Actually, that's counting duplexing. The documents are thinner because the stock of the paper is so dramatically different. It may not look like much when dealing with one or two sheets of paper, but it's noticeable both in terms of size and weight when you've got 500 sheets of paper (regardless of whether there's printing on both sides or not.)
Putting open source software on school PCs isn't going to help them. Bear in mind the kinds of people using these computers aren't going to be Perl gurus, or even web developers. They're going to be office workers, shop clerks etc. They're not exactly going to need to know about daemons and stacks, but they will need to know Microsoft products, as these will look better on a resume/CV than StarOffice or some other home-cooked tiny suite.
Let's say someone came into your office today...18, fresh out of high school. They list the Word processing program they learned when they took word processing, I'm guessing back around 8th grade for them.
This means the software they learned is 5 years old: a person going for a job would be listing Word 95 and Excel 95.
It's possible they've kept up with the different versions over the years, but the specific brand of software, and even operating system, that a student learns in anything below 10th grade should have minimal to low impact by the time he or she reaches the workforce.
That's key. A couple of people have assumed that publishers would own these, but instead, booksellers like B&N or libraries would be better served with one of these.
What I'd be impressed by is if it can handle thinner paper. If I print a 100 page document on normal copy stock, it comes out as thick as a 300 page book I get at B&N. There are times when I've wanted to print out a manual or PDF, but the length was prohibitive.
Microsoft charges a fee to be on the list, and makes money off of each print that is printed from this referal
It's amusing that Kodak actually referred to this as taxation (which is about right), thus playing the same game that Microsoft has played with using words with negative connotations to describe the enemy (cf. viral software)
I mean, Surely the definition of a personality based on the experiences of 10 people is going to be considered ridiculously schizophrenic. But 40,000?
Someone else commented that the MMPI is based on how others have answered in the past. Assuming then as the sample gets larger the schizophrenia normalizes, GAC should score completely average on the MMPI.
That of course doesn't take into account the fact that it is solely internet users, thus biasing the schizophrenia.
It's interesting to not that Mr. Gielda doesn't cite corporations or the US Government as the biggest problem, but instead cites ordinary people who for one reason or another can't accept the fact the people should be free to say and think what they want.
I'd hate to think that a service like this which helps give a voice to people in countries where freedom of speech doesn't exist could be destroyed by people with thin skins.
Hopefully one day we'll actually show enough responsibility to deserve the rights we have, but I'm not holding my breath.
FUD. The person who patented the wheel appears to be claiming that these Innovoation Patents will allow people to claim that something is patented (check out our new Honda Outback with unique patented rolling things) even though the claim is dubious.
There seems to be a large group of laws with this fundamental problem: the law is ONLY fair is "wrongdoers" are brought to court, but no one has either the time or the resources to sue, or too much damage is done on an economic, societal, mind-share, or emotional level for the court to recompense. But that's just my patented two cents.
So what if people cheat? It's a game of reputation. If someone beats me hands down, I'm not going to play them again because it won't be any fun - regardless of whether they cheated or are just really good.
I can't imagine never being willing to play a game because someone else beat me at it. If anything, by playing against a better player, it's a chance to be exposed to better strategies, to at least better your own playing abilities.
It'd never win, but the Filthy Critic, while being obscene, vulgar, and pedantic, has always impressed me with some surprisingly intelligent commentary, and always remains true to form.
On the one hand, I agree that since the FBI owned the computers in the first place, information entered into that computer wouldn't be the "possession" of the hackers, and should be freely used by the FBI.
On the other hand, they clearly used this information to gain access to something that didn't belong to them.
On the third hand, if a hacker manages to steal that much information, and can't be smart enough to avoid entering personal information on a computer they don't own, I don't have much respect for them.
It's an odd ruling for sure. It's like ruling that it's okay for them to install security cameras in your home but they need a warrant to view the tapes.
I would have had more respect for the ruling if it had simply gone one way or the other...this is just wishy-washy.
The problem with the experiment is that the ads contained different text, and the author even identifies this in his analysis.
His Google ad was very specifically oriented towards one book review; his RobotWisdom ad geared toward numerous reviews. THe expectations of users seeing the link then passing through the link would be radically different, and not surprisingly give his RobotWisdom ad the edge.
If they had both been geared toward the site overall, I'd believe that the results were valid. Instead, I have to question what factor really resulted in the difference in clickthroughs. This has made me want to run my own experiment with my own site, but being more careful about the wording of the two ads.
Which would work as an argument against "There are no stupid rich people", but not "There are fewer stupid rich people than stupid not-rich people."
I'm all for a pay-per-play model. There is the risk of people acting like idiots, but if I'm paying to play, I'm also expecting some sort of moderation, management or bouncer to oust idiots.
The page specifically mentions all of the 6100, 7100, and 8100 models. The reason it won't work is because of the NuBus architecture with these models, as opposed to the PCI architecture.
So far, various replies have made it clear that Scott Macneal's examples all have counterparts that would allow for privacy while still meeting the needs of the human.
It's nice to see the GPS example refuted; essentially, Scott's arguing for all of us to wear tracking devices. (After all, if I get lost on foot, wouldn't I want the same service. Maybe if my shoe's deflate from being too pumped up.)
It's nice to see the medical example refuted; which is more convenient: a medical bracelet with the pertinent stuff on it, or a medical file that has to be transmitted across a network and browsed through, after they figure out who I am.
The personal preferences examples I'll ask a question, albeit somewhat off-topic: How many of us really eat the same type of cuisine day-in, day-out, and never try something new? I usually opt for what sounds intriguing that day...whether I've ever tried it or not. This way, I can broaden my tastes and have a better scope of criteria for selecting things in the future. The device Scott suggests would not only be useless to me, but annoying. The same goes with movies: if I hated Armageddon, would my little electronic buddy skipped over Pearl Harbor. If I liked Usual Suspects, would my little buddy have recommend Urban Legends 2.
By always limiting oneself to recommendations based on what you've done, it would seem like this could stagnate personal growth and experience. And I'm more worried about that than my privacy anyday.
-Foggy, feeling way too much like a Luddite these days
The factors that led to this seem to revolve around closed-minded thinking: Dr. Crew refused to believe the scores could be wrong, despite a dramatic difference. Mr. Tangentt (sorry if I get the name spelled wrong here) refused to admit there might be a problem, and apparently still does.
Customers not knowing anything about other customers also excarbated the situation. Had the customers been able to communicate to one another, they may have discovered the commonality of what they were seeing and had it resolved much sooner.
Re:in their business section...
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 1
Notice that these pages are in their business section, not MSDN?
That's the key right there. A lot of the responses are so far pointing out the philosophical and intellectual problems with M$'s "Shared Source" FAQ and concept. That's a bit like arguing that people shouldn't see Rob Schneider's the Animal because it lacks a proper subtext balanced against 19th-century romanticism.
Microsoft's clearly approaching this as a marketing battle: We don't have to sell things to win, we have to capture the hearts and minds of the public and the law.
When marketing, logic is irrelevant. Marketing is designed to appeal, usually on an emotional level, and the FAQ is clearly aimed toward that.
The GPL is viral. Ooh, bad.
Linux will hurt your intellectual property. Ooh, bad.
The best way to fight this is on a marketing level, not an intellectual or philosophical level. Someone really needs to take FUD out of Microsoft's hand and start beating them up with it.
Explaining why Spam is bad and irresponsible is unlikely to deter most advertisers and marketers, since it's not ignorance that is really stoking this problem.
Spam marketers currently have an easy time making money this way because they have large volumes of targets with little to no incremental costs, meaning they need a very small percentage of success.
Most, if faced with the choice of making money or making anonymous strangers happy, will opt for the money.
IMHO, hitting spammers financially, not educationally, would be more likely to work.
What we really need is a programming language that caters to poets and versifiers. Eiku could answer that.
Declare C As Type T
Create C Without Single Default
Add 5 to C End
Or worse...Limerdola
There once was a variable V2
Who's parameter P3 just grew
By 3001
(Oh isn't this fun)
Now set the screen background to blue
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that's counting duplexing. The documents are thinner because the stock of the paper is so dramatically different. It may not look like much when dealing with one or two sheets of paper, but it's noticeable both in terms of size and weight when you've got 500 sheets of paper (regardless of whether there's printing on both sides or not.)
Let's say someone came into your office today...18, fresh out of high school. They list the Word processing program they learned when they took word processing, I'm guessing back around 8th grade for them.
This means the software they learned is 5 years old: a person going for a job would be listing Word 95 and Excel 95.
It's possible they've kept up with the different versions over the years, but the specific brand of software, and even operating system, that a student learns in anything below 10th grade should have minimal to low impact by the time he or she reaches the workforce.
That's key. A couple of people have assumed that publishers would own these, but instead, booksellers like B&N or libraries would be better served with one of these.
What I'd be impressed by is if it can handle thinner paper. If I print a 100 page document on normal copy stock, it comes out as thick as a 300 page book I get at B&N. There are times when I've wanted to print out a manual or PDF, but the length was prohibitive.
It's amusing that Kodak actually referred to this as taxation (which is about right), thus playing the same game that Microsoft has played with using words with negative connotations to describe the enemy (cf. viral software)
Someone else commented that the MMPI is based on how others have answered in the past. Assuming then as the sample gets larger the schizophrenia normalizes, GAC should score completely average on the MMPI.
That of course doesn't take into account the fact that it is solely internet users, thus biasing the schizophrenia.
It's interesting to not that Mr. Gielda doesn't cite corporations or the US Government as the biggest problem, but instead cites ordinary people who for one reason or another can't accept the fact the people should be free to say and think what they want.
I'd hate to think that a service like this which helps give a voice to people in countries where freedom of speech doesn't exist could be destroyed by people with thin skins.
Hopefully one day we'll actually show enough responsibility to deserve the rights we have, but I'm not holding my breath.
FUD. The person who patented the wheel appears to be claiming that these Innovoation Patents will allow people to claim that something is patented (check out our new Honda Outback with unique patented rolling things) even though the claim is dubious.
There seems to be a large group of laws with this fundamental problem: the law is ONLY fair is "wrongdoers" are brought to court, but no one has either the time or the resources to sue, or too much damage is done on an economic, societal, mind-share, or emotional level for the court to recompense. But that's just my patented two cents.
5k * 1 penny per K * 2 receivers (me and my ISP) = 10 cents
I can't imagine never being willing to play a game because someone else beat me at it. If anything, by playing against a better player, it's a chance to be exposed to better strategies, to at least better your own playing abilities.
It'd never win, but the Filthy Critic, while being obscene, vulgar, and pedantic, has always impressed me with some surprisingly intelligent commentary, and always remains true to form.
Gee, and I though they were already being used by Space Aliens to broadcast voices into my head.
Guess now I'll be stuck with..
"our plans for world domination zzzz any users out there got p3rn zzzz me too zzzz jello and mayonnaise."
Oh well, there's always aspirin.
I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand, I agree that since the FBI owned the computers in the first place, information entered into that computer wouldn't be the "possession" of the hackers, and should be freely used by the FBI.
On the other hand, they clearly used this information to gain access to something that didn't belong to them.
On the third hand, if a hacker manages to steal that much information, and can't be smart enough to avoid entering personal information on a computer they don't own, I don't have much respect for them.
And on the fourth hand, John Delorean.
It's an odd ruling for sure. It's like ruling that it's okay for them to install security cameras in your home but they need a warrant to view the tapes.
I would have had more respect for the ruling if it had simply gone one way or the other...this is just wishy-washy.
The problem with the experiment is that the ads contained different text, and the author even identifies this in his analysis.
His Google ad was very specifically oriented towards one book review; his RobotWisdom ad geared toward numerous reviews. THe expectations of users seeing the link then passing through the link would be radically different, and not surprisingly give his RobotWisdom ad the edge.
If they had both been geared toward the site overall, I'd believe that the results were valid. Instead, I have to question what factor really resulted in the difference in clickthroughs. This has made me want to run my own experiment with my own site, but being more careful about the wording of the two ads.
Which would work as an argument against "There are no stupid rich people", but not "There are fewer stupid rich people than stupid not-rich people."
I'm all for a pay-per-play model. There is the risk of people acting like idiots, but if I'm paying to play, I'm also expecting some sort of moderation, management or bouncer to oust idiots.
The page specifically mentions all of the 6100, 7100, and 8100 models. The reason it won't work is because of the NuBus architecture with these models, as opposed to the PCI architecture.
It takes some doing from the press release site, but you can make your way to the supported platforms page.
or you can click here
YDL 2.0
I'm sure it's great, but it won't work on my Power PC 7100AV at home.
So far, various replies have made it clear that Scott Macneal's examples all have counterparts that would allow for privacy while still meeting the needs of the human.
It's nice to see the GPS example refuted; essentially, Scott's arguing for all of us to wear tracking devices. (After all, if I get lost on foot, wouldn't I want the same service. Maybe if my shoe's deflate from being too pumped up.)
It's nice to see the medical example refuted; which is more convenient: a medical bracelet with the pertinent stuff on it, or a medical file that has to be transmitted across a network and browsed through, after they figure out who I am.
The personal preferences examples I'll ask a question, albeit somewhat off-topic: How many of us really eat the same type of cuisine day-in, day-out, and never try something new? I usually opt for what sounds intriguing that day...whether I've ever tried it or not. This way, I can broaden my tastes and have a better scope of criteria for selecting things in the future. The device Scott suggests would not only be useless to me, but annoying. The same goes with movies: if I hated Armageddon, would my little electronic buddy skipped over Pearl Harbor. If I liked Usual Suspects, would my little buddy have recommend Urban Legends 2.
By always limiting oneself to recommendations based on what you've done, it would seem like this could stagnate personal growth and experience. And I'm more worried about that than my privacy anyday.
-Foggy, feeling way too much like a Luddite these days
The factors that led to this seem to revolve around closed-minded thinking: Dr. Crew refused to believe the scores could be wrong, despite a dramatic difference. Mr. Tangentt (sorry if I get the name spelled wrong here) refused to admit there might be a problem, and apparently still does.
Customers not knowing anything about other customers also excarbated the situation. Had the customers been able to communicate to one another, they may have discovered the commonality of what they were seeing and had it resolved much sooner.
That's the key right there. A lot of the responses are so far pointing out the philosophical and intellectual problems with M$'s "Shared Source" FAQ and concept. That's a bit like arguing that people shouldn't see Rob Schneider's the Animal because it lacks a proper subtext balanced against 19th-century romanticism.
Microsoft's clearly approaching this as a marketing battle: We don't have to sell things to win, we have to capture the hearts and minds of the public and the law.
When marketing, logic is irrelevant. Marketing is designed to appeal, usually on an emotional level, and the FAQ is clearly aimed toward that.
The GPL is viral. Ooh, bad.
Linux will hurt your intellectual property. Ooh, bad.
The best way to fight this is on a marketing level, not an intellectual or philosophical level. Someone really needs to take FUD out of Microsoft's hand and start beating them up with it.
Which would explain why the web acts like a 5th grader
Unfortuantely, the RFC for murder was killed in committee.
Explaining why Spam is bad and irresponsible is unlikely to deter most advertisers and marketers, since it's not ignorance that is really stoking this problem.
Spam marketers currently have an easy time making money this way because they have large volumes of targets with little to no incremental costs, meaning they need a very small percentage of success.
Most, if faced with the choice of making money or making anonymous strangers happy, will opt for the money.
IMHO, hitting spammers financially, not educationally, would be more likely to work.
(Ooops...hit that submit button by mistake...)
What we really need is a programming language that caters to poets and versifiers. Eiku could answer that.
Declare C As Type TCreate C Without Single Default
Add 5 to C End
Or worse...Limerdola
There once was a variable V2Who's parameter P3 just grew
By 3001
(Oh isn't this fun)
Now set the screen background to blue
What we really need is a programming language that caters to poets and versifiers. Eiku could answer that. Declare C As Type T Create C Without Single Default Add 5 to C End
Or worse...Limerdola There once was a variable V2 Who's parameter P3 just grew By 3001 (Oh isn't this fun) Now set the screen background to blue