This test is for compliance with w3c. It has to do with accuracies, not speed or user experience.
The truth of the matter is, IE is its own standard because every developer must comply with it, as is Mozilla. And from the user's standpoint, this test again means nothing because it has nothing to do with experience.
Finally, to say IE5 beats IE7 is another distortion of substance, as they are actually 14%, 13% and 12% in their results, which, if isn't within the margin of error, is within any margin of approximation - they are all the same. The difference in the score between first and second place is 16.
These curve ball articles really do a disservice, as they are only interesting when distorted. If the boring truth were the headline it would read "IE continues to ignore W3C as everyone and their mother continue to follow its specs".
Many school text books find themselves in frequent dust-ups over inaccuracies, while eBay has never been able to keep out scammers and frauds.
User-generated sites like Wikipedia, for all the stuff they get right, still find themselves in frequent dust-ups over inaccuracies, while community-posting boards like Craigslist have never been able to keep out scammers and frauds. And the moral of the storie is, " we will favor better content"? What a leap that is.
The government currently only punishes. They do not reward, and they do not forgive. They take our money and they whip us in line. They are not our friends.
This is why privacy to us is important. If someone is out to get us, then any information we give the only works to their advantage. We feel we have more to lose.
Libraries are more like museums now. And the people who use them are part of the display.
With the internet, not only are libraries inefficient, but they are also a huge waste of time and resources for those who maintain them.
1) They provide educational resources for the community In a very local, expensive, and analog way, yes. Today's kids are beyond that. And you cannot cut educational funding and argue for libraries at the same time if it is for education.
2) They provide a relaxing atmosphere for people to relax Yes, and so does the Starbucks across the street.
Even before the internet, bookstores would cringe at the libraries having all the new books as soon as they did, but it didn't really matter, because EVEN THEN, there weren't enough people fully utilizing the libraries. However, if libraries did share all their books digitally online, that would be cringe-worthy not only for bookstores, but for publishers who still make people pay for the trees they shred and distribute. Of course, one unified federal library online would be enough. It would be more convenient, save tons of money, and would provide an unprecedented collection of books never before accessible by anybody ever. What a silly idea.
When we see things they are not labeled for us, nor is anything described. Our eyes stream video to our brain, and our ears stream audio, and so on. It is at our core that we process the messages that come in, use associations and memory to decypher what we see. Everything is open to interpretation based on what we know already.
Fortunately for us, reallity is very consistent. However, time to time, when reallity does something unexpected, the first thing that happens is we try to approximate it with something we've seen. This is when mistakes happen very easily. Reality can also be cryptic or deceptive when the messages it creates are mixed.
Bigger monopolies do not contribute to innovation. Bill is just saying what is required to get the merger approved by the government. It must "benefit the consumer".
If bigger monopolies innovated faster, then Microsoft would be in the stratosphere. yet they're in an abyss.
To say Yahoo has a lot of great engineers must be very humbling to yahoo, but *drum roll* so does microsoft. I am guessing they have them cuffed to radiators.
It only appears like an addiction. When actually we just have nothing better to do. If work was more fun than playing with our blackberries and iphones and web surfing, we'd be all for it. And we'd be "addicted" to our work.
To equate "habit-forming" to addictive substances in really rude and incosiderate to those who suffer from real addictions like tabacco, alcohol or drugs. These addictions are life threatening, and are biological addictions, not habits.
Second, are these devices the source of the addiction? Aren't we addicted to what these devices "can do for us", as opposed to, "are". We are addicted to communication, information, and entertainment. Anything that enables these natural pleasures will get used. But to say the blackberry or cell phone brings a new addictive ingredient to the mix, seems a bit awkward. We are addicted to "being able to get the news whenever we want", and not "being able to transmit data packets over the airwaves".
Further, it turns out that those unfortunate people who do get diagnosed with conditions such as "internet addiction", usually have underlying issues like depression, or escapism. Nothing about the internet or handhelds will cause a normal person to loose control of their senses or their lives.
Modern scientific theories are all falsifiable, meaning, there is always a theoretical counter example that could possibly disprove the theory. This falsifiability is the reason why these theories evolve and get overwritten - they get falsified.
Falsifiability is also Science's greatest weakness because it guarantees the existence of counter examples. On scientific terms, the opposing party must also use only falsifiable material. This keeps information in check, and ensures that the debate remains scientific. However, when the falsifiabilitiy requirement is abandoned, Science easily loses to those who do not understand or obide by it. Unfalsifiable truths are undisbutable.
This is why when Faith (of any kind) arms minds with unfalsifiable theories, they can not only refute science with certainty and ease, but they can also refute opposing Faiths. When two undisputable truths contradict, the only choices are to ignore, to forgive, or to fight - for there is no common ground.
Apart from Faith, we can also find many examples of unscientific debates taking precedence over scientific ones in the media and in politics. Attempts to misinform the public are made by sponsoring counter-theory campaigns, and these work very well, because the majority is usually incapable of judging scientific basis. This is why it is extremely important for scientific debates to be conducted by scientists, and why science seems so unconvincing at times when presented by someone else.
Unfotunately none of this will change, as long as science is faithful to falsifiability.
Check the link for the Muramasa. The one I linked to is from the archives with info on the 2001 model. As for the price, I bought one for 900, so I guess you are calling me a liar, because you have no information on where or how I made my purchase. I bought one in 2004 at Akihabara, and it was an older model. In the PC market there is far more competition than in the Apple market. And the only reason I bought it was because it was available for 900.
I am happy for Apple-heads who have been waiting for a thin laptop. It's about time. But there is nothing innovative about it technologically, price-wise, or spec-wise. They made it 0.01" thinner than the thinnest notebook so they could brag about it and feed their cult, who go out and fight for them on boards like these for no pay. Apart from that, it is heavier, pricier, and very similar to many. They are capitalizing on their brand more than anything.
Good for them, and great for every happy owner.
But no one should go around hacking facts so they can continue to believe Apple walks on water.
(I am not making any accusations, but I would be troubled if I were showing any such traits.)
The domain name market is a pile of sewage, and anyone who bothers to look knows who's sitting on the toilet.
ICANN stands for I CAN SHIT.
When ICANN speaks have a plunger handy.
Of course this is going on. But insiders looking at queries is such a small problem anyway, it sounds more like ICANN just trying to come off as a good samaritan. Insider DNS info? Querie spying? These are the least of our worries.
Although one of many scams, the practice of registering expired domains is probably the worse. But this is at least done by "crooks". What I find most disgusting is the redemption policy which allows the registrars to do this exact same practice, but "legally". Not to mention throwing up ad pages immediately after your domain expires to make money AND measure traffic.
Games are different. There will always be games in one form or another. Which form will they take? Well, if convenience and accessibility have anything to do with it, then how about in my living room, on my pc, my cell, or a portable device in my pocket? Coincidentally, these all fall under "video games". So unless these mediums go away, video games are here to stay.
As a species we've been playing games far before we started reading, and surely we will continue far after we stop.
1. Vivid images showing up in Google is a good thing for vivid. It means more exposure and more traffic. Remember, google opens the entire page, not just a direct link to the image. Vivid doesn't charge for the pictures indexed by google. Google isn't infultrating their subscription zone, they're indexing their PR zone.
2. Google doesn't do anything preventive. Asking a question is not prevention, it is confirmation. Google does it to protect themselves. It is not about the viewer.
3. Kids know better than their parents when it comes to technology. The thought that more kids know about the "disable filter" feature than parents is troubling.
4. A.xxx solution would only work if it were required. No sites are going to give up their.com names that have established traffic unless it were law. However, even with enforcement, this does nothing to prevent random or foreign porn from being indexed.
Google is not a "content provider", they are a content aggregator Technically correct. It is unfortunately the average user cannot make this distinction.
Sony's notebook was a statement product. It wasn't very practical, but they did it anyway, which is why it is noteworthy.
it is no thinner than the MacBook Air It is.39 inches thick!!! Look at the diagram. Only the hinge is thick. The entire notebook is about half the thickness of the MacBook Air. It's about half the weight, and it must be half in volume as well. Excalty, it is ridiculous.
With that said, at the time, I got myself a Muramasa, which was Sharp's thin notebook. It had a 12" screen, full keyboard, a touchpad, and even a cradle that would charge it and transform it into an external hdd. I paid about 900 dollars. This first came out in 2001. Again, it is thinner than Air except for around the battery.
What a beauty. I chose Sony in my original post because it was more interesting.
I am sure Air is a great notebook. The problem I have is with those who believe Apple is always the first to break new ground or innovate. That is just what Apple wants you to believe.
There is a good reason why the iPhone isn't out in Japan. Phone's there have been "that good" for a long time now. Also their reaction to Air was more like "finally, sigh".
Not to say it is a bad notebook... I have no idea.
No evidence is evidence that they did something, because there would have been evidence otherwise. The government is suppose to be accountable, so knowing that, if the government created a system that removes evidence, then such a system is evidence in itself of their intent to betray their premises. etc.etc.etc.
A simple example would be if Condoleezza Rice had a copy of SureDelete on her desk, she probably wanted to delete files.
They are the government. They are not allowed privacy when it comes to public matters, and this is also a reason for the Freedom of Information Act.
On the other hand, we are allowed privacy (well, lets just pretend), so we can encrypt whatever we want (even if it is to hide stuff from the government).
Still, even if you encrypt your data and torch your old drives, with email everyone who corresponded with you has a remote copy of your message. And then there are all those logs...
And where are all the spies when we need them? Too bad the KGB isn't around to come forward with "lost" emails.
I am curious whether email can even get lost accidentally in the first place. A handwritten letter, fine, but email gets written, saved, archived, sent to the server, copied, recopied, delivered, logged, saved, archived... Plus, even deleting doesn't get rid of the data completely until the disk is overwritten, scrambled, or dipped in lava.
If you *have* to conspire to completely delete emails of such mass quantities, then why isn't this all just a matter of finding the guilty party?
If they build their systems so that no trails are left, then that in itself is evidence of an intent to conspire.
For some reason the even the weather seems easier to predict than terror, yet we still get it wrong. It isn't like the wind and the clouds conspire against us.
The idea is to have a universal subscription system regulated by the government so that ALL music can be distributed through ONE subscription. An incentive distribution model can then be established, so that the money coming in goes to the right people.
I am for going further and having one official government-implemented "pipe" would be most beneficial to the consumer.
free to make digital copies of songs ignores the efforts to create (a) the song and (b) the network that copies the song No. It is a unified subscribtion system established through law. The idea is to move fees from distribution, which is now out-of-date, closer to the creators. As it is, those who control the distribution control the creators. The distributors prefer the law keep the income with them, and let them stand between the artist and their audience. Every artist that doesn't get signed by a record label is a victim.
A songwriter needs to earn money to live. Yes. This would give them a greater percentage of the profits.
The government isn't setting artificial constraints. The government is allowing capitalism to reign. Business set the prices and make the rules. The law is an artificial constraint, because it is man-made, man-enforced, and man-modifiable. Copyright law is not something we find in nature. It is something the government created and backs because it "believes" it helps its people. I am saying that the current law does not keep up with the new paradigm of the internet where distribution is no longer a task. IT IS NOT A TASK. Why would anyone pay for someone to burn information onto a plastic platter, then have it wrapped and shipped to a store, just so you can pick it up, rip it, and throw it away? The record industry was established on the premise that you buy music by buying the physical record, and that by owning the record, you own the music. This was before copying technology. They now have to say "can own but not copy" which was awkward, and now we all know the physical record is redundant so we no longer see much value in it.
Communism I am not even going there.
The law is like a scripting language. It can be used to create law-enabled systems and constraints. The ability to create these laws resides with the government, and so only the government can create these "applications". Be it Communism or any other "form" of government, the only difference is with the implementation of their social systems using laws. Capitalism can remain capitalism, but would we rather have the capitalists (businesses) create laws, or the people? Would we rather have businesses "program" our society?
If the people could choose, I am sure they would vote for:
A. Freedom to copy and share and own every piece of copyrighted material available for a "tax" = ONE subscription for ALL content
Opposed to:
B. Told what they can and cannot copy and paying the distributors, not the artists, a price-fixed market price to own an hour of audio. = ONE fee for EVERY copy
As for capitalism 101, the bigger the market, the more people would get paid, and would therefore be a "good" thing.
if market_size(A) > market_size(B) then
return A;
The real question though is what do we the people want? If there is something better to be had, and the government is preventing us from having it, then there is something that needs to change.
Slashdot Mirror
This test is for compliance with w3c. It has to do with accuracies, not speed or user experience.
The truth of the matter is, IE is its own standard because every developer must comply with it, as is Mozilla. And from the user's standpoint, this test again means nothing because it has nothing to do with experience.
Finally, to say IE5 beats IE7 is another distortion of substance, as they are actually 14%, 13% and 12% in their results, which, if isn't within the margin of error, is within any margin of approximation - they are all the same. The difference in the score between first and second place is 16.
These curve ball articles really do a disservice, as they are only interesting when distorted. If the boring truth were the headline it would read "IE continues to ignore W3C as everyone and their mother continue to follow its specs".
The government currently only punishes. They do not reward, and they do not forgive. They take our money and they whip us in line. They are not our friends.
This is why privacy to us is important. If someone is out to get us, then any information we give the only works to their advantage. We feel we have more to lose.
Libraries are more like museums now. And the people who use them are part of the display.
With the internet, not only are libraries inefficient, but they are also a huge waste of time and resources for those who maintain them.
1) They provide educational resources for the community
In a very local, expensive, and analog way, yes. Today's kids are beyond that. And you cannot cut educational funding and argue for libraries at the same time if it is for education.
2) They provide a relaxing atmosphere for people to relax
Yes, and so does the Starbucks across the street.
Even before the internet, bookstores would cringe at the libraries having all the new books as soon as they did, but it didn't really matter, because EVEN THEN, there weren't enough people fully utilizing the libraries. However, if libraries did share all their books digitally online, that would be cringe-worthy not only for bookstores, but for publishers who still make people pay for the trees they shred and distribute. Of course, one unified federal library online would be enough. It would be more convenient, save tons of money, and would provide an unprecedented collection of books never before accessible by anybody ever. What a silly idea.
Most new models have them, or have the option.
I find it rarer for a notebook the size (weight) of the mbAir not having a built-in drive.
When we see things they are not labeled for us, nor is anything described. Our eyes stream video to our brain, and our ears stream audio, and so on. It is at our core that we process the messages that come in, use associations and memory to decypher what we see. Everything is open to interpretation based on what we know already.
Fortunately for us, reallity is very consistent. However, time to time, when reallity does something unexpected, the first thing that happens is we try to approximate it with something we've seen. This is when mistakes happen very easily. Reality can also be cryptic or deceptive when the messages it creates are mixed.
Bigger monopolies do not contribute to innovation. Bill is just saying what is required to get the merger approved by the government. It must "benefit the consumer".
If bigger monopolies innovated faster, then Microsoft would be in the stratosphere. yet they're in an abyss.
To say Yahoo has a lot of great engineers must be very humbling to yahoo, but *drum roll* so does microsoft. I am guessing they have them cuffed to radiators.
He is making a point about people who assume warning labels are to protect users. The researchers in this article are also some of these people.
pure flaimbait.
Just look at the response it is getting.
It only appears like an addiction. When actually we just have nothing better to do.
If work was more fun than playing with our blackberries and iphones and web surfing, we'd be all for it. And we'd be "addicted" to our work.
To equate "habit-forming" to addictive substances in really rude and incosiderate to those who suffer from real addictions like tabacco, alcohol or drugs. These addictions are life threatening, and are biological addictions, not habits.
Second, are these devices the source of the addiction? Aren't we addicted to what these devices "can do for us", as opposed to, "are". We are addicted to communication, information, and entertainment. Anything that enables these natural pleasures will get used. But to say the blackberry or cell phone brings a new addictive ingredient to the mix, seems a bit awkward. We are addicted to "being able to get the news whenever we want", and not "being able to transmit data packets over the airwaves".
Further, it turns out that those unfortunate people who do get diagnosed with conditions such as "internet addiction", usually have underlying issues like depression, or escapism. Nothing about the internet or handhelds will cause a normal person to loose control of their senses or their lives.
Modern scientific theories are all falsifiable, meaning, there is always a theoretical counter example that could possibly disprove the theory. This falsifiability is the reason why these theories evolve and get overwritten - they get falsified.
Falsifiability is also Science's greatest weakness because it guarantees the existence of counter examples. On scientific terms, the opposing party must also use only falsifiable material. This keeps information in check, and ensures that the debate remains scientific. However, when the falsifiabilitiy requirement is abandoned, Science easily loses to those who do not understand or obide by it. Unfalsifiable truths are undisbutable.
This is why when Faith (of any kind) arms minds with unfalsifiable theories, they can not only refute science with certainty and ease, but they can also refute opposing Faiths. When two undisputable truths contradict, the only choices are to ignore, to forgive, or to fight - for there is no common ground.
Apart from Faith, we can also find many examples of unscientific debates taking precedence over scientific ones in the media and in politics. Attempts to misinform the public are made by sponsoring counter-theory campaigns, and these work very well, because the majority is usually incapable of judging scientific basis. This is why it is extremely important for scientific debates to be conducted by scientists, and why science seems so unconvincing at times when presented by someone else.
Unfotunately none of this will change, as long as science is faithful to falsifiability.
Check the link for the Muramasa. The one I linked to is from the archives with info on the 2001 model. As for the price, I bought one for 900, so I guess you are calling me a liar, because you have no information on where or how I made my purchase. I bought one in 2004 at Akihabara, and it was an older model. In the PC market there is far more competition than in the Apple market. And the only reason I bought it was because it was available for 900.
I am happy for Apple-heads who have been waiting for a thin laptop. It's about time. But there is nothing innovative about it technologically, price-wise, or spec-wise. They made it 0.01" thinner than the thinnest notebook so they could brag about it and feed their cult, who go out and fight for them on boards like these for no pay. Apart from that, it is heavier, pricier, and very similar to many. They are capitalizing on their brand more than anything.
Good for them, and great for every happy owner.
But no one should go around hacking facts so they can continue to believe Apple walks on water.
(I am not making any accusations, but I would be troubled if I were showing any such traits.)
The domain name market is a pile of sewage, and anyone who bothers to look knows who's sitting on the toilet.
ICANN stands for I CAN SHIT.
When ICANN speaks have a plunger handy.
Of course this is going on. But insiders looking at queries is such a small problem anyway, it sounds more like ICANN just trying to come off as a good samaritan. Insider DNS info? Querie spying? These are the least of our worries.
Although one of many scams, the practice of registering expired domains is probably the worse. But this is at least done by "crooks". What I find most disgusting is the redemption policy which allows the registrars to do this exact same practice, but "legally". Not to mention throwing up ad pages immediately after your domain expires to make money AND measure traffic.
Games are different. There will always be games in one form or another. Which form will they take? Well, if convenience and accessibility have anything to do with it, then how about in my living room, on my pc, my cell, or a portable device in my pocket? Coincidentally, these all fall under "video games". So unless these mediums go away, video games are here to stay.
As a species we've been playing games far before we started reading, and surely we will continue far after we stop.
1. Vivid images showing up in Google is a good thing for vivid. It means more exposure and more traffic. Remember, google opens the entire page, not just a direct link to the image. Vivid doesn't charge for the pictures indexed by google. Google isn't infultrating their subscription zone, they're indexing their PR zone.
.xxx solution would only work if it were required. No sites are going to give up their .com names that have established traffic unless it were law. However, even with enforcement, this does nothing to prevent random or foreign porn from being indexed.
2. Google doesn't do anything preventive. Asking a question is not prevention, it is confirmation. Google does it to protect themselves. It is not about the viewer.
3. Kids know better than their parents when it comes to technology. The thought that more kids know about the "disable filter" feature than parents is troubling.
4. A
With that said, at the time, I got myself a Muramasa, which was Sharp's thin notebook. It had a 12" screen, full keyboard, a touchpad, and even a cradle that would charge it and transform it into an external hdd. I paid about 900 dollars. This first came out in 2001. Again, it is thinner than Air except for around the battery.
http://www.sharp.co.jp/products/pcmt1c/
What a beauty. I chose Sony in my original post because it was more interesting.
I am sure Air is a great notebook. The problem I have is with those who believe Apple is always the first to break new ground or innovate. That is just what Apple wants you to believe.
There is a good reason why the iPhone isn't out in Japan. Phone's there have been "that good" for a long time now. Also their reaction to Air was more like "finally, sigh".
Not to say it is a bad notebook... I have no idea.
No evidence is evidence that they did something, because there would have been evidence otherwise. The government is suppose to be accountable, so knowing that, if the government created a system that removes evidence, then such a system is evidence in itself of their intent to betray their premises. etc.etc.etc.
A simple example would be if Condoleezza Rice had a copy of SureDelete on her desk, she probably wanted to delete files.
They are the government. They are not allowed privacy when it comes to public matters, and this is also a reason for the Freedom of Information Act.
On the other hand, we are allowed privacy (well, lets just pretend), so we can encrypt whatever we want (even if it is to hide stuff from the government).
Still, even if you encrypt your data and torch your old drives, with email everyone who corresponded with you has a remote copy of your message. And then there are all those logs...
And where are all the spies when we need them? Too bad the KGB isn't around to come forward with "lost" emails.
I am curious whether email can even get lost accidentally in the first place. A handwritten letter, fine, but email gets written, saved, archived, sent to the server, copied, recopied, delivered, logged, saved, archived... Plus, even deleting doesn't get rid of the data completely until the disk is overwritten, scrambled, or dipped in lava.
If you *have* to conspire to completely delete emails of such mass quantities, then why isn't this all just a matter of finding the guilty party?
If they build their systems so that no trails are left, then that in itself is evidence of an intent to conspire.
If the Attorney General gets to decide who to prosecute, they will not go after their own office.
For some reason the even the weather seems easier to predict than terror, yet we still get it wrong. It isn't like the wind and the clouds conspire against us.
"Now to Brenda, for this weeks terror forcast."
"3% chance of war."
No need to flee the country this weekend. Great.
Here is someone for flat rates, with better writing skills and a higher profile:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/30/music_biz_should_shift/
I am for going further and having one official government-implemented "pipe" would be most beneficial to the consumer. free to make digital copies of songs ignores the efforts to create (a) the song and (b) the network that copies the song No. It is a unified subscribtion system established through law. The idea is to move fees from distribution, which is now out-of-date, closer to the creators. As it is, those who control the distribution control the creators. The distributors prefer the law keep the income with them, and let them stand between the artist and their audience. Every artist that doesn't get signed by a record label is a victim. A songwriter needs to earn money to live. Yes. This would give them a greater percentage of the profits. The government isn't setting artificial constraints. The government is allowing capitalism to reign. Business set the prices and make the rules. The law is an artificial constraint, because it is man-made, man-enforced, and man-modifiable. Copyright law is not something we find in nature. It is something the government created and backs because it "believes" it helps its people. I am saying that the current law does not keep up with the new paradigm of the internet where distribution is no longer a task. IT IS NOT A TASK. Why would anyone pay for someone to burn information onto a plastic platter, then have it wrapped and shipped to a store, just so you can pick it up, rip it, and throw it away? The record industry was established on the premise that you buy music by buying the physical record, and that by owning the record, you own the music. This was before copying technology. They now have to say "can own but not copy" which was awkward, and now we all know the physical record is redundant so we no longer see much value in it. Communism I am not even going there.
The law is like a scripting language. It can be used to create law-enabled systems and constraints. The ability to create these laws resides with the government, and so only the government can create these "applications". Be it Communism or any other "form" of government, the only difference is with the implementation of their social systems using laws. Capitalism can remain capitalism, but would we rather have the capitalists (businesses) create laws, or the people? Would we rather have businesses "program" our society?
If the people could choose, I am sure they would vote for:
A. Freedom to copy and share and own every piece of copyrighted material available for a "tax"
= ONE subscription for ALL content
Opposed to:
B. Told what they can and cannot copy and paying the distributors, not the artists, a price-fixed market price to own an hour of audio.
= ONE fee for EVERY copy
As for capitalism 101, the bigger the market, the more people would get paid, and would therefore be a "good" thing.
if market_size(A) > market_size(B) then
return A;
The real question though is what do we the people want? If there is something better to be had, and the government is preventing us from having it, then there is something that needs to change.
More on the topic:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/whats-the-future-of-the-music-industry-a-freakonomics-quorum/index.html