Students tended to do worse in schools generously equipped with computers, apparently because computerised instruction replaced more effective forms of teaching.
That sentence says it all. Computers should not be replacing forms of teaching. They should be enhancing forms of teaching. Too many people think that if you thrown a computer at something, and throw out whatever process was in place before, things get better. This is not, never has been, and never will be, true.
Read my post again. We have a spam filter, but it only tags the spams (for easy client-side filtering). It does not block them. We don't block the spam because the spam filter we use a product of our company. We need to see what is getting tagged as spam (or not getting tagged as spam), as a matter of professional interest.
I Am Canadian, and I can report that my spam at work has decreased significantly. The amount of spam I received peaked at about 200 per day a couple months ago, and then over a period of about 4 weeks dropped to to less than 100 per day.
I don't know why. It's not being blocked by our servers because the spam filter at work only tags spam, it doesn't block it.
A PhD yes. I agree that there are certain jobs that require a PhD, but not a Master's. I know many people with an MS who are unable to progress because they do not have a PhD. But they are working the same jobs as people with a Bachelor's. So in my experience, a Master's a too high for the job that you will get, but too low for the job you might want. In other words, there is no job level between BSc and a PhD.
In all my experience I have yet to meet anybody who feels their Master's degrees helped them in their job.
This includes MBAs, which I find quite surprising. But I have never met an MBA who thinks her or his MBA helped them get and do the job. I do know one person who thinks her MBA helped her find a husband:-)
I have a Master's degree myself. I had a blast getting it. I'd do it again. But for job advancement it is worth less than nothing.
I've owned about 13 items from that list. Not bad, but I am sure some people here have done much much better (or worse depending on your point of view).
"...at best can only slow the adoption rate of Firefox. IE7 is going to have to bring something really new to the table to overcome this.
I don't quite agree. All that Microsoft is going to have to do is make IE7 good enough so that people who get new computers with a new Windows OS do not feel the need to install Firefox.
I remember the days when Netscape was king and IE was a joke, and people were thumbing their noses at Microsoft. Well, Miscrosoft ended up blowing Netscape out of the water, not because IE was that much better but because it was good enough.
Over the Christmas holidays I was visiting my parents from out of town. They had 1 year old system, continuously DSL connected to the net, running XP without SP2, and used Internet Explorer to surf and Outlook Explorer (with the preview pane on) to read email. They had no firewall installed. I expected the computer to be a complete mess, a stuffed basket of viruses, trojans, and spyware.
There was nothing. No viruses, no spyware. Nothing out of the ordinary. The computer ran like the OS has just been installed.
So what is different about the computers of people who claim to have been attacked to oblivion inside of 5 minutes?
"What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'. Our software escapes, leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in its wake!"
On the day of the anniversary, the British Broadcasting Corporation had to retract a story reporting that Dow Chemicals had accepted full responsibility for the Bhopal tragedy and was poised to offer $12 billion more in compensation.
An activist "falsely identified himself as a Dow employee" and made the claim to the BBC, according to a statement posted on Dow's corporate website.
The statement continues: "Dow confirms that there was no basis whatsoever for this report."
"Consumers rank the ability to play video games on their desktop as one of the top 3 important reasons for the adoption of Linux."
Is there a "not" missing somewhere in that sentence.? As in "... one of the top 3 reasons for NOT adopting Linux." For me, game support is the biggest reason why Windows still exists on my desktop.
While I agree with the author's premise, I do not think he had used very good examples. His examples that he uses do not do his arguments justice.
* In the Indian Assembly Election example he uses, the usability of the voting interface has little to do with the security of the machines. The voting interface can be very user friendly, but that says nothing about whether or not it is possible to hack into the machine through a network and change the results.
* In his examples of firewalls and adware detection, he confuses "usability" with "availability." But available is a a facet of security, not usability (see the definitions at the top of the article). He means to say "because the systems are more useable, they are more secure." But what he says is "Because the systems are more available, they are more secure", which is like saying 1 equals 1.
None of these suggestions help because my email is not stored locally. It is stored on the server. AFAIK There is not option (yet) to skip a specific Outlook folder.
And I do filter my email. I use SpamBayes, and most of my spam is caught. This doesn't seem to stop GDS from indexing it.
My big problem with Google Desktop Search is not the privacy issues, but the fact that it indexes all my email. By that I mean ALL my email, including spam. It is rather annoying to perform an seemingly innocent search and get the first hit being "Bu|y V|agra , Us|e you|r B|G D|CK!" Especially if my manager is looking over my shoulder.
I think you have it nailed. And this is why Microsoft is going to lose.
Microsoft want to own your desktop.
Google doesn't even want you to *have* a desktop. Google Desktop Search is the first step to blurring the difference between the desktop and the internet.
Re:Corps will continue to rule, people are sheep..
on
Amateur Revolution?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And musicians have been operating like this for 100s if not 1000s of years. The amature "revolution" in music is hardly a new thing.
"Like its rivals, the company is trying to develop new ways to persuade visitors to return more frequently and stay longer once they're there."
What is nice about Google is that they don't keep you there. Once I have found what I am looking, I don't want to be in the search engine any more.
"Users of the new MyJeeves features will be able to save Web pages by clicking on a clearly marked button next to every link turned up in a search request. The saved links then can be placed in individual folders sorted by topic, such as "maps,""weather" and "shopping." Personal notes can be added."
I can already do this. It's called bookmarks.
'"The next generation of search isn't going to be about who can build the biggest indexes (of Web pages)," said analyst Charlene Li of Forrester Research. "It's going to about finding better ways to personalize search results and modify the way the results are presented."'
I think this is so wrong. I do not like personalized pages. I like to know that when I am looking at something, I am seeing the same thing as other people. Nothing is more frustrating than finding a neat page (or part of a page), and not being able to explain to a friend how to find it because her customizations are different.
To bad that's not true, at least not entirely true. The company I work for has firewalls, and AV running on every machine, but that hasn't stopped, for example, worms that exploit bugs in the OS to spread via the network. All it takes is one infected PC or laptop or VMWare image inside the firewall to start the spread.
Slashdot Mirror
Students tended to do worse in schools generously equipped with computers, apparently because computerised instruction replaced more effective forms of teaching.
That sentence says it all. Computers should not be replacing forms of teaching. They should be enhancing forms of teaching. Too many people think that if you thrown a computer at something, and throw out whatever process was in place before, things get better. This is not, never has been, and never will be, true.
Read my post again. We have a spam filter, but it only tags the spams (for easy client-side filtering). It does not block them. We don't block the spam because the spam filter we use a product of our company. We need to see what is getting tagged as spam (or not getting tagged as spam), as a matter of professional interest.
I Am Canadian, and I can report that my spam at work has decreased significantly. The amount of spam I received peaked at about 200 per day a couple months ago, and then over a period of about 4 weeks dropped to to less than 100 per day.
I don't know why. It's not being blocked by our servers because the spam filter at work only tags spam, it doesn't block it.
A PhD yes. I agree that there are certain jobs that require a PhD, but not a Master's. I know many people with an MS who are unable to progress because they do not have a PhD. But they are working the same jobs as people with a Bachelor's. So in my experience, a Master's a too high for the job that you will get, but too low for the job you might want. In other words, there is no job level between BSc and a PhD.
You are right about a Master's.
:-)
In all my experience I have yet to meet anybody who feels their Master's degrees helped them in their job.
This includes MBAs, which I find quite surprising. But I have never met an MBA who thinks her or his MBA helped them get and do the job. I do know one person who thinks her MBA helped her find a husband
I have a Master's degree myself. I had a blast getting it. I'd do it again. But for job advancement it is worth less than nothing.
I've owned about 13 items from that list. Not bad, but I am sure some people here have done much much better (or worse depending on your point of view).
"...at best can only slow the adoption rate of Firefox. IE7 is going to have to bring something really new to the table to overcome this.
I don't quite agree. All that Microsoft is going to have to do is make IE7 good enough so that people who get new computers with a new Windows OS do not feel the need to install Firefox.
I remember the days when Netscape was king and IE was a joke, and people were thumbing their noses at Microsoft. Well, Miscrosoft ended up blowing Netscape out of the water, not because IE was that much better but because it was good enough.
Over the Christmas holidays I was visiting my parents from out of town. They had 1 year old system, continuously DSL connected to the net, running XP without SP2, and used Internet Explorer to surf and Outlook Explorer (with the preview pane on) to read email. They had no firewall installed. I expected the computer to be a complete mess, a stuffed basket of viruses, trojans, and spyware.
There was nothing. No viruses, no spyware. Nothing out of the ordinary. The computer ran like the OS has just been installed.
So what is different about the computers of people who claim to have been attacked to oblivion inside of 5 minutes?
Anybody reading this far is now nuts.
That's reserved for Klingon software.
"What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'. Our software escapes, leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality assurance people in its wake!"
From: here
From the opposing-view article: ...Ponce de Leon discovered Florida in his quest for the fountain of youth...
He might not have found the fountain of youth, but he did find a nice place to retire.
The article about compensation is a hoax.
See this article
On the day of the anniversary, the British Broadcasting Corporation had to retract a story reporting that Dow Chemicals had accepted full responsibility for the Bhopal tragedy and was poised to offer $12 billion more in compensation.
An activist "falsely identified himself as a Dow employee" and made the claim to the BBC, according to a statement posted on Dow's corporate website.
The statement continues: "Dow confirms that there was no basis whatsoever for this report."
"Consumers rank the ability to play video games on their desktop as one of the top 3 important reasons for the adoption of Linux."
Is there a "not" missing somewhere in that sentence.? As in "... one of the top 3 reasons for NOT adopting Linux." For me, game support is the biggest reason why Windows still exists on my desktop.
While I agree with the author's premise, I do not think he had used very good examples. His examples that he uses do not do his arguments justice.
* In the Indian Assembly Election example he uses, the usability of the voting interface has little to do with the security of the machines. The voting interface can be very user friendly, but that says nothing about whether or not it is possible to hack into the machine through a network and change the results.
* In his examples of firewalls and adware detection, he confuses "usability" with "availability." But available is a a facet of security, not usability (see the definitions at the top of the article). He means to say "because the systems are more useable, they are more secure." But what he says is "Because the systems are more available, they are more secure", which is like saying 1 equals 1.
Probably. You buy any pure bred cat nowaday you have to sign an agreement that you will have the cat neutered/spayed at the earliest opportunity.
Pure bred cat breeders don't want you to breed their cats any more than these guys do.
None of these suggestions help because my email is not stored locally. It is stored on the server. AFAIK There is not option (yet) to skip a specific Outlook folder.
And I do filter my email. I use SpamBayes, and most of my spam is caught. This doesn't seem to stop GDS from indexing it.
My big problem with Google Desktop Search is not the privacy issues, but the fact that it indexes all my email. By that I mean ALL my email, including spam. It is rather annoying to perform an seemingly innocent search and get the first hit being "Bu|y V|agra , Us|e you|r B|G D|CK!" Especially if my manager is looking over my shoulder.
I wonder what the failure mode is like. I mean, even a tiny turbine spinning at millions of RPM must contain a lot of angular momentum.
Can you imagine the engine failing and the little turbine slicing its way out of your laptop and through the side of the building?
Meesa mama say life isa like box of chocolates. Meesa no know whata comes next!
I think you have it nailed. And this is why Microsoft is going to lose.
Microsoft want to own your desktop.
Google doesn't even want you to *have* a desktop. Google Desktop Search is the first step to blurring the difference between the desktop and the internet.
And musicians have been operating like this for 100s if not 1000s of years. The amature "revolution" in music is hardly a new thing.
"Like its rivals, the company is trying to develop new ways to persuade visitors to return more frequently and stay longer once they're there."
What is nice about Google is that they don't keep you there. Once I have found what I am looking, I don't want to be in the search engine any more.
"Users of the new MyJeeves features will be able to save Web pages by clicking on a clearly marked button next to every link turned up in a search request. The saved links then can be placed in individual folders sorted by topic, such as "maps,""weather" and "shopping." Personal notes can be added."
I can already do this. It's called bookmarks.
'"The next generation of search isn't going to be about who can build the biggest indexes (of Web pages)," said analyst Charlene Li of Forrester Research. "It's going to about finding better ways to personalize search results and modify the way the results are presented."'
I think this is so wrong. I do not like personalized pages. I like to know that when I am looking at something, I am seeing the same thing as other people. Nothing is more frustrating than finding a neat page (or part of a page), and not being able to explain to a friend how to find it because her customizations are different.
To bad that's not true, at least not entirely true. The company I work for has firewalls, and AV running on every machine, but that hasn't stopped, for example, worms that exploit bugs in the OS to spread via the network. All it takes is one infected PC or laptop or VMWare image inside the firewall to start the spread.
Apparently you haven't yet seen his $97M house.
Figured out the problem. It was the User Agent Switcher plug-in. It was set to IE, which caused FF to get bongled when loading the java plug-in.
To fix: go into prefs.js and set the general.useragent.override to an empty string. This will allow FF to start.