How is Win 98 any easier to install than W2K? They're virtually identical. On top of that, W2K has a ton more hardware drivers, and you generally don't have to worry about conflicts and other such crap with W2K.
Hey, dumbass. Most web pages' visitors are 75-85% IE users. It has nothing to do with what OS you use. It's about what everybody else uses. If everyone else is using IE (and, for the most part, they are), this will impact any page you put on the Web.
Voting on those people you mentioned is the big thing. Of course you don't vote on every little decision. That would be ridiculous. You vote on a CEO that you like and trust to run YOUR company. You don't do any actual management as a shareholder, but you do decide a few large decisions, and you do decide who runs YOUR company. That's very important.
No, I understand that. My point is, people upset with companies seem to think that the way to influence companies is either to band together and vote for one of two gov't parties (not very effective), or to boycott a company (usually, not very effective either). With enough numbers, yes, "consumers" can become "owners" and actually influence the company. If people can be banded together to vote, why can't they be banded together to buy stock? There's virtually no difference between the political parties in the US. Shareholders get to elect the CEO and approve high-level decisions in companes. Which do you think will have more of an impact?
What's to say that a bunch of poor people can't all buy stock and vote as a block? It seems like that'd be a hell of a lot more effective then trying to lobby the government to do a half-assed or militaristic job of fixing things. You want to have a say at an AOL/Time-Warner corporate shareholder's meeting? As of this morning, it'll cost you $52.28.
You know, instead of thinking like a 'Consumer', why don't you try thinking like an 'Owner'. As soon as you buy one share of stock, you're a part owner of the company, and you get to vote on all major decisions, and even attend the shareholder meetings. What to make signficiant change to the company? Get large groups of people to buy stock in the company, and change the damn company yourselves.
but you can't do anything to change a corporation.
Hey dumbass, it's called the stock market. And, unlike in gov't elections, you can 'vote' as many times as you want with stock (it's called buying more shares). Think.
Pride in what you do is pretty pointless when you work for a big organization over which you have no control. It's better to preserve your own interests and not worry about things you can't change.
That's a very immature way to look at a job. At a job, they pay you to do what they say. Why should you care if they use Linux or W2K or a bunch of monkeys in a box?
Why is it that porn is always delibrately left out of these "statistics"? Is it just too damn embarassing for some prudish people? What's the deal with that?
No, no, no. This is not how the Net should be approaching ads. The whole clickthrough thing is totally bullshit. We need to start charging for ads the same way that other media charge: per view. Web sites that run ads are held to much higher, really impossibly high standards that other media don't have to meet.
Billboards, newspapers, television, and radio do NOT report how many people buy a product or use a service as a direct result of the ad. It's impossible. They can't even give an accurate number as to the number of people who see their ads (ratings like Neilsens are just statistical estimates, nothing more). There's no way that somebody can click on a billboard, or even a TV ad. Those of us who run ad sites need to demand to be paid for the number of impressions, or views of the ads, as opposed to actual action on the ads. Right now, just about everybody who gets paid for advertising on the Net is being ripped off.
But the thing is the gov't isn't forcing anything on anybody. You can still access the services in the traditional way. You can still choose to walk to the gov't office and do things that way if you'd like. There are plenty of people without computers. They all still need access.
According to register, you CAN use Chambersign certificates and use Netscape 4.x. Please read the article.
Also, it's a step in the right direction. Having access to gov't services online is fantastic. And yes, not everybody can get to them, but with, what, 90% of people able to get to them online, that's a hell of a lot better than 100% of people standing in line.
Yeah, I've seen those in Crutchfield. I'm getting one the next time I need a car CD player because it's SIMPLE and integrated. No special hard drives, controllers, etc. Blech.
It runs fine on Windows and I suspect quite a few NT admins have chosen to run apache over IIS for price/performance issues.
Really? IIS performs better with dynamic pages, and is free with NT Server. I've never heard of anybody running Apache under NT. Also, if you read the Apache docs, it says all over the place that they dont' recommend that anybody use it on NT.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, why bother with silly things like relevant job skills? So what should they learn? How to code device drivers?
I'd love to see a comparison of the two as servers It's pretty rare that you see a Apple serving anything (especially dynamic websites).
How is Win 98 any easier to install than W2K? They're virtually identical. On top of that, W2K has a ton more hardware drivers, and you generally don't have to worry about conflicts and other such crap with W2K.
Hey, dumbass. Most web pages' visitors are 75-85% IE users. It has nothing to do with what OS you use. It's about what everybody else uses. If everyone else is using IE (and, for the most part, they are), this will impact any page you put on the Web.
Will somebody please explain to me what-in-the-hell-exactly are "enterprise-level features?"
Compare Oracle to MySQL. You'll get the idea.
Like the subject says. You have to consider the additional training and development time involved in using Open Source tools.
Voting on those people you mentioned is the big thing. Of course you don't vote on every little decision. That would be ridiculous. You vote on a CEO that you like and trust to run YOUR company. You don't do any actual management as a shareholder, but you do decide a few large decisions, and you do decide who runs YOUR company. That's very important.
No, I understand that. My point is, people upset with companies seem to think that the way to influence companies is either to band together and vote for one of two gov't parties (not very effective), or to boycott a company (usually, not very effective either). With enough numbers, yes, "consumers" can become "owners" and actually influence the company. If people can be banded together to vote, why can't they be banded together to buy stock? There's virtually no difference between the political parties in the US. Shareholders get to elect the CEO and approve high-level decisions in companes. Which do you think will have more of an impact?
... to add 'smart tags' to words in my site. I dare them.
What's to say that a bunch of poor people can't all buy stock and vote as a block? It seems like that'd be a hell of a lot more effective then trying to lobby the government to do a half-assed or militaristic job of fixing things. You want to have a say at an AOL/Time-Warner corporate shareholder's meeting? As of this morning, it'll cost you $52.28.
You know, instead of thinking like a 'Consumer', why don't you try thinking like an 'Owner'. As soon as you buy one share of stock, you're a part owner of the company, and you get to vote on all major decisions, and even attend the shareholder meetings. What to make signficiant change to the company? Get large groups of people to buy stock in the company, and change the damn company yourselves.
"Near Monopoly"? How do you figure? So, now when do I have to quit my local ISP for AOL...?
but you can't do anything to change a corporation.
Hey dumbass, it's called the stock market. And, unlike in gov't elections, you can 'vote' as many times as you want with stock (it's called buying more shares). Think.
Then what exactly IS a moral good?
Dude: repeat this until you understand:
"It's just a job. I do it to earn money."
Pride in what you do is pretty pointless when you work for a big organization over which you have no control. It's better to preserve your own interests and not worry about things you can't change.
That's a very immature way to look at a job. At a job, they pay you to do what they say. Why should you care if they use Linux or W2K or a bunch of monkeys in a box?
Why is it that porn is always delibrately left out of these "statistics"? Is it just too damn embarassing for some prudish people? What's the deal with that?
Why does Terry Gross keep saying "Lin-ox"??
...Jack doesn't know Jack about Javascript.
No, no, no. This is not how the Net should be approaching ads. The whole clickthrough thing is totally bullshit. We need to start charging for ads the same way that other media charge: per view. Web sites that run ads are held to much higher, really impossibly high standards that other media don't have to meet.
Billboards, newspapers, television, and radio do NOT report how many people buy a product or use a service as a direct result of the ad. It's impossible. They can't even give an accurate number as to the number of people who see their ads (ratings like Neilsens are just statistical estimates, nothing more). There's no way that somebody can click on a billboard, or even a TV ad. Those of us who run ad sites need to demand to be paid for the number of impressions, or views of the ads, as opposed to actual action on the ads. Right now, just about everybody who gets paid for advertising on the Net is being ripped off.
But the thing is the gov't isn't forcing anything on anybody. You can still access the services in the traditional way. You can still choose to walk to the gov't office and do things that way if you'd like. There are plenty of people without computers. They all still need access.
According to register, you CAN use Chambersign certificates and use Netscape 4.x. Please read the article.
Also, it's a step in the right direction. Having access to gov't services online is fantastic. And yes, not everybody can get to them, but with, what, 90% of people able to get to them online, that's a hell of a lot better than 100% of people standing in line.
Yeah, I've seen those in Crutchfield. I'm getting one the next time I need a car CD player because it's SIMPLE and integrated. No special hard drives, controllers, etc. Blech.
It runs fine on Windows and I suspect quite a few NT admins have chosen to run apache over IIS for price/performance issues.
Really? IIS performs better with dynamic pages, and is free with NT Server. I've never heard of anybody running Apache under NT. Also, if you read the Apache docs, it says all over the place that they dont' recommend that anybody use it on NT.