Sometimes it works the other way, too. You can spell chandelier right and have the wrong thing
happen.
At the bottom of the NYTimes article are advertising links.
The Times sells these links for a premium price
because they supposedly correlate the item being sold with the topic of the article.
So what are the three premium ads selling?
Chandeliers.
On a slightly separate topic, another good EBay
hack is to look for items in the wrong place.
I found disk drives advertised in Camera Accessories and got quite a deal.
Piker! You didn't even work with computers. Here's what ComputerWorld
columnist Frank Hayes
has to say about it:
When I Was A Boy --words and music by Frank Hayes
When I was a boy our Nintendo Was carved from an old Apple tree And we used garden hose to connect it To our steam-powered color tv.
But it still beat that ancient Atari 'Cuz I almost went blind, don'tcha know, Playing Breakout and Pong on a video game Hooked up to the radio.
And we walked twenty miles to the schoolhouse Barefoot, uphill both ways, Through blizzards in summer and winter Back in the good old days. Back when Fortran was not even Three-tran And the PC was only a toy And we did our computing by gaslight When I was a boy.
When I was a boy all our networks Were for hauling in fish from the sea-- Our bawd rate was eight bits an hour (and she was worth it!), And our IP address was just 3.
And you kids who complain that the World Wide Web Is too slow oughtta cut out your bitchin', 'Cuz when I was a boy every packet Was delivered by carrier pigeon
And we walked twenty miles to the schoolhouse Barefoot, uphill both ways, Through blizzards in summer and winter Back in the good old days. Back when Fortran was not even Two-tran And the mainframe was only a toy And we did our computing by torchlight When I was a boy.
When I was a boy our IS shop Built relational tables from wood, And we wrappered our data in oilcloth To preserve it the best that we could.
And we carried our bits in a bucket, And our mainframe weighed 900 tons, And we programmed in ones and in zeros And sometimes we ran out of ones.
And we walked twenty miles to the schoolhouse Barefoot, uphill both ways, Through blizzards in summer and winter Back in the good old days. Back when Fortran was not even One-tran And the abacus? Only a toy! And we did our computing in primordial darkness When I was a boy.
And frankly, I'm older than Frank. At least he had
ones and zeros. We had to pick slivers of flesh from our arms to make ones.
The student is right to refuse,
as he gets no compensation from the service for making money off his original work.
Unfortunately for the submitter, this sort of things appears nowhere in the CBC article.
Yes, the paper is compared to other papers submitted. How one gets from that to 'gets no compensation' is such a thin reed as to be ludicrous. To continue in the own submitters logic, it would be like Olympic atheletes refusing to submit urine samples because they don't get a cut of the testing labs income.
It may well be that the submitter knows more about this case or the student than is visible in CBC article. But as the moderator notes, there's so little detail in here as to be useless. The editorial comments simply further that uselessness.
As the article points out, the technique isn't as effetive as one might initially think. However, there's a clear "next generation" method that I'm sure we'll soon be seeing:
Insert four or five lines of valid extra text -- lines from books, selections from recent USENET postings, etc, etc -- into the spam.
Make the selection semi-random.
Now do it 100 times and send 100 copies to each person on the mailing list.
One of them will get through.
And the spammers will continue to work.
Note that SCO is sueing IBM, not the other way around. For SCO to win the suit, they must positively prove that IBM stole code. IBM (and Linus, etc, etc) needn't prove the negative (that they didn't steal it), either. It is incumbent on SCO to prove the positive.
The various links also point to an order by the judge that
it needs to provide, within 30 days, the code from the Linux kernel to which it says it has rights, and also indicate where IBM has infringed.
The article is dated December 19, 2003,
which means the 30 days is up about 90 minutes after I write this. Anybody know if it's actually happened?
I write this.
Any A US federal judge in Salt Lake City, Utah, has told the SCO Group that it needs to provide, within 30 days, the code from the Linux kernel to which it says it has rights, and also indicate where IBM has infringed.
Stating prejudices up-front: I'm a KDE kind of guy.
There's plusses and minuses to this. On one hand, unified theming is a win, no question. But doing so by adding yet another layer of interface could perpetuate the core differences rather than helping unify them. The world is rife with short-term hacks that are still running; it's one of the big contributors to bloatware.
In addition, it's a one-way change. When the author completes his work, Gnome apps can follow KDE themes, but not vice-versa. That's good for KDE, but not particularly good for Gnome.
It also leads to some subtle UI traps. When I run a Gnome app under KDE, it stands out. In one sense that's bad, as it can be visually jarring. In another sense that's good, as I'm visually alerted to expect some different UI rules. If one can't determine which ruleset to follow by a casual glance at the app, it's going to lead to user confusion.
It's also going to dilute the UI guidelines to both KDE and Gnome. Application writers tend to model their UIs on other apps, not from reading the UI guidelines. An app developer running Gnome apps under KDE look (but not feel!) will assume that either the KDE rules are loose or that he should be developing Gnomish features.
I'm not saying the author shouldn't do this; it's a noble goal and (from the responses on the author's posting) pretty decent code for an alpha/beta release. But we should hope for and work towards better long-term theme engines.
Putting on my cynical hat, note that everyone Micro admits to colluding with (you did read the articles, folks?) is a foreign manufacturer. Given the ever-increasing tend towards protectionism in the US, it's not hard to believe there are purely pragmatic reasons
why the DOJ would grant US-based Micron amnesty while socking it to those Korean and German competitors.
What are you saying here? That Micron et. al. shouldn't be cited for doing illegal things like market-wide collusion simply because RAMBUS tried to illegally pervert the standards process?
IMHO both RAMBUS and price colluders, if guilty, ought to get it in the neck.
Did anyone read the article and follow the links? The benchmarks show that the speed improvement they site exists in only a very few cases. There's almost an equal number of cases where reiser4 is 2-3 times slower than reiser3.
The real situation seems to be that R4 is marginally faster than R3 on the average.
And before replying, try checking the data and see for yourself.
BFS did not start the filesystem-on-top-of-a-database idea. The Inversion file system did this on top of postgres at least ten years ago. That's not to say that BFS didn't do anything creative or do anything less than a fine job, but if you're going to call WinFS
a blatant rip-off of BeFS
you'd better call BSF a blatant ripoff of Inversion.
Rarely was an 'informative' rating supplied with such speed. Only a few responses, and already modded up to +5, too. Who says./ers don't recognize a good thing when they see it?
For years, there has been rumor in r.a.sf.w that (a) the Zones of Thought are artificial, and (b) the authoritative statement of this can be found in Vinges annotations. I've scanned the annotations (tho admittedly not exhaustively) and haven't seen anything to that effect. Anybody else had any luck?
I believe you mean "Courtship Rite" by Donald Kingsbury. Advance apologies if there really is a book "Courtship Rites". But the quote sure sounds like Kingsbury.
I've seen Geer off and on for quite a number of years. He's damned smart, and has damned little people and organizational sense. IMHO it's perfectly reasonable that he'd not consider that his statements in the forum would be taken as representing his employer, doubly so when he lists his affiliation repeatedly.
When you're CTO of a company and repeatedly use that title and the company name in a publication of that sort, the average reader assumes your represent your company. It's not like being a prof at MIT. Noby would assume a prof officially represents the stance of a University. But companies are a differnt world. Bruce represents Counterpane when he does those sorts of publications, and Dan damned well should have known he'd be representing @Stake when he repeatedly listed the affiliation..
I did that to myself once. It was a piece of software that went to comp.sources.unix (or something similar) and was default-configured to send error mail to an alias that pointed to me. A patch was released very shortly afterwards.
And both were so damned simple to use and to customize your menus. Looking at the screenshots of the new release makes me wonder if they're chasing KDE/GNOME for complexity.
Re:Even THAT deserves a mention in slashdot?
on
fvwm Turns Ten
·
· Score: 1
Correct on both counts -- KDE and GNOME are desktop environments which include window managers as part of the package.
Re:Fast Dirty Mirror of the Page in Question
on
LCD Price Fixing?
·
· Score: 1
If memory serves, those articles claimed that half of monitor sales by dollars would be LCDs. With LCD prices higher than monitor, that would be less than half of the total displays sold.
Then again, I think the articles I saw said 2004, not 2006.
I'm betting by 2006 LCDs will be cheaper than CRTs and absolutely dominate the market.
These numbers don't add up....
on
LCD Price Fixing?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't recall seeing any $1000 laptops with UXGA resolutions (tho I could have missed it), and I seem to recall those prices or less for LCD panels.
Further, it's not an apples and apples comparison.
The laptop vendors buy wholesale, in comparatively huge volumes, lots of different sizes all at once, and likely committing to purchase volumes over time. IMHO those combine to drive the price way below what the average LCD monitor guy is selling.
Come to think of it, something similar is going on with memory, processor and disk prices. Take your average laptop, price those components separately, and I'll be you find something that seems to be price gouging for all of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming you'd actually get paid. Who wants to be most users will never see a dime?
Chandeliers.
On a slightly separate topic, another good EBay hack is to look for items in the wrong place. I found disk drives advertised in Camera Accessories and got quite a deal.
And frankly, I'm older than Frank. At least he had ones and zeros. We had to pick slivers of flesh from our arms to make ones.
Do you seriously think your Windows box cares if you love it or not? If it did, it'd be treating you much better.
Unfortunately for the submitter, this sort of things appears nowhere in the CBC article. Yes, the paper is compared to other papers submitted. How one gets from that to 'gets no compensation' is such a thin reed as to be ludicrous. To continue in the own submitters logic, it would be like Olympic atheletes refusing to submit urine samples because they don't get a cut of the testing labs income.
It may well be that the submitter knows more about this case or the student than is visible in CBC article. But as the moderator notes, there's so little detail in here as to be useless. The editorial comments simply further that uselessness.
Insert four or five lines of valid extra text -- lines from books, selections from recent USENET postings, etc, etc -- into the spam. Make the selection semi-random. Now do it 100 times and send 100 copies to each person on the mailing list.
One of them will get through. And the spammers will continue to work.
Note that SCO is sueing IBM, not the other way around. For SCO to win the suit, they must positively prove that IBM stole code. IBM (and Linus, etc, etc) needn't prove the negative (that they didn't steal it), either. It is incumbent on SCO to prove the positive.
Sorry, I should have written December 9, not 19.
The various links also point to an order by the judge that it needs to provide, within 30 days, the code from the Linux kernel to which it says it has rights, and also indicate where IBM has infringed. The article is dated December 19, 2003, which means the 30 days is up about 90 minutes after I write this. Anybody know if it's actually happened? I write this. Any A US federal judge in Salt Lake City, Utah, has told the SCO Group that it needs to provide, within 30 days, the code from the Linux kernel to which it says it has rights, and also indicate where IBM has infringed.
And a fine bit of inspiration it was, clearly.
There's plusses and minuses to this. On one hand, unified theming is a win, no question. But doing so by adding yet another layer of interface could perpetuate the core differences rather than helping unify them. The world is rife with short-term hacks that are still running; it's one of the big contributors to bloatware.
In addition, it's a one-way change. When the author completes his work, Gnome apps can follow KDE themes, but not vice-versa. That's good for KDE, but not particularly good for Gnome.
It also leads to some subtle UI traps. When I run a Gnome app under KDE, it stands out. In one sense that's bad, as it can be visually jarring. In another sense that's good, as I'm visually alerted to expect some different UI rules. If one can't determine which ruleset to follow by a casual glance at the app, it's going to lead to user confusion.
It's also going to dilute the UI guidelines to both KDE and Gnome. Application writers tend to model their UIs on other apps, not from reading the UI guidelines. An app developer running Gnome apps under KDE look (but not feel!) will assume that either the KDE rules are loose or that he should be developing Gnomish features.
I'm not saying the author shouldn't do this; it's a noble goal and (from the responses on the author's posting) pretty decent code for an alpha/beta release. But we should hope for and work towards better long-term theme engines.
What, me cynical?
IMHO both RAMBUS and price colluders, if guilty, ought to get it in the neck.
The real situation seems to be that R4 is marginally faster than R3 on the average. And before replying, try checking the data and see for yourself.
Rarely was an 'informative' rating supplied with such speed. Only a few responses, and already modded up to +5, too. Who says ./ers don't recognize a good thing when they see it?
For years, there has been rumor in r.a.sf.w that (a) the Zones of Thought are artificial, and (b) the authoritative statement of this can be found in Vinges annotations. I've scanned the annotations (tho admittedly not exhaustively) and haven't seen anything to that effect. Anybody else had any luck?
I believe you mean "Courtship Rite" by Donald Kingsbury. Advance apologies if there really is a book "Courtship Rites". But the quote sure sounds like Kingsbury.
When you're CTO of a company and repeatedly use that title and the company name in a publication of that sort, the average reader assumes your represent your company. It's not like being a prof at MIT. Noby would assume a prof officially represents the stance of a University. But companies are a differnt world. Bruce represents Counterpane when he does those sorts of publications, and Dan damned well should have known he'd be representing @Stake when he repeatedly listed the affiliation..
I did that to myself once. It was a piece of software that went to comp.sources.unix (or something similar) and was default-configured to send error mail to an alias that pointed to me. A patch was released very shortly afterwards.
And both were so damned simple to use and to customize your menus. Looking at the screenshots of the new release makes me wonder if they're chasing KDE/GNOME for complexity.
Correct on both counts -- KDE and GNOME are desktop environments which include window managers as part of the package.
Then again, I think the articles I saw said 2004, not 2006. I'm betting by 2006 LCDs will be cheaper than CRTs and absolutely dominate the market.
Further, it's not an apples and apples comparison. The laptop vendors buy wholesale, in comparatively huge volumes, lots of different sizes all at once, and likely committing to purchase volumes over time. IMHO those combine to drive the price way below what the average LCD monitor guy is selling.
Come to think of it, something similar is going on with memory, processor and disk prices. Take your average laptop, price those components separately, and I'll be you find something that seems to be price gouging for all of them.