The last story had a kinda interesting link though: CenSEARCHip -- shows differences in search engine results by country in an interesting visual manner.
I think it's one of those things you see quite a difference with when comparing DVD/HD movies on a store as you walk up close. But I have to wonder how much difference, even on a sizable screen, you see when sitting and watching it from a sofa. Here's a DVD/HD quality comparison at AnandTech by the way (click for larger pictures). I see a difference in color clarity and sharpness especially in the first one, and the photos are admittedly not really doing the displays justice. But I think they do give at least a hint of the quality difference.
Because there's nothing the scientific community loves more than controversy
I thought the set of planetary "rules" should be generic and work for our solar system to avoid controversies.
Scientists generally hate controversies as far as I know. That's why they try to search for unifying theories and theories that work, instead of keeping to invent random unprofessional theories to challenge other established ones with.
Hmm... Jupiter has over twice the proportional difference with Earth as Earth has with Pluto. So I guess Jupiter wouldn't really consider Earth a real planet.
But who asked the Jovians?
We can't really use size relationships as a guideline here, or we could go as small as we wished.:-)
The Plutonias would say a body 1/5th of that planet's size should be a planet too, then.
You can still watch it and the material is everywhere, the problem is just that the original tapes were lost, which is a bummer, but not a huge bummer to me. It would've been nice to see some higher res footage of it than what we have now.
I'm diving straight into technicalities here, but if you're using Visual Studio 2005 and have slowness increasing as code grows in your open documents, you could always try turning off the Navigation Bar (the long horizontal bar just on top of the main code window normally). I never used it anyway, and either something else changed causing it, or I'm seeing quite an increase in basic code navigation speed nowadays. There was a bug related to that one that "should" have been fixed in the betas, but I'm not so sure it was to 100%.
Another thing that I thought become *more* annoying in 2005 is the Intellisense feature that sometimes kicks in and starts parsing the longest source documents in the most inconvenient moments.
Since the dawn of PC gaming, developers have said either one of two things: 1. Piracy will make games really expensive in the future if it keeps going on. 2. Piracy will kill PC gaming.
If they believe piracy will kill PC gaming, they first need to explain why it didn't in... Well, which random year should we pick? The time period 1996-1998?
The only conclusion I can come up with is that Reuters isn't actually looking at the images that come in the door.
Nope, they probably didn't, which is made more clear since they will now try to:
Reuters also said today it had put in place a tighter editing procedure for images of the Middle East conflict to ensure that no photograph from the region would be transmitted to subscribers without review by the most senior editor on the Reuters Global Pictures Desk, according to a Reuters spokeswoman.
It escapes my why in this digital age they don't have this in place already, especially in political conflicts where you can pretty much assume any reporter in place there has one personal view/bias or another on the conflict.
Who cares who invented it first, as long as people are implimenting the slickest ideas and improving on them where possible.
I don't really, but as I say in a more elaborate post below, if they do, then they should be pretty damn sure to not accuse others of copying in the same presentation.
One more thing -- that was the software aspect and main coverage. The hardware introduction seemed very cool, besides the misplaced GeForce 7300 card, for those who have the money to spend on Apple hardware.
I headed for live IRC chat coverage and was prepared to get hyped up over Apple products, a dedication I haven't really shown much since I've not been too interesting in their products. But with their recent change of focus on Intel platforms, things have changed.
But what I heard left a bad aftertaste. Here, Steve is not hesitant at making bold claims of Vista copying OS X, and yet he afterwards goes on with providing Mail with HTML mail features, HTML templates (please god, no!), and todo lists. Their old Outlook child is starting to evolve in other words. Heck, Steve even spent time demoing the "todo notes" feature. What, does he think his audience is brain dead? Who needs a demo of this?
And that's what among the least common features; before that, we had virtual desktops, something *nix has been living with for ages and even Microsoft delivers as a powertoy since years back. And it just kept going on. Windows Server 2003 and Vista's shadow copies being revolutionary, new... shadow copies on Mac? And then there was a brand new... active desktop feature?
iChat was also covered, with several MSN like features, besides basically just one ridculous feature making you your own Conan O'Brien using green screens. Sure, innovative. And bloat in a chat software.
If what he in the start whined about with Vista copying and making e.g. the "Start Menu button" look more jelly/aqua-like, then that was nothing compared to the ripoffs he went on with presenting as OS X features. Among the key features seemed to be their new backup method, that are shared already since years back by Windows and *nix systems alike.
Apple is free to make their software head this way, but for christ sake, the kind of demonstration was a bit like if Microsoft had presented User Access Protection and password protected system action as something new compared to what Linux has.
Oh, and the OS X fans in the chat after the presentation? Well, none of us were really enthusiastic, besides those being sarcastic about now going to start sending HTML mails.
This Wikipedia (untrustworthy, waah waah;-)) article covers both yours "greater than speed of light" and the up-modded grandparent's "universe border" question: Metric expansion of space. If you really dislike Wikipedia, I guess there are something similar elsewhere, probably even better too.:-)
Each time I hear about Valley of the Kings, I start thinking of the end area of Act 2 in Diablo 2.:-p Sure, it's Valley of the Magi, but still. I think I played that game too much...
Sorry, I didn't mean you profit on Google Vids (probably looked like that), just that it's free to do that despite vids costing lots of bandwidth for Google. Which would hint that Google wouldn't really need to grab any shares of music profits.
and offer artists the majority of the profit (aside from what is required for operating expenses).
Google could probably offer them all the profit, just like they do on uploaded videos, which requires even more bandwidth. I think they have such a profitable adword model by now that they don't even need that with a music service. That would be really interesting to see how it would unfold, especially if going to a music.google.com would let you see weekly promotions, or in traditional Google style, computer automated promotions for the artists most voted for by a community. They'd get a little more visible area on the front page, and a part of their profile there. Artists would feel incentive to make good music, and they'd know they got pretty much all the profit thanks to adwords getting bandwidth costs basically out of the way. I think more than one Internet user would find it interesting.:-)
The music industry is in the middle of a revolution still (and they don't want to be in it:-p), and I think more than one Google exec may have been happy they didn't get into this business when they're now starting to see the crap Apple is starting to get, about e.g using DRM at least as much for anticompetitive practices as reducing listening rights, in a sort of an unholy alliance between their corporation and the music industry.
The only way I think Google could get in and win would be if they made a nice little site for indie musicians, completely staying clear of anything labelled Shakira, Backstreet Boys, or that young, rich lady that played with her boobs and sucked a penis on a video tape.
If they made something clever there, things could be interesting. Like giving uploading bands/musicians a profile page, their albums, songs, and downloads, and let them either release them as e.g. a Creative Commons license (most "free"), a free but copyrighted license, or if wishing to go commercial, for a custom fee where 95%+ went to the artists (Google could probably finance most of their bandwidth on adwords like on Google Videos). Then build a community around that where you can discuss and support the artists on forums on their respective pages, and have top lists, etc. Have monthly/weekly featured artists in different genres.
I mean, a service to pretend RIAA don't exist and just let musicians get promoted Google's ways without a need for music companies. I think I would check out such a service.:-)
If the biology of the sea is reverting back to a more primative state, it could mean that a biological reset and redesign is happening. Go back to a checkpoint in the design, scrap what came after it and start again to see if the new design can better cope with the changed environment.
Well, what happens is that more sensitive organisms are being killed (not sure "reverting back" is a normal term to use here), because they're more sensitive to specific conditions and food, while more primitive stuff isn't as much. But yes, evolution may take things in different ways, but keep in mind that a million years is a quite short timeframe in an evolutionary perspective, and that these conditions would also need to remain, for things to happen. I'm not even sure humanity will be around to affect the environment much by then. And by then evolution would perhaps even have made us different too.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure for how long we intend to post news stories on this subject, but here are a few others:
- Yahoo China has the Worst Filtering Policy
- Yahoo, Google 'Irresponsible' In China
- Tangible Impact of Censorship on Search Engines
I think I'm starting to get the message anyway.
The last story had a kinda interesting link though:
CenSEARCHip -- shows differences in search engine results by country in an interesting visual manner.
I think it's one of those things you see quite a difference with when comparing DVD/HD movies on a store as you walk up close. But I have to wonder how much difference, even on a sizable screen, you see when sitting and watching it from a sofa. Here's a DVD/HD quality comparison at AnandTech by the way (click for larger pictures). I see a difference in color clarity and sharpness especially in the first one, and the photos are admittedly not really doing the displays justice. But I think they do give at least a hint of the quality difference.
In Sony World, less is truly more.
I thought the set of planetary "rules" should be generic and work for our solar system to avoid controversies.
Scientists generally hate controversies as far as I know. That's why they try to search for unifying theories and theories that work, instead of keeping to invent random unprofessional theories to challenge other established ones with.
But who asked the Jovians?
We can't really use size relationships as a guideline here, or we could go as small as we wished.
The Plutonias would say a body 1/5th of that planet's size should be a planet too, then.
What features are you speaking of specifically?
:-p
I doubt any major things he listed in his article is going out in the current release candidates.
No, not even when it is about Microsoft. The product entered feature freeze quite some while ago.
And that Microsoft doesn't attack Apple for copying features.
You can still watch it and the material is everywhere, the problem is just that the original tapes were lost, which is a bummer, but not a huge bummer to me. It would've been nice to see some higher res footage of it than what we have now.
I'm diving straight into technicalities here, but if you're using Visual Studio 2005 and have slowness increasing as code grows in your open documents, you could always try turning off the Navigation Bar (the long horizontal bar just on top of the main code window normally). I never used it anyway, and either something else changed causing it, or I'm seeing quite an increase in basic code navigation speed nowadays. There was a bug related to that one that "should" have been fixed in the betas, but I'm not so sure it was to 100%.
See more here: Is your Visual Studio 2005 editor extremly slow when you type?
Another thing that I thought become *more* annoying in 2005 is the Intellisense feature that sometimes kicks in and starts parsing the longest source documents in the most inconvenient moments.
Since the dawn of PC gaming, developers have said either one of two things:
1. Piracy will make games really expensive in the future if it keeps going on.
2. Piracy will kill PC gaming.
If they believe piracy will kill PC gaming, they first need to explain why it didn't in...
Well, which random year should we pick? The time period 1996-1998?
In 2001, there was an estimated amount of 1 camera for every 50 people in England.
Read about the Surveillance Camera Players' tour here.
Thank god, another use for the evil bit!
Or rather, content not having it set.
Nope, they probably didn't, which is made more clear since they will now try to:
Source: http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_
It escapes my why in this digital age they don't have this in place already, especially in political conflicts where you can pretty much assume any reporter in place there has one personal view/bias or another on the conflict.
Another blog covering that stuff:s earch-data-shows-users-planning-to-commit-murder/
http://plentyoffish.wordpress.com/2006/08/07/aol-
I don't really, but as I say in a more elaborate post below, if they do, then they should be pretty damn sure to not accuse others of copying in the same presentation.
One more thing -- that was the software aspect and main coverage.
The hardware introduction seemed very cool, besides the misplaced GeForce 7300 card, for those who have the money to spend on Apple hardware.
I headed for live IRC chat coverage and was prepared to get hyped up over Apple products, a dedication I haven't really shown much since I've not been too interesting in their products. But with their recent change of focus on Intel platforms, things have changed.
But what I heard left a bad aftertaste. Here, Steve is not hesitant at making bold claims of Vista copying OS X, and yet he afterwards goes on with providing Mail with HTML mail features, HTML templates (please god, no!), and todo lists. Their old Outlook child is starting to evolve in other words. Heck, Steve even spent time demoing the "todo notes" feature. What, does he think his audience is brain dead? Who needs a demo of this?
And that's what among the least common features; before that, we had virtual desktops, something *nix has been living with for ages and even Microsoft delivers as a powertoy since years back. And it just kept going on. Windows Server 2003 and Vista's shadow copies being revolutionary, new... shadow copies on Mac? And then there was a brand new... active desktop feature?
iChat was also covered, with several MSN like features, besides basically just one ridculous feature making you your own Conan O'Brien using green screens. Sure, innovative. And bloat in a chat software.
If what he in the start whined about with Vista copying and making e.g. the "Start Menu button" look more jelly/aqua-like, then that was nothing compared to the ripoffs he went on with presenting as OS X features. Among the key features seemed to be their new backup method, that are shared already since years back by Windows and *nix systems alike.
Apple is free to make their software head this way, but for christ sake, the kind of demonstration was a bit like if Microsoft had presented User Access Protection and password protected system action as something new compared to what Linux has.
Oh, and the OS X fans in the chat after the presentation? Well, none of us were really enthusiastic, besides those being sarcastic about now going to start sending HTML mails.
This Wikipedia (untrustworthy, waah waah ;-)) article covers both yours "greater than speed of light" and the up-modded grandparent's "universe border" question: Metric expansion of space. If you really dislike Wikipedia, I guess there are something similar elsewhere, probably even better too. :-)
Each time I hear about Valley of the Kings, I start thinking of the end area of Act 2 in Diablo 2. :-p
Sure, it's Valley of the Magi, but still. I think I played that game too much...
Sorry, I didn't mean you profit on Google Vids (probably looked like that), just that it's free to do that despite vids costing lots of bandwidth for Google. Which would hint that Google wouldn't really need to grab any shares of music profits.
and offer artists the majority of the profit (aside from what is required for operating expenses).
:-)
Google could probably offer them all the profit, just like they do on uploaded videos, which requires even more bandwidth. I think they have such a profitable adword model by now that they don't even need that with a music service. That would be really interesting to see how it would unfold, especially if going to a music.google.com would let you see weekly promotions, or in traditional Google style, computer automated promotions for the artists most voted for by a community. They'd get a little more visible area on the front page, and a part of their profile there. Artists would feel incentive to make good music, and they'd know they got pretty much all the profit thanks to adwords getting bandwidth costs basically out of the way. I think more than one Internet user would find it interesting.
The music industry is in the middle of a revolution still (and they don't want to be in it :-p), and I think more than one Google exec may have been happy they didn't get into this business when they're now starting to see the crap Apple is starting to get, about e.g using DRM at least as much for anticompetitive practices as reducing listening rights, in a sort of an unholy alliance between their corporation and the music industry.
:-)
The only way I think Google could get in and win would be if they made a nice little site for indie musicians, completely staying clear of anything labelled Shakira, Backstreet Boys, or that young, rich lady that played with her boobs and sucked a penis on a video tape.
If they made something clever there, things could be interesting. Like giving uploading bands/musicians a profile page, their albums, songs, and downloads, and let them either release them as e.g. a Creative Commons license (most "free"), a free but copyrighted license, or if wishing to go commercial, for a custom fee where 95%+ went to the artists (Google could probably finance most of their bandwidth on adwords like on Google Videos). Then build a community around that where you can discuss and support the artists on forums on their respective pages, and have top lists, etc. Have monthly/weekly featured artists in different genres.
I mean, a service to pretend RIAA don't exist and just let musicians get promoted Google's ways without a need for music companies. I think I would check out such a service.
Wow, IPv6, now using base-27?
Well, what happens is that more sensitive organisms are being killed (not sure "reverting back" is a normal term to use here), because they're more sensitive to specific conditions and food, while more primitive stuff isn't as much. But yes, evolution may take things in different ways, but keep in mind that a million years is a quite short timeframe in an evolutionary perspective, and that these conditions would also need to remain, for things to happen. I'm not even sure humanity will be around to affect the environment much by then. And by then evolution would perhaps even have made us different too.
Hehe, this comment alone shows why you may have a problem with accepting certain sciences. :-p
As a big fan of nature science, I don't even see the problem.
I would if a priest claimed christianity told a radically different story than many were tought though.
Maybe you're just confusing religion with science...