Ahh, the usual shlashbot rush to be the first to say some obscure slashdot-only tech story is BS from some crank. But if you want to win at that game, you need to make sure it acrtually is an obscure slashdot-only tech story. As opposed to something that Google finds from a couple thousand different news sources.
You believe too highly in news agencies if a couple of thousand sources cover it.;-)
Seriously, bull has spread mighty quickly before.
What you need to look at is the sources for the article, not the number of articles on Google News.
Or it's simply not true, or this would be far more than a myth, and probably pretty well documented.
The Mythbusters could assmeble the testing equipment quite easily, surely some geek interested in this could've done the same the past few decades and experienced any results, assuming they were indeed there.
Experiments on the ISS has been made to better understand biological effects on organisms (humans, plants, etc) in space. If we one day want to send more than these rovers and telescopes to space, these things are pretty useful to know. It has been a useful platform to provide an actual unsimulated environment for these experiments to take place in.
Seems like they're planning one gargantuan Flash site to run it all, judging by their current introductory site and the "flashy" screenshots of their upcoming one.
That's because they are criminals. Failure to turn over your encryption key is an offence under the RIP Act, punishable IIRC by up to two years imprisonment.
I guess that's why one may use TrueCrypt with its support for two-level plausible deniability. I.e. it's practically impossible to prove there isn't more on the encrypted volume than you see, unless you have an enormous time to spend on trying to crack the hidden nested volume.
Heh, and guess who signed the ActiveX component you must install to get their "fix": First 4 Internet Ltd.
"First 4 Internet develops world leading Content Management technology providing Digital Asset Management, Copy Protection, DRM and Image Content Filtering solutions."
Sure is puzzling why they have to use a special service from these guys to simply install a file that removes a rootkit.
If this is about the "Wikipedia 1.0" he's been talking about before (no, I didn't RTFA), they're going to have just a certain number of verified articles included.
If it's not, yes, then it's a lot of articles, and a lot of risks it won't even be as accurate as you may wish a printed encyclopedia to be.
This isn't even bringing up the philisophical arguments of why this is a bad idea...
It's not about censorship of content or layouts, but about making sites work with phones.
If not, they can make a website in.mobi that:
1) is not even intended to work with a phone -- do we want that for a special domain like this?
2) works with special brands of phones with special "web standard extensions". Imagine a Microsoft Smartphone with these under a snazzy name like MSX and companies starts hosting.msx documents instead because it's the Flash of mobiles. A lot of companies catches on because it's flashy and cool, and now you have the regular web but on handhelds.
I live in Sweden, and we have a system like this too. It works reasonably well, although you still get these calls if you have some sort of relationship with them, which they rarely hesitate to abuse. Let's say you're an ISP customer. You'll now get calls about their new phone deals every half a year or so as they expand into the Internet phone market. Or about TV channels as they expand into Internet TV.
DevStudio 2003 is not so great in this regard (although editing forms is easier) but I expect that the 2005 edition is a hell of a lot better.
What I like most about 2005 is that it has honestly got the best UI editor I've seen in an IDE yet with its intelligent guides to align controls, along with it having vastly improved debug and analysis tools, such as a good edit & continue, code coverage analysis, and much more goodies. There are two products I do believe Microsoft is doing really well with nowadays -- MS Office and Visual Studio. Their C++ compiler is even a good (and highly optimizing to boot) ISO compliant one nowadays.
Microsoft + Yahoo runs absolutely no risks by doing this, as opposed to Google. I think Google's aims to "please everyone" just happened to backfire this time around. While it's a good idea on paper, it wasn't one in reality thanks to the regular copyright paranoia.
Sorry, I meant "collecting" here. Was talking about the huge item focus of Diablo II. Most I've heard that like the game still plays it for that, and for many it's addicting as hell. So I wasn't suddenly mixing in the Borg into this discussion.:-)
I learnt that it's very important to keep in mind that a man's visions with a game doesn't make him a good game designer. That's why they often have different designers and visionaries at modern game companies. I'd look at both B&W 1 and 2 for examples of this. And conversely, people with not too many new visions can be excellent designers. I could look at Diablo II for an example of this, in large based on the ancient Roguelikes, and also admitted to be so by the designers at the division formerly known as Blizzard North. Yet it became among the most successful games in modern PC history.
My only recommendation to people not yet having experienced B&W is to try to always keep in mind that this is about a computer game, with the regular limited AI, and regular limited game play through a quest system and limited content, andof course that you don't control a world, but an animal.;-) (seriously -- don't go think this is a Populous or Powermonger!)
This is the kind of game where your fantasy combined with others hype is your worst enemy...
I think B&W is a game that would be earth shattering if ideas and visions ruled game design, but I believe that unfortunately for Peter Molyneux, it's the other way around. Great ideas can lift a game a lot, but it still needs to have the foundation of being fun. If it doesn't, it risk feeling to me like a game made by a "mad designer" where you... well, spend time slapping monkeys to destroy villages. Sure the idea is fun, but without other concepts such as exploits of human's collective minds (Diablo II) or competitive nature (FPS games), strategic and analysing thinking (RTS games), etc, how long is it fun, really? For me, about 2 days or so, and I really wanted it to be good.
There's regular fund drives for their hardware costs anyway (not sure if bandwidth is included), and these have so far been more than successful. Wikipedia also have some sort of deal with both Google and Yahoo! to relieve them of some hardware and bandwidth needs.
Not sure about the administrator payment -- I assumed this was a group of volunteers such as a large bulk of e.g. Mozilla developers?
And no, Wikipedia definitely has no profit motive, that's why the creator started it, and why I think it has been so successful -- they simply state that "The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is a non-profit organization with the goal of providing free knowledge to every person in the world. Meeting this goal through the maintenance, development and distribution of free content, Wikimedia relies on public donations to run its wiki-based projects."
Just recently, it was announced that Opera would start a partnership with Answers.com as well, mostly for their upcoming Opera 9 browser (which is available already as a tech preview). Seems like they're gaining popularity, and for having such a clean site I can't say I dislike it. Looks like a good site that aggregates info from various sources.
However, Wikipedia information/vandalism critics may be opposed to that Answers.com heavily use that service, and it's now starting to get seamlessly integrated in web browsers and spread to other parts of the Internet thanks to the GNU Free Documentation License, the reputable Google.com being one of them (they use it for definition queries as in define:slashdot and Who is Rob Malda). A lot of information control in the hands of you and me, in other words.
In that case, that's a visual style that's changing only the aspects of the UI Windows XP changed. Windows border styles and new flashy button hover effects, etc. Think of it as a different theme/skin, not a way for them to change the UI design guidelines. "OK" will still always be followed by "Cancel", group boxes will still group UI elements with a relation, menus will still be part of the applications and not the dsektop, combo boxes will still be recommended only in "little space" situations, and so on.:-)
Actually, Microsoft has released preliminary design guidelines for Vista, and I was surprised to see how much can be directly applied, and is even recommended to be applied like that, to Windows XP.
Also, even in Windows Vista, just like in XP, can you still apply the Windows 2000 look & feel via a flip of a switch. That if anything should show that all they're really doing are mostly just applying new skins to sell their product, and not coming up with new guidelines that indeed would alienate their broad customer base. If I'm at some user that have applied some simple settings, I often lose myself in thinking I'm working on a Windows 2000 workstation when I'm in reality on XP.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, the usual shlashbot rush to be the first to say some obscure slashdot-only tech story is BS from some crank. But if you want to win at that game, you need to make sure it acrtually is an obscure slashdot-only tech story. As opposed to something that Google finds from a couple thousand different news sources.
;-)
You believe too highly in news agencies if a couple of thousand sources cover it.
Seriously, bull has spread mighty quickly before.
What you need to look at is the sources for the article, not the number of articles on Google News.
Or it's simply not true, or this would be far more than a myth, and probably pretty well documented.
The Mythbusters could assmeble the testing equipment quite easily, surely some geek interested in this could've done the same the past few decades and experienced any results, assuming they were indeed there.
What will they do with Claria/Gator/GAIN spyware technology that they now have access to?
Due to their policies for threat levels, according to Microsoft themselves:
Microsoft Downgrades Claria Adware Detections
Funny it coincided a bit too well with the acquisition rumors of Claria.
And that was discussed before this was found out.
However, before anyone brings it up, I think this was found out to be simply a fake screenshot:
Microsoft AntiSpyware thinks Firefox is Spyware
Experiments on the ISS has been made to better understand biological effects on organisms (humans, plants, etc) in space.
If we one day want to send more than these rovers and telescopes to space, these things are pretty useful to know.
It has been a useful platform to provide an actual unsimulated environment for these experiments to take place in.
200,000 or so is moderately respectable, but not really.
Oh yeah?? Well I don't respect you either!
Google will be dangerous.
However, if you wish, you can still search on e.g. Yahoo! or other services.
They're even catching up with Google's.
It's not like Google will be out there to get you, but I do believe their users should be aware they're using the data they collect about you.
On the other hand, who knows how many search engines hasn't...
Sounds like a Google Personalized on steroids to me.
And that one is at least optional so far.
OK, so I assume their fate is sealed now in this discussion? ;-)
Link: Glide Effortless
Seems like they're planning one gargantuan Flash site to run it all, judging by their current introductory site and the "flashy" screenshots of their upcoming one.
That's because they are criminals. Failure to turn over your encryption key is an offence under the RIP Act, punishable IIRC by up to two years imprisonment.
I guess that's why one may use TrueCrypt with its support for two-level plausible deniability. I.e. it's practically impossible to prove there isn't more on the encrypted volume than you see, unless you have an enormous time to spend on trying to crack the hidden nested volume.
Heh, and guess who signed the ActiveX component you must install to get their "fix": First 4 Internet Ltd.
"First 4 Internet develops world leading Content Management technology providing Digital Asset Management, Copy Protection, DRM and Image Content Filtering solutions."
Sure is puzzling why they have to use a special service from these guys to simply install a file that removes a rootkit.
It was impressive to see that Safari can now pass the acid2 test. . . Now it is the most standards compliant browser
Whoa whoa...
I doubt the Acid2 test tests *everything*?
Actually, since Patch 1.11, Warden is also part of that game to aid catching Maphacks better.
They're probably removed as they aren't recently linked to anymore...
It's really just a protection against Slashdot vandals.
If this is about the "Wikipedia 1.0" he's been talking about before (no, I didn't RTFA), they're going to have just a certain number of verified articles included.
If it's not, yes, then it's a lot of articles, and a lot of risks it won't even be as accurate as you may wish a printed encyclopedia to be.
This isn't even bringing up the philisophical arguments of why this is a bad idea...
.mobi that:
.msx documents instead because it's the Flash of mobiles. A lot of companies catches on because it's flashy and cool, and now you have the regular web but on handhelds.
It's not about censorship of content or layouts, but about making sites work with phones.
If not, they can make a website in
1) is not even intended to work with a phone -- do we want that for a special domain like this?
2) works with special brands of phones with special "web standard extensions". Imagine a Microsoft Smartphone with these under a snazzy name like MSX and companies starts hosting
I live in Sweden, and we have a system like this too. It works reasonably well, although you still get these calls if you have some sort of relationship with them, which they rarely hesitate to abuse. Let's say you're an ISP customer. You'll now get calls about their new phone deals every half a year or so as they expand into the Internet phone market. Or about TV channels as they expand into Internet TV.
DevStudio 2003 is not so great in this regard (although editing forms is easier) but I expect that the 2005 edition is a hell of a lot better.
What I like most about 2005 is that it has honestly got the best UI editor I've seen in an IDE yet with its intelligent guides to align controls, along with it having vastly improved debug and analysis tools, such as a good edit & continue, code coverage analysis, and much more goodies. There are two products I do believe Microsoft is doing really well with nowadays -- MS Office and Visual Studio. Their C++ compiler is even a good (and highly optimizing to boot) ISO compliant one nowadays.
Microsoft + Yahoo runs absolutely no risks by doing this, as opposed to Google. I think Google's aims to "please everyone" just happened to backfire this time around. While it's a good idea on paper, it wasn't one in reality thanks to the regular copyright paranoia.
- Spirit panoramas
:-)
- Opportunity panoramas
I'd assume all there are available in anything from small to huge images in typical NASA fashion.
human's collective minds (Diablo II)
:-)
Sorry, I meant "collecting" here. Was talking about the huge item focus of Diablo II. Most I've heard that like the game still plays it for that, and for many it's addicting as hell. So I wasn't suddenly mixing in the Borg into this discussion.
I learnt that it's very important to keep in mind that a man's visions with a game doesn't make him a good game designer. That's why they often have different designers and visionaries at modern game companies. I'd look at both B&W 1 and 2 for examples of this. And conversely, people with not too many new visions can be excellent designers. I could look at Diablo II for an example of this, in large based on the ancient Roguelikes, and also admitted to be so by the designers at the division formerly known as Blizzard North. Yet it became among the most successful games in modern PC history.
;-) (seriously -- don't go think this is a Populous or Powermonger!)
My only recommendation to people not yet having experienced B&W is to try to always keep in mind that this is about a computer game, with the regular limited AI, and regular limited game play through a quest system and limited content, andof course that you don't control a world, but an animal.
This is the kind of game where your fantasy combined with others hype is your worst enemy...
I think B&W is a game that would be earth shattering if ideas and visions ruled game design, but I believe that unfortunately for Peter Molyneux, it's the other way around. Great ideas can lift a game a lot, but it still needs to have the foundation of being fun. If it doesn't, it risk feeling to me like a game made by a "mad designer" where you... well, spend time slapping monkeys to destroy villages. Sure the idea is fun, but without other concepts such as exploits of human's collective minds (Diablo II) or competitive nature (FPS games), strategic and analysing thinking (RTS games), etc, how long is it fun, really? For me, about 2 days or so, and I really wanted it to be good.
There's regular fund drives for their hardware costs anyway (not sure if bandwidth is included), and these have so far been more than successful. Wikipedia also have some sort of deal with both Google and Yahoo! to relieve them of some hardware and bandwidth needs.
Not sure about the administrator payment -- I assumed this was a group of volunteers such as a large bulk of e.g. Mozilla developers?
And no, Wikipedia definitely has no profit motive, that's why the creator started it, and why I think it has been so successful -- they simply state that "The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is a non-profit organization with the goal of providing free knowledge to every person in the world. Meeting this goal through the maintenance, development and distribution of free content, Wikimedia relies on public donations to run its wiki-based projects."
Just recently, it was announced that Opera would start a partnership with Answers.com as well, mostly for their upcoming Opera 9 browser (which is available already as a tech preview). Seems like they're gaining popularity, and for having such a clean site I can't say I dislike it. Looks like a good site that aggregates info from various sources.
However, Wikipedia information/vandalism critics may be opposed to that Answers.com heavily use that service, and it's now starting to get seamlessly integrated in web browsers and spread to other parts of the Internet thanks to the GNU Free Documentation License, the reputable Google.com being one of them (they use it for definition queries as in define:slashdot and Who is Rob Malda). A lot of information control in the hands of you and me, in other words.
Are you talking about the new Vista UI?
:-)
In that case, that's a visual style that's changing only the aspects of the UI Windows XP changed. Windows border styles and new flashy button hover effects, etc. Think of it as a different theme/skin, not a way for them to change the UI design guidelines. "OK" will still always be followed by "Cancel", group boxes will still group UI elements with a relation, menus will still be part of the applications and not the dsektop, combo boxes will still be recommended only in "little space" situations, and so on.
Actually, Microsoft has released preliminary design guidelines for Vista, and I was surprised to see how much can be directly applied, and is even recommended to be applied like that, to Windows XP.
Also, even in Windows Vista, just like in XP, can you still apply the Windows 2000 look & feel via a flip of a switch. That if anything should show that all they're really doing are mostly just applying new skins to sell their product, and not coming up with new guidelines that indeed would alienate their broad customer base. If I'm at some user that have applied some simple settings, I often lose myself in thinking I'm working on a Windows 2000 workstation when I'm in reality on XP.