overbudened. Probably could do this with a minimal effort to code.
Now, doesn't that just sound like all kinds of fun?!?
Your comment would be more convincing if Unix weren't infact running everywhere and doing a better job at it.
Microsoft sandbagged for a long time. The users suffered for it and a lot of needless extra costs were incurred because of it.
Microsoft catered to cookie-cutter installs. Most are express installs, no thought to performance, just a quick stall by whatever tech team is doing it and get it out the door. Good practices require thought, thoughtful configurations require training on the hows and whys, whereas drones are cheap to employ. Microsoft's approach was along the line of - "Just do it this way, nobody really cares or is likely to be impacted by our one-size-fits-all design". *ix, particularly Linux brought the ability to configure your desktop like a mainframe and take advantage of multiple drives for performance reasons.
I have no doubt you can change your configuration, but you clearly spent too much time deciding how to layout your first Linux box.
I was sys admin on a few mainframes before Linux even existed. Picked up the wisdom of how those systems were configured and why. When I got my distro disks I spent about 30 minutes working out how I wanted it configured. Really wasn't something most newbs would understand, even with *ix builds/installs. Certainly not in any way close to the default, out of the box set up for Windows on any retailed or business configured PC I've ever seen - I'd wager 99.9% of all Windows PCs, to the present have massive I/O bottlenecks (not to overlook the pagefile is usually highly fragmented as process calls the filesystem to allocate and free up sectors rather than being created once of contiguous sectors, geez) and recovery issues, which happen more often than you are acknowledging, because many worms/viruses/trojans can only be fully recovered from with a fresh install. To read your words is to believe nobody has had much of a problem with malware and it shouldn't be an issue, so don't bother with firewalls or antivirus software.
Yes, the camel surely looks elegant in the desert. But then again, fish don't climb trees.
Just because something works well in one area doesn't mean that it will function well outside of that area. This is why there will always be "other methods" for operating systems.
Windows is such an incredibly fragile system - all eggs in one basket. While it made sense for mass sall of PCs with a single disk, by feat it left the programs, work, operating system, registry, swap space, all on one disk. You can choose to save your work done in various suites on other drives, but they are still fooling around with Drive C:, D:, E: etc. If I need to reinstall the OS I end up with such a massive corruption of drivers I'm almost better off starting from scratch, but I'd lose all my installed programs, because Microsoft likes to keep them all in Program Files on the C: drive, where the OS resides. I can move my memory swap to another physical drive, to relieve some I/O burden, but it's not well known how to do this. Having application, operating system files, swap file and work files all on one disk is such a horrible idea, particularly without even the benefit of partitions (to protect some files or installed applications during a re-install)
I configured my first Linux box to have a tidy spot for the OS and its sources, not too much bigger than necessary (safety factor of 2). Put swap file on its own partition and installed all applications on a separate physical drive, with workspace for each on separate partitions. Flexible. I can change my harddisk configuration with a minimum of fuss. Try that with Windows.
Since AT&T was restricted from selling products not directly related to telephones or telecommunications, they released it to anyone who asked for a nominal license fee.
It's interesting how AT&T couldn't support it for this reason, because today, UNIX is at the heart of both iOS and Android, which run some of today's most popular telephones.
Also at the heart of OS X. One of the smartest moves by Apple and Jobs, replacing the hideous old Mac OS with something built on Mach and borrowing heavily from BSD. Apple made the painful leap and it paid off handsomely.
Slashdot Mirror
Said, with tongue firmly in cheek.
Why get something complete and orderly when you can be second to market and still sloppy as a hog's trough?
Still, be at least a year until I decide to stick my nose into an HTML5 book and I'll probably know quite a bit about it before then with one ineffiecient foray into developers forums after another. But this guy contricts that girl and neither one of them actually address why this happens (or does not happen) ...
Reminds me of early days of Java, when everyone was and idiot, just some were better at it than others.
You're over-complicating the content.
Seriously, there is about zero content that isn't badly drawn cartoons, sitcoms/dramas written so as to be palatable to 90-IQ types, straight-up propaganda, or infomercials.
Almost the only things worth watching come from sources other than the networks. And if something DOES come along worth watching, they cancel it right around episode 14.
This is because the average viewer becomes lost and confused, walks into walls, hits their forehead with the fork, doesn't know what to buy, doesn't know who to believe, babbles about their brain hurting from unaccustomed effort and worst of all, changing channel to something less stimulating.
If it weren't for some of the productions you can buy on DVD and Bluray... and some streaming... I don't think I'd even own a TV today. But some of the movies make it all worth it for me.
My dad used to say something along these lines: "Of all the technologies that he was aware of, television both had the greatest potential, and was the furthest from even approaching its potential." It took me some exploring, but I've decided he was spot-on.
Considering how media corporations have done everything they can to cater to the lowest commond denominator and have legislation so deeply in their favor they don't have to really work or even compete with each other, it's no surprise.
Early days of television introduced viewers to drama playhouse productions, singing by people who actually had crafted their talent for decades rather than learned to moan into a microphone at the age of sixteen, presented thoughtful roundtable discussions etc. In short, all the sort of stuff that catered to what was believed to be a cultured public with high expectations. Reality turns out the people aren't interested in culture, they want mindless entertainment. The one venue holding up the early standards is Public Television, which despite costing a pittance to fund (and is also supported by donations). Small wonder they keep trying to kill that one off. It's not just a reminder of what they could be, but it's the last bastion of intellectual Americans.
And I don't mean the band.
Television is so chock full of advertising it's almost unwatchable. It's corrupted game-play in sports (TV timeouts) and it's becoming less free than ever before. Most College Bowl games, as an example, are now on cable/satellite channels - channels you have to have a subscription to watch. Several years ago they were on ABC/CBS/NBC, but not many anymore.
HDTV, which was the dream for decades has arrived, but now there's so little worth watching in HD (hey, I can see the pancake makeup on the host's face, yuck!) Writing seems to be at an all-time low in quality, same for acting (good looking or former comedian seems to be the main qualifier)
Can't seem to get that A La Carte bill passed, either. Geez. What's it going to take? Oh, perhaps when the broadcasters and cable/satellite companies aren't twisting arms in capitols... Nice to see the people of the UK have finally won a big one in court, you can watch the continental broadcasts for less than the UK providers for football. That's sweet. Too bad America keeps protecting markets, rather than allowing someone on the West Coast to rather watch a NYC station, because they prefer it over the delivery of the local station.
Yeah, lots wrong with TV. Not likely to get better, either.
Yeah, Google might as well keep giving money to Firefox to avoid the monopolist label (which some places are already starting to level at them; didn't the EU raise some monopoly concerns about Google recently?), in exchange for FF making Google the default search engine. Many users are already abandoning FF for Chrome, so it's not like they need to resort to other means (besides user choice) to get people to use their browser.
Finally, why does Google care if people use their browser anyway? How do they make money off that? It seems to me they make money mainly from people using their search engine, and seeing ads (and clicking on them). If they use Chrome, then obviously the default browser is Google, so they make money that way. But if they use Firefox, and the default browser is still Google (which it probably will be unless Google dumps them and they switch to Bing to get MS money), then they still make their money. The only way Google doesn't make money is when people use IE and use IE's default browser, which is Bing. It seems like anything Google can do to keep people away from Bing will guarantee their profitability, and dumping FF will only succeed in harming their profitability, by pushing more people into IE (if FF dies, some users will switch to Chrome, a few to Opera, and many to IE).
Chrome is Google's way of ensuring users have a choice which works with Google's services. Several years ago MSN decided to break when read via Opera (which lead to a rather amusing Bork-Bork-Bork version of Opera released) which Microsoft could claim was by accident, but anyone with a brain could see was testing the anti-competitive waters. If IE were the largest, by share, browser they could just tweak somethings which would make Google, Gmail, Google News, etc. work badly or not at all - all delivered by 300 million users with Auto Update left on by default. Simply Google keeping their hand in the game. Not a bad move, but as they play this way it's also a good idea to lend a hand to Mozilla as long as Mozilla play nice. If Mozilla were left to the winds of fate and picked up by Microsoft for sponsorship, you can get some idea where the Firefox share of the market would lean. Pennies to Google, hope they keep it up.
It says that this planet's radius is approximately 2.4 the radius of the Earth, but it doesn't say anything about its mass or density. How much you'd weigh depends on the mass of the planet in addition to its size.
Earth size and not rocky means it's going to be largely composed of frozen gas. Not the ideal place to set up shopt after a 600 ly journey, but also not likely to be in the Goldilocks zone, which Kepler 22b is supposed to be in. Question is, does it have water vapor in the atmosphere? When the plant passes in front of a star they can usually get a pretty good spectrum to tell them what's there. Have to wait and see.
Agreed. If it's the same density then 2.4x radius would be 14x the mass. I'm trying to picture a planet with intelligent pancake beings.
Or they'd have a stronger physiology. Or live in the water. Or perhaps a thousand other options we haven't thought of.
Like the difference in atmospheric pressure - assuming, for the fun of it, a similar composition to Earth's atmosphere, N, O, Ar, CO2 and so on. Takes smaller amount of breathing as a lungful of air presents more O2 than Earth's at sea level. Of course, hoofing around, feeling more weight on your legs could tend to favor smaller humans, with subsequently less mass. Imagine your heart trying to get that blood to your brain when you are 6'2".
Mr. Sulu, set a course for Kepler 22b, warp 3, I'll be in my quarters looking over the latest Toupees Monthly.
Someone better start working on this faster than light drive. Of course, should we get there we'll probably find it a very tough planet to stand erect on.
It's because Chrome is the better browser. It shouldn't matter that it comes from a mega company like Google. If a better product comes out, that should be king. Now why people are still using IE is beyond me.
Chrome is a better browser for some things. There are times when I find I'd rather use Firefox because Chrome handles certain operations in frustrating ways - also, if you leave the updating option on (really bad idea) in Chrome you can fire it up in the next morning and find they've changed things on you, again, and in a way not at all to your liking (but don't bother to tell them that, they're never wrong and won't revert some stupid change for the sake of change because they think it's neat.)
Microsoft paying money to pay a competitor to use a Microsoft product?
Now where have I seen this pattern before?
Microsoft gives for two reasons - they want control (maybe not today, but eventually) or it keeps them looking like a monopolist (like their investment in Apple, to prop them up before Apple overtook them in Market Capitalization.)
Keeping Firefox/Mozilla going is really in Google's best interests for avoiding the Monopoly concern. Better to have a few friends who can defend you from assertions of Mighty Evil Master of Monopoly than none.
Read the full sentence: Only 26% admit. The other 74% deny everything :)
Fair point. I know people who I know have peeked. I once put a (I'm such an awful stinker) hook into a program where a certain person was looked up on a certain workstation and it flashed an alarming notice, effectively the user was caught and authorities were being notified. It scared the heck out of the perpetrator (she had a crush on someone and keep bringing up his personal record) and put an end to the behavior. Nobody was harmed or fired over this, ounce of prevention was effective enough.
All our salary data is public knowledge anyway:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/pa/pa08-eng.asp
Salary, yes, birthdate, actual gender (for those you don't know) home address, phone numbers, dependents, etc. are not public knowledge.
I once worked in a payroll department, overseeing annual disbursement of over $1 billion. Lots of sensitive information there and a lot of care goes into ensuring it states private.
It's one thing to peek, which is bad...
It's quite another to share it, through gossip, careless revelation or horrors passing on to nefarious individuals with criminal intent in their black hearts.
Anyone worried about Stuxnet or a successor popping up has probably completely ditched Windows PCs.
All that is mass media's (apparently successful) attempt to divert attention away from the leaks and to focus more on the "crimes" of the leakers.
Yeah. We'll probably, somewhere in the UK Phone Hacking Scandal© find they were feeding some bits to Mighty Evil Masters in government, somewhere.
Initiate several processes on your desktop to just go about the web looking at random sites, following links, etc. You don't even need to load all content from pages, just do it like Lynx would and scan for HREF tags. Enough people do this and the government's storage will become overbudened. Probably could do this with a minimal effort to code.
Now, doesn't that just sound like all kinds of fun?!?
Is flerovium some breed of onion?
Sounds like the latest artificial sweetner or food additive .. but I'm being culturally insensitive.
Do these people ever have fun? How about Unobtanium?
Your comment would be more convincing if Unix weren't infact running everywhere and doing a better job at it.
Microsoft sandbagged for a long time. The users suffered for it and a lot of needless extra costs were incurred because of it.
Microsoft catered to cookie-cutter installs. Most are express installs, no thought to performance, just a quick stall by whatever tech team is doing it and get it out the door. Good practices require thought, thoughtful configurations require training on the hows and whys, whereas drones are cheap to employ. Microsoft's approach was along the line of - "Just do it this way, nobody really cares or is likely to be impacted by our one-size-fits-all design". *ix, particularly Linux brought the ability to configure your desktop like a mainframe and take advantage of multiple drives for performance reasons.
I have no doubt you can change your configuration, but you clearly spent too much time deciding how to layout your first Linux box.
I was sys admin on a few mainframes before Linux even existed. Picked up the wisdom of how those systems were configured and why. When I got my distro disks I spent about 30 minutes working out how I wanted it configured. Really wasn't something most newbs would understand, even with *ix builds/installs. Certainly not in any way close to the default, out of the box set up for Windows on any retailed or business configured PC I've ever seen - I'd wager 99.9% of all Windows PCs, to the present have massive I/O bottlenecks (not to overlook the pagefile is usually highly fragmented as process calls the filesystem to allocate and free up sectors rather than being created once of contiguous sectors, geez) and recovery issues, which happen more often than you are acknowledging, because many worms/viruses/trojans can only be fully recovered from with a fresh install. To read your words is to believe nobody has had much of a problem with malware and it shouldn't be an issue, so don't bother with firewalls or antivirus software.
Probably good time for another session...
Will they ever name an element Colbertium, after Stephen T. Colbert, DFA?
Insovietrussiaelementnamesyounium
Is it outpacing their ability to file patents on genome sequences?
Yes, the camel surely looks elegant in the desert. But then again, fish don't climb trees.
Just because something works well in one area doesn't mean that it will function well outside of that area. This is why there will always be "other methods" for operating systems.
Windows is such an incredibly fragile system - all eggs in one basket. While it made sense for mass sall of PCs with a single disk, by feat it left the programs, work, operating system, registry, swap space, all on one disk. You can choose to save your work done in various suites on other drives, but they are still fooling around with Drive C:, D:, E: etc. If I need to reinstall the OS I end up with such a massive corruption of drivers I'm almost better off starting from scratch, but I'd lose all my installed programs, because Microsoft likes to keep them all in Program Files on the C: drive, where the OS resides. I can move my memory swap to another physical drive, to relieve some I/O burden, but it's not well known how to do this. Having application, operating system files, swap file and work files all on one disk is such a horrible idea, particularly without even the benefit of partitions (to protect some files or installed applications during a re-install)
I configured my first Linux box to have a tidy spot for the OS and its sources, not too much bigger than necessary (safety factor of 2). Put swap file on its own partition and installed all applications on a separate physical drive, with workspace for each on separate partitions. Flexible. I can change my harddisk configuration with a minimum of fuss. Try that with Windows.
Since AT&T was restricted from selling products not directly related to telephones or telecommunications, they released it to anyone who asked for a nominal license fee.
It's interesting how AT&T couldn't support it for this reason, because today, UNIX is at the heart of both iOS and Android, which run some of today's most popular telephones.
Also at the heart of OS X. One of the smartest moves by Apple and Jobs, replacing the hideous old Mac OS with something built on Mach and borrowing heavily from BSD. Apple made the painful leap and it paid off handsomely.