It is those things, but I've found it also has some deficiencies. Two I can think of right now: does not support embedded movies or other pdf annotations, and the rendering of photographs embedded within pdf documents is unsharp. Also, I don't think it handles tagged documents correctly. So for simple documents without pictures, it's ok and lightweight, but for many of the documents I want to use it for, it just doesn't work.
No, he's right, you're wrong. The ipad has a lower resolution than the iphone, and larger pixel dimensions. "Resolution" is a well understood concept that has been with us much longer than digital displays. The resolution of a camera lens, for example, is the number of lines/mm that it can
resolve.
In the case of Google ('don't be evil'), the situation is more complex.
For example, they
have agreed to remove content from YouTube to satisfy the demands of the Pakistani government, who objected to videos that were critical of Islam.
Google applies this censorship within the U.S., where no law requires it.
I use Chrome (on linux) as my default browser now. The only serious problem I have with it its handling of embedded fonts, but that might be a problem with webkit.
Of course. It solves the general email spam problem as well. But can you imagine trying to get your local PTA membership to use this or even understand what it is?
How is the situation I describe covered by the regulations you describe? You mention the requirement to "disclose any sponsorships or freebies". If the advertising appears on the site, it's obviously disclosed, right?
The insidious problem is not straightforward payment for sham reviews. It is analogous to the old-fashioned phenomena of magazines about cars or local magazines with restaurant reviews. Their source of income is advertising from automobile manufacturers and local restaurants. They may not be accepting payment in return for favorable notices, but their coverage happens to be favorable. The publishers know that if it ceases to be favorable, their revenue dries up. If a publication contains advertising, we know, I hope, that the content is inevitably influenced by it.
The influence can simply lead to stories not being covered. Has NPR's heavy, and daily growing, corporate advertising caused them to decide not to cover stories embarrassing to their corporate patrons? I don't know, but it would seem inevitable that editorial decisions will eventually be influenced by the dependence on corporate cash.
This problem immediately transferred itself to the web, and is not touched by the new FTC rules. The publisher of Tinderbox (a commercial knowledge management program for the Macintosh), for example, can come right out and offer advertising in return for reviews, with the unsubtle implication that those reviews should be favorable, but he's not offering to pay directly for the coverage, so this does not run afoul of the regulations. The reason that this is more insidious than straight out cash for sham reviews is that the latter, I think, are easier to spot. When someone is praising a product or service and receiving, or hoping to receive, the benefit of advertising, the writer may not even be aware of the influence.
How does the world have direct access? They need a password or a private key. What about allowing root login, but requiring a private key, and disallowing login using a password? I'm considering that, and am wondering if there is a consensus about it.
I had this running for a while but disabled it after it locked me out of my own server. I was trying to log in from a Panera free wifi (great chain, by he way). After getting in through another server, I found the ip that the access point had assigned me in the denyhosts log. So I'm sure it's a great idea, but could lead to problems if you intend to work on your server from the road.
The straw men: all those dozens of people typing at me all at once! Who are these dozens of people and why would I be watching their typing? Although it's been disabled in the developer sandbox, there is a check box that turns this feature off.
I don't guess that Mr. Scoble has written any wave extensions. One very nice thing about wave is that it's pretty easy to do so; some simple python programming and you can make a robot to do something useful. Here is my robot that draws sparklines. Praise Google for publishing a powerful API (now they need better documentation).
Here is where wave can be immediately useful: the mess that an email thread becomes when more than two people are participating, some of them top-posting, quoting the entire thread in every reply, and so on, becomes a coherent document that can be simplified and neatened as it grows. And the entire history is conveniently available.
You are confusing the client with the server (and associated infrastructure). What can't work on IE is the standard html/javascript wave client. The console app, for example, is a different client.
Highly recommend the Guardian article linked in the summary: "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." Most entertaining.
But the white guy (I only looked at the mirror url) has a strong light shining on the right side of his face that's not reflected from any other nearby surface.
If the acupuncture is for reducing pain, and the people experience less pain (compared to not doing anything), then it works.
Not for a reasonable definition of "works", which means, in this context, "can be differentiated from a placebo or from non-treatment by its effects on the patient through the use of appropriate controls", or something along those lines. In this way, medicine - real medicine - has found out, pretty recently, that certain knee and back surgical procedures that had been used for some time to treat pain in those areas are no better than sham surgeries (surgical placebos). So doctors have stopped (for the most part) doing those surgeries, because we now know that they don't work - even if some of the patients said they felt better! The acupuncturist, however, keeps right on sticking the needles into his poor victims, because it makes no difference to him that his treatment has no evidence to support it. Do you get it now? (I suppose that's a rhetorical question.)
Please be careful with your contradictions. There are controlled clinical studies - which you refer to yourself two sentences later.
I thought it was blindingly obvious from context that I was pointing out that the people who practice these fraudulent therapies are not in possession of information from controlled clinical studies that would show that their treatments are efficacious. But there's always someone, isn't there.
Your other attempts at a point involve confusion on your part about what it means for a treatment to "work": it must be better than a placebo. Everyone knows that placebos can afford relief of symptoms. Real, evidence-based medicine uses controlled studies to try to find treatments that can be differentiated from a placebo by virtue of the fact that they actually effect the course of a disease or are better at relieving symptoms. In other words, using the scientific method to separate the real from the imaginary. Purveyors of sham treatments are just supplying elaborate placebos. The treatments are still nonsense, and they are still frauds, even if some of their victims respond positively to the placebo. If this still isn't clear, I don't know what to do with you.
You are wrong to say "Natural path, homeopaths, acupuncturist and others of there ilk are a different matter. They charge of treatments that do no damn good."
No, he's right. These types of alternative (i.e., fake) medicine are based on superstition and wishful thinking, rather than evidence. No controlled clinical studies are done to differentiate the treatment that works from the treatment that does not. Some of them elicit a powerful placebo response, however. For example, people often feel better after acupuncture, but studies show that it doesn't actually matter where you put the needles, just that the patient thinks you know what you're doing. This means that acupuncture doesn't "work", for any reasonable definition of "work".
What actual advantages are there to KDE3.5 for "getting shit done"? Really, I want to know...
I want to know what advantages there are to any desktop for getting things done. I try them (gnome, kde, xface,...) out from time to time, but always go back to a simple keyboard-operated window manager (happy with dwm for some time now). When setting up a machine for a naive user, of course I supply a desktop, but I don't see the appeal for a literate user.
Good idea. But why do you need a certificate? Why can't you just use public key (pgp, gpg)?
That provides authentication and signing as well as encryption.
Slashdot Mirror
It is those things, but I've found it also has some deficiencies. Two I can think of right now: does not support embedded movies or other pdf annotations, and the rendering of photographs embedded within pdf documents is unsharp. Also, I don't think it handles tagged documents correctly. So for simple documents without pictures, it's ok and lightweight, but for many of the documents I want to use it for, it just doesn't work.
Is the number disturbing because it's too low or too high? I use Reader on my Mac because Preview renders some things poorly and lacks s few features.
I do, because Preview is so bad.
No, he's right, you're wrong. The ipad has a lower resolution than the iphone, and larger pixel dimensions. "Resolution" is a well understood concept that has been with us much longer than digital displays. The resolution of a camera lens, for example, is the number of lines/mm that it can resolve.
Works for me.
One can only hope.
In the case of Google ('don't be evil'), the situation is more complex. For example, they have agreed to remove content from YouTube to satisfy the demands of the Pakistani government, who objected to videos that were critical of Islam. Google applies this censorship within the U.S., where no law requires it.
I use Chrome (on linux) as my default browser now. The only serious problem I have with it its handling of embedded fonts, but that might be a problem with webkit.
Of course. It solves the general email spam problem as well. But can you imagine trying to get your local PTA membership to use this or even understand what it is?
Indeed, most of the "problems" solved by this approach are already solved, more efficiently, by tiling window managers controlled by the keyboard.
How is the situation I describe covered by the regulations you describe? You mention the requirement to "disclose any sponsorships or freebies". If the advertising appears on the site, it's obviously disclosed, right?
The insidious problem is not straightforward payment for sham reviews. It is analogous to the old-fashioned phenomena of magazines about cars or local magazines with restaurant reviews. Their source of income is advertising from automobile manufacturers and local restaurants. They may not be accepting payment in return for favorable notices, but their coverage happens to be favorable. The publishers know that if it ceases to be favorable, their revenue dries up. If a publication contains advertising, we know, I hope, that the content is inevitably influenced by it.
The influence can simply lead to stories not being covered. Has NPR's heavy, and daily growing, corporate advertising caused them to decide not to cover stories embarrassing to their corporate patrons? I don't know, but it would seem inevitable that editorial decisions will eventually be influenced by the dependence on corporate cash.
This problem immediately transferred itself to the web, and is not touched by the new FTC rules. The publisher of Tinderbox (a commercial knowledge management program for the Macintosh), for example, can come right out and offer advertising in return for reviews, with the unsubtle implication that those reviews should be favorable, but he's not offering to pay directly for the coverage, so this does not run afoul of the regulations. The reason that this is more insidious than straight out cash for sham reviews is that the latter, I think, are easier to spot. When someone is praising a product or service and receiving, or hoping to receive, the benefit of advertising, the writer may not even be aware of the influence.
How does the world have direct access? They need a password or a private key. What about allowing root login, but requiring a private key, and disallowing login using a password? I'm considering that, and am wondering if there is a consensus about it.
I had this running for a while but disabled it after it locked me out of my own server. I was trying to log in from a Panera free wifi (great chain, by he way). After getting in through another server, I found the ip that the access point had assigned me in the denyhosts log. So I'm sure it's a great idea, but could lead to problems if you intend to work on your server from the road.
I have nothing against him, but he's sharing his impressions with us one the same day that he got access. His insights are not profound.
He's either attacking straw men or telling us that twitter is an aid to productivity. Twitter.
Try this for a decent and recent writeup.
The straw men: all those dozens of people typing at me all at once! Who are these dozens of people and why would I be watching their typing? Although it's been disabled in the developer sandbox, there is a check box that turns this feature off.
I don't guess that Mr. Scoble has written any wave extensions. One very nice thing about wave is that it's pretty easy to do so; some simple python programming and you can make a robot to do something useful. Here is my robot that draws sparklines. Praise Google for publishing a powerful API (now they need better documentation).
Here is where wave can be immediately useful: the mess that an email thread becomes when more than two people are participating, some of them top-posting, quoting the entire thread in every reply, and so on, becomes a coherent document that can be simplified and neatened as it grows. And the entire history is conveniently available.
You are confusing the client with the server (and associated infrastructure). What can't work on IE is the standard html/javascript wave client. The console app, for example, is a different client.
Highly recommend the Guardian article linked in the summary: "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." Most entertaining.
But the white guy (I only looked at the mirror url) has a strong light shining on the right side of his face that's not reflected from any other nearby surface.
That was you? Next time, would you mind staying in your seat?
--- The Guy Behind You
Not for a reasonable definition of "works", which means, in this context, "can be differentiated from a placebo or from non-treatment by its effects on the patient through the use of appropriate controls", or something along those lines. In this way, medicine - real medicine - has found out, pretty recently, that certain knee and back surgical procedures that had been used for some time to treat pain in those areas are no better than sham surgeries (surgical placebos). So doctors have stopped (for the most part) doing those surgeries, because we now know that they don't work - even if some of the patients said they felt better! The acupuncturist, however, keeps right on sticking the needles into his poor victims, because it makes no difference to him that his treatment has no evidence to support it. Do you get it now? (I suppose that's a rhetorical question.)
I thought it was blindingly obvious from context that I was pointing out that the people who practice these fraudulent therapies are not in possession of information from controlled clinical studies that would show that their treatments are efficacious. But there's always someone, isn't there.
Your other attempts at a point involve confusion on your part about what it means for a treatment to "work": it must be better than a placebo. Everyone knows that placebos can afford relief of symptoms. Real, evidence-based medicine uses controlled studies to try to find treatments that can be differentiated from a placebo by virtue of the fact that they actually effect the course of a disease or are better at relieving symptoms. In other words, using the scientific method to separate the real from the imaginary. Purveyors of sham treatments are just supplying elaborate placebos. The treatments are still nonsense, and they are still frauds, even if some of their victims respond positively to the placebo. If this still isn't clear, I don't know what to do with you.
No, he's right. These types of alternative (i.e., fake) medicine are based on superstition and wishful thinking, rather than evidence. No controlled clinical studies are done to differentiate the treatment that works from the treatment that does not. Some of them elicit a powerful placebo response, however. For example, people often feel better after acupuncture, but studies show that it doesn't actually matter where you put the needles, just that the patient thinks you know what you're doing. This means that acupuncture doesn't "work", for any reasonable definition of "work".
I want to know what advantages there are to any desktop for getting things done. I try them (gnome, kde, xface, ...) out from time to time, but always go back to a simple keyboard-operated window manager (happy with dwm for some time now). When setting up a machine for a naive user, of course I supply a desktop, but I don't see the appeal for a literate user.
Good idea. But why do you need a certificate? Why can't you just use public key (pgp, gpg)? That provides authentication and signing as well as encryption.
I noticed that you are wrong already.