... along with a Wikipedia notice on Marty's own page about his vandalism, and then having it be semi-protected against new and anonymous users.
Indeed this sure hurt more than good it did for the involved politicians, and it's a good test of Wikipedia mechanisms as this may be more common in the future.
If you pick a specific "somebody" to trust, well, then both TV reporting, politicians, and news are out of the picture. If you research something important, you just have to consult multiple sources, it's as simple as that.
What's this "story" about? That MS promotes Vista as more secure and stable? Yes, so? Not hard to imagine unless MS is only making things worse and worse with each release, and also easy to imagine since it's ads for christ sake. Even if it wasn't true, it would still be written. Ads 101.
Is this the article we're supposed to flame Microsoft's ads on and laugh about old BSOD jokes?
I'd be humiliated by someone trying to "lure" me into technology by generalizing me to watch soap operas so it'd be believed to be "efficient" in reaching women.:-p As a man, put yourself in the situation of TV trying to lure you into nursery via Star Trek (it's what a whole lot of guys watch, right? duuhh...:-p).
Why is there even a need to "lure" a gender somewhere?
I think they rather need to make the tech educations more interesting for women (that is: for the general public) in their material used to present the educations with. More information not strictly aimed to those already introduced in the field, but offer some place for them to start, preferrably then in specially organized heterogenous groups of genders so they don't feel like a sole guy in what may otherwise be seen as a "girl job". We had such classes at my university when I studied there, and it was a pretty big hit then, in ~ 1998-2000. Not sure how it went afterwards though, as I stopped keeping track of my former school when I was done with it.:-)
I think part of the problem is that some feel like "outsiders" and may also feel out of place with lots of self-learned guys from earlier getting kickstarted into the education.
And as for the why, I'd definitely like to see more women in the tech field, not (just:-)) for "childish" reasons, but because in the rare circumstances I've worked in more heterogenous situations, I've felt the group has got a bit better dynamics and more varied viewpoints. Maybe it's imagination, but I overall enjoy more working not only with women, but in more mixed teams.
It's interesting how he doesn't address the fact that MS is putting the Internet community at a higher risk because of their own philosophy that you shouldn't pirate.:-p Definitely a stance of "taking care of our company's profits are more important than helping against profit losses caused by problems from our community in general".
It's also, from having used Windows, interesting that he doesn't say that critical security updates still are sent despite Windows copies not having been activated. Isn't this just about non-critical (non security) Windows Update services?
I have a feeling I'm wrong though as a VP should know better, especially to find arguments to make him look better, but I'm pretty sure I'm seeing regularly autodownloading security updates on XP copies using invalid keys, still on SP2.
Um, he doesn't say there isn't DRM anymore, but he assumes he's asking about RMS which is an umbrella API that uses DRM for document/data protection in corporate environments (Office products, etc, could be that it's documented too for general Windows app usage). Again, no name changes here. Two different things though.
Well, ask any company's VP and you'll see the same.;-) They won't exactly go ahead and say "yes, we made a mistake there and now people will have to pay for it unless they upgrade to SP2", etc.:-)
I think it's not really MS. I've seen a lot of MS people talk about their company on blogs etc, and sometimes they're acknowledging bad decisions, sometimes not, and it's even more common not online -- MS can for example internally inform their support crew that Windows Me is the worst crap of an OS they've released to warn; this is from relatives' phone support education stories.:-)
So I think this is about a VP making PR and avoiding making things look bad, not internal MS "hallmarks".
Hmm, I wonder what restrictions you get the source under though.
However, any limited license it may come with for a select few special developers isn't of interest of me really -- what I'm wondering is if this will open up for a leak, like what happened to the Windows 2000 code. That one just happened to be easily tracable too because it was due to some goof up on the company doing it, but what if someone simply uploads the source after taking necessary steps to anonymize it better? There's plenty of ways these days to get that out of the way pretty well unless the source is somehow "marked".
Just so we stay clear about this: MS was the first to support AJAX via XMLHttpRequest, so this is only a change in how they do it.
Mozilla and Opera followed Internet Explorer here.
The easiest way to do that is to come up with a really great browser that supports all the current web technologies, and that is easier to code for than other browsers.
Again, IE was the first to do.
Once it has done that, and it has all the time and money in the world for it to do that, only then can it can start phase 2, the 'extend' phase where it renders all other browsers obsolete.
Hoq do implementing XmlHttpRequest support via non-ActiveX render other browser that already have it obsolete? This isn't some weird "lock out" strategy. Please lose your tinfoil hat, at least in discussions where there's absolutely no need to use it.
Yes. With all the frame issues and stuff, they were pretty bad as well.
I recall that was just if you used "URL cloaking". That el cheapo feature to make it look like you really owned the domain and didn't just use a redirect. I don't really like to use that feature on services that has it and would rather have visitors get an "ugly" URL. It's simply why -- the site becomes hell to bookmark as browsers usually just (by default) use the frameset document. You'd have to navigate submenus and stuff to get the actual contained page you were at...
Slashdot Mirror
... along with a Wikipedia notice on Marty's own page about his vandalism, and then having it be semi-protected against new and anonymous users.
Indeed this sure hurt more than good it did for the involved politicians, and it's a good test of Wikipedia mechanisms as this may be more common in the future.
If you pick a specific "somebody" to trust, well, then both TV reporting, politicians, and news are out of the picture.
If you research something important, you just have to consult multiple sources, it's as simple as that.
Eh... Hopefully, few people around believed the only edits on WP that took place were informative and benefical.
Excuse me if this comes off as insensitive, but jeez, only 7 people died.
Is it called that because it's an economical national tragedy or what?
Is it because it was aired live on TV? Does media coverage make it more of a tragedy?
What sort of national tragedy is it exactly?
Because far more dies annually on average in both airplane and traffic accidents.
What's this "story" about? That MS promotes Vista as more secure and stable? Yes, so? Not hard to imagine unless MS is only making things worse and worse with each release, and also easy to imagine since it's ads for christ sake. Even if it wasn't true, it would still be written. Ads 101.
Is this the article we're supposed to flame Microsoft's ads on and laugh about old BSOD jokes?
Hmm, and here I thought Cthulhu had been spotted already...
Yes.
:-)
If not, change from your stupid uptight job and become a sysadmin like so many others here.
ME: *oof* Ex-CUSE me
It's "ex-SQUEEZE me", you insensitive clod!
Sincerely,
The Jar-Jar Remembrance Foundation
It may have been curious, looking for a meal or a girlfriend, said Jim Cosgrove of the Royal B.C. Museum.
Funny, my girlfriend attacks my expensive and sensitive equipment when I'm on too long.
And like that sub, it's not insured either!
Are we seeing an interspecies relationship here?
Hmm, and if Google would defend MS, it is as if a million /.'ers would suddenly cry out in terror...? :-)
I'd be humiliated by someone trying to "lure" me into technology by generalizing me to watch soap operas so it'd be believed to be "efficient" in reaching women. :-p As a man, put yourself in the situation of TV trying to lure you into nursery via Star Trek (it's what a whole lot of guys watch, right? duuhh... :-p).
:-)
:-)) for "childish" reasons, but because in the rare circumstances I've worked in more heterogenous situations, I've felt the group has got a bit better dynamics and more varied viewpoints. Maybe it's imagination, but I overall enjoy more working not only with women, but in more mixed teams.
Why is there even a need to "lure" a gender somewhere?
I think they rather need to make the tech educations more interesting for women (that is: for the general public) in their material used to present the educations with. More information not strictly aimed to those already introduced in the field, but offer some place for them to start, preferrably then in specially organized heterogenous groups of genders so they don't feel like a sole guy in what may otherwise be seen as a "girl job". We had such classes at my university when I studied there, and it was a pretty big hit then, in ~ 1998-2000. Not sure how it went afterwards though, as I stopped keeping track of my former school when I was done with it.
I think part of the problem is that some feel like "outsiders" and may also feel out of place with lots of self-learned guys from earlier getting kickstarted into the education.
And as for the why, I'd definitely like to see more women in the tech field, not (just
and throws its people into jail without a trial for speaking out against the establishment.
Hmm, that reminds me of any country and "terrorists".
and it's complexity just fell together.
;-)
;-)
They believe it "fell together" during a few billion years, yes.
Obviosly complexity just doesn't "happen"; not even evolutionists believe that.
Meanwhile, God made the world in 7 days.
It's interesting how he doesn't address the fact that MS is putting the Internet community at a higher risk because of their own philosophy that you shouldn't pirate. :-p Definitely a stance of "taking care of our company's profits are more important than helping against profit losses caused by problems from our community in general".
It's also, from having used Windows, interesting that he doesn't say that critical security updates still are sent despite Windows copies not having been activated. Isn't this just about non-critical (non security) Windows Update services?
I have a feeling I'm wrong though as a VP should know better, especially to find arguments to make him look better, but I'm pretty sure I'm seeing regularly autodownloading security updates on XP copies using invalid keys, still on SP2.
Um, he doesn't say there isn't DRM anymore, but he assumes he's asking about RMS which is an umbrella API that uses DRM for document/data protection in corporate environments (Office products, etc, could be that it's documented too for general Windows app usage). Again, no name changes here. Two different things though.
Well, ask any company's VP and you'll see the same. ;-) :-)
:-)
They won't exactly go ahead and say "yes, we made a mistake there and now people will have to pay for it unless they upgrade to SP2", etc.
I think it's not really MS. I've seen a lot of MS people talk about their company on blogs etc, and sometimes they're acknowledging bad decisions, sometimes not, and it's even more common not online -- MS can for example internally inform their support crew that Windows Me is the worst crap of an OS they've released to warn; this is from relatives' phone support education stories.
So I think this is about a VP making PR and avoiding making things look bad, not internal MS "hallmarks".
Web developers shouldn't aim for writing for one browser, but as many as possible.
They're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
They're doing what led us into this shitty IE situation in the first place; targetting specific browsers instead of the public.
Can anyone tell me what's here that can't be visualized with GIF's?
Even if it'd mean less features for the user, they should at least graciously fall back to a more basic technology than SVG's.
How do these pages look on IE, Opera, Safari, or Konqueror under default configurations?
If this is what Google sometimes wish to do, design pages to push a specific browser, they're no better than Microsoft.
Wow, what do the NDA terms include to make not even the slightest bits leak out on e.g. Freenet?
:-)
(besides it's terrible transfer speeds, hehe)
Decapitation and beheading being penalties for violating it?
Hmm, I wonder what restrictions you get the source under though.
However, any limited license it may come with for a select few special developers isn't of interest of me really -- what I'm wondering is if this will open up for a leak, like what happened to the Windows 2000 code. That one just happened to be easily tracable too because it was due to some goof up on the company doing it, but what if someone simply uploads the source after taking necessary steps to anonymize it better? There's plenty of ways these days to get that out of the way pretty well unless the source is somehow "marked".
Wow, that'll like take... ages to replace for the million sized community.
It's good that MS is supporting web standards
Just so we stay clear about this: MS was the first to support AJAX via XMLHttpRequest, so this is only a change in how they do it.
Mozilla and Opera followed Internet Explorer here.
The easiest way to do that is to come up with a really great browser that supports all the current web technologies, and that is easier to code for than other browsers.
Again, IE was the first to do.
Once it has done that, and it has all the time and money in the world for it to do that, only then can it can start phase 2, the 'extend' phase where it renders all other browsers obsolete.
Hoq do implementing XmlHttpRequest support via non-ActiveX render other browser that already have it obsolete? This isn't some weird "lock out" strategy. Please lose your tinfoil hat, at least in discussions where there's absolutely no need to use it.
Heck, they don't even have an implimentation.
They had the first implementation.
Yes. With all the frame issues and stuff, they were pretty bad as well.
I recall that was just if you used "URL cloaking". That el cheapo feature to make it look like you really owned the domain and didn't just use a redirect. I don't really like to use that feature on services that has it and would rather have visitors get an "ugly" URL. It's simply why -- the site becomes hell to bookmark as browsers usually just (by default) use the frameset document. You'd have to navigate submenus and stuff to get the actual contained page you were at...
Anyone remember those back in the happy early days of circa HTML 3 Internet? :-)
I recall them once being a rather clean host, and among the first more well-known ones offering free subdomains.
If you RTFA's linked, you'll see that Vivid Entertainment believes both formats will provide an acceptable DRM solution for them.