22.8 teraflops sounds like a high number, but speed is not the problem... Our brains have approximately 10E11 neurons and each has about 10E4 connections, for an effective 10E15 connections. This would be more comparable to memory rather than processing power.
Furthermore, the difficulty in simulating the human brain is actually more of a software problem rather than a hardware one. Throwing lots of money into bigger and faster machines won't get us too much closer to a workable human brain model. But it might play chess better...
"Not everyone agrees, but it's my conclusion that it is possible to make a conscious computer with superhuman levels of intelligence before 2020"
Even though he's a mathematician, I question the equation he used to come up with 2020. At the rate we've developed in the last 5 years, by 2020 we'd be lucky if automatic vacuums could dust first.
Good lock experts can break into a safe by using a stethoscope to listen to the tumblers in the lock. This is because they have a precise understanding of how the lock works, and a tool accurate enough to distinguish the differences (mainly the stethoscope and their ear). An absurd extension of this might be, if we had a precise understanding of the human brain, and instruments accurate enough to measure the differences in a paramter (like sound, heat, or electric current), one could put a stethoscope up to someone's head and know what they are thinking. Or use an infared signature, or EEG, etc. Equally absurd is knowing what a computer is "thinking" by listening to the noise of the CPU. But, with a precise understanding of the how the CPU works, and tools accurate enough to measure the signatures, it is theoretically possible.
but only if you have an unlimited bankroll, and if there is no limit to how much you can bet. There are very few casinos that have the latter, and no one has the former. So although logically sound, the system is realistically invalid.
How expensive would life in prison become? (Or the ridiculous 300+ years that we sometimes have now?) In fact, imagine that we were immortal; that should lead you to realize that there may be something logically flawed with the punishment of life in prison to begin with. (Of course, I cannot propose a better alternative...)
Tennis has had computerized cameras signaling service errors for years, and it works quite well in conjunction with the line judges. Sometimes the camera signals a fault, and the judge does not. Sometimes the camera doesn't signal a fault, but the judge does find it a fault. Those times are relatively rare, but it hardly changes the game at all. One could argue that with 2 ways to find a fault, there will be slightly more faults than before, so this could translate to slightly more strikes being called in the future. But I don't see this as a big deal for baseball. (And they haven't even turned on the system for decisions during the game- it appears it is only used for post-game analysis at the moment.) As far as the judges fearing for their jobs, I don't think their jobs are being threated by this device. And after using it for a while, I don't think they'll mind it so much either- assumming it is very accurate- which given today's capabilities, I imagine it would be.
That isn't quite what I intended. First of all, in the case I gave, there is only one answer, so that answer would be desired. But for the case of a number that has, say, 10 factors, this function might return a Set of 5 pairs. The return set can be defined in many different ways, and that would be best determined by the designer. But the idea is that the function is called one time, with an entire set as an argument, (or a pointer to a sample space if you prefer), and the compiler/hardware realizes this, and calculates each test in parallel utilizing the "magic" of quantum mechanics. I hope that was more clear.
I agree that solutions are built into a superposition of answers, but that is at the hardware level, or at least IMHO that's where it belongs. In order for the true merits of quantum computing to be useful to a programmer, I believe the language should encapsulate the physics, especially when dealing with finite algorithms such as factoring numbers. The programmer should not need to think (or even know) about probablities when writing algorithms based on discrete mathematics.
Here's my take on the new language. (Sorry this is so simple for you seasoned programmers.)
Consider how you might factor a large number:
N = 23489803289
for (i=3;i lessthan N;i=i+2) {
if (N/i has remainder 0)
FACTORS = i and N/i }
This algorithm takes up to the square root of N tries to complete. This is really slow for big numbers.
If you look at the algorithm, even a quantum computer would not really be able to improve on it, unless you had an EXTREMELY smart compiler that could recognize that each try is independent and could be separated. But that is wishful thinking. Instead, consider using sets:
S: {3, 5, 7,...,sqrt(N)} (S is the set of odd numbers from 3 to the square root of N)
Now the code might look like this:
Function Divide(S(x), N) {
if (N/S(x) has remainder 0)
FACTORS = S(x) and N/S(x) }
Now the Divide function would be called with the entire set. Compilers would still need to be smart, but the intent here is utilize the parallel processing of the New hardware. So I'm guessing a language similar to LISP might be a good starting point.
Another stat, 73% of US downloaders report that their motivation for trading was to sample music for later purchase...
I'm sorry, but that is BS. Granted most people would like to sample music before they buy, and many probably do this. BUT, this is definitely not the primary motivation for downloading music. The primary motivation is more likely to build up their MP3 collection. I always was amazed at how many people bragged about their Gigs and Gigs of music files. These folks ALWAYS listened to their music directly from their computers too. If they didn't have cars, they might never even listen to CDs at all. And this isn't uncommon. I'm not actually saying that those taking the survey were lying. It is completely truthful to say that I download music to sample before I buy. But, it is certainly not the main reason for doing it. I believe most people feel obliged to say this on the survey- because it helps the cause. If you download music just for listening from your computer with no intent to buy, you aren't going to admit that to the record industries (AKA surveys), because that would give them reasons to stop you from doing what you are currently enjoying.
In short, surveys can oftentimes contain loaded questions designed to manipulate the results. I believe this is one of them.
Food for thought: (The songs I list here are my examples, you may disagree, just substitute appropriate songs for you...)
When I think back to the first time I heard particular songs, even without knowing who the artist was, I recall certain times I loved the song right away, for example: Enter Sandman- Metallica Still the One- Shania Twain
(I still enjoy those songs today.)
Then there was some songs that I thought were interesting, for example: Informer- Snow I'm Blue (ah ba dee aba dah)- still don't know by whom
These songs were interesting, not great but the third or fourth time I heard them I kind of liked listening to them.
(Now I hate listening to them.)
Then there's songs like Abercrombie and Fitch girls, which I always hated, and still do. I think there's an obvious marketing trend. The Abercrombie and Fitch song was hyped so much, that they "MADE" you like it, or at least they "MADE" the people like it who would call up and request it to be played, thus making it a hit.
The first group represents good songs that stand the test of time. The middle group represesnts something somewhere in the middle. Now all of these songs were top hits. How do you suppose a computer program will differentiate them? (Or does it matter? A hit is a hit.)
they could put such fine goodies in there that it kills you in 3 months instead of 40 years. that would probably help people quit sooner. (i know, i know, that wouldn't be as profitable....)
most smokers who try to quit end up starting to smoke again days, weeks, or even months later- long after the nicotine addiction has passed. this is due to a psychological addiction which is usually much stronger than the physical addiction to nicotine. this product does not really address this issue, and IMHO, might cause people to smoke more, since they won't be experiencing the nicotine which they need to "take the edge off" of a stressful situation.
I see a couple of posters potentially mistinterpreting some of the information.
"spent 18 months writing 780,000 lines of computer code to develop the browser"
to develop, so the browser itself might only be 20,000 lines. just counting all of the lines in all of your temporary directories, and example code could very easily be that high.
"At seven times it actually crashes so I have limited it to six."
this doesn't say the computer crashed (as many people above mentioned), it doesn't specify. perhaps the application crashed instead (ran out of memory?)
"It has got every single media player built in. It is the first Internet browser in the world to actually incorporate a DVD sidebar. So you can watch a DVD movie in whatever screen size you want and browse the Internet at the same time."
ok, i find this extremely odd. One, every single media player built in? Did he say this? A programmer of the caliber necessary to build this browser would unlikely say something as obviously stupid as that. Who cares? Why do you need more than one media player? If this is a direct quote, then I don't believe it. Surely he must have meant every media format (even that would be hard to believe), but every player just doesn't make sense. Two, did he purchase the encryption algorithm to build his own DVD player? I'm not quite sure how you could do this without modifying an existing DVD player, or building your own. Both of which would require a special license (or breaking the law).
"To make the software more user friendly, it features a talking animated figure called Phoebe."
hmmm, what is the product here? This alone would be a fantastic product. Suddenly I find it hard to believe that a browser that incorporates this would ALSO be 4 times faster, and plays every media format (or has every player), and plays DVD at any size, and was made by one person, who is 16, and in 18 months, no one knew about it. Don't be surprised if we soon find out he's a Raelian.
This article is not about domains. This has nothing to do with domains. All it has to do with is a journalist who has the same name as a member of the band he sometimes writes about. That's it. He is being asked to explicitly say in these articles something like this, "My name is Bill Wyman, but I'm not the same Bill Wyman that is in the band." The request is to prevent confusion of the readers. I don't see why this is such a big deal. In fact, I bet Bill Wyman the journalist IS more successful because of the name, for I bet his articles about the Stones may get more reads if some people think it is written by one of the members. I don't see the request as being so out of line. Of course, it's more of a lawsuit instead of request, which is probably the problem to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Wyman (the Stones) personally called up and made the request, then perhaps Bill Wyman (the journalist) would be honored, and happy to comply. But sending a nasty threatening letter probably didn't make him want to throw up his arms and apologize- as if he never noticed he had the same name before.
From the article, he talks about all of these software tools that he knows: All high level tools compared to the old K&R stuff, but I still have to know the K&R stuff or I'm toast.
(By K&R stuff he is referring to C and pointers.) This is a very good point. Many universities are choosing to teach Java as the first programming language- even to CS majors. This is fine, but it might be very important to learn C++ before becomming an expert in Java, otherwise there could be a tremendous hole in your knowledge, and you won't even realize it. So, if the first language or tool you ever learn is one that does not include all the fundamentals, such as pointers or memory management, make sure you learn these before embarking into the real world. It would be a sad day indeed if an advanced or expert programmer does not understand pointers.
It has been 800,000 years since the last time the poles flipped. At that time, our ancestors were walking around, munching on wooly mammoths an giant sloths, etc., armed with such amazing modern tech as sharpened flint and fire. If they can take it, so can we.
but everyone knows that the earth is really less than 6,000 years old, and that it was created to look like we've had magnetic shifts already, but we really haven't experienced it yet- so you cannot be so sure we'll survive. in fact, it just might be the ending we've been waiting for..... best to double your sunday offering, just in case.
The shift in the magnetic fields is being artifically sped up by a secret operation by the united states government.
a statement like this would be easy to prove if you are "in the know", yet impossible to disprove (regardless of how unlikely it seems). thus, these types of statements will be completely disregarded unless further information is given. so, if you really do have inside information, then please at least share the motive.
I think this should actually shield the virus-writer from any sort of prosecution, shouldn't it? I suppose you could do all sorts of nasty stuff and be completely protected so long as you could prove the user clicked "ok" to the license.
I wouldn't be so sure. No one in their right mind would agree to the things listed in the EULA if they did read it, so its intent is obviously to deceive. Purposely presenting contracts in such a way as to deceive the signer is illegal. Presenting a contract that you know would only be signed (or agreed to) if the signer does not understand the terms of the contract, is blatantly robbing someone of their rights (or attempting to). This is why a guilty plea in the US courts cannot be accepted unless it is clear that the defendent fully understands the charges.
I feel that most of the above posters are missing the point of what they [UR and Xerox] are actually doing. The problem with normal information embedding is that some of the least significant bits are irreversibly altered, whether it's noticeable to the naked eye or not. This idea is taking a portion of the image's least significant bits, compressing them, and adding whatever they want (checksums, author info, etc.) with the compressed data and embedding that into the extra space left over. The amount of data that they can add depends on the entropy of the least significant bits in the image. A completely random picture (white noise), will probably not work for them. The fact is, almost any picture that is worth looking at, whether it be gif, jpeg, bmp, whatever, will have enough entropy to add a significant amount of info to the picture. This is truly an elegent and simple idea.
I believe some other companies have experimented with similiar systems, which they've dubbed 'call centres'.
Although I do see the validity of this statement, I would like to point out that just last night I reserved a room at a hotel in Las Vegas. I saw their prices on the internet and then called to reserve the room. They told me I could only have that price if I actually reserved the room online- they could not give me that price over the phone. I happen to know that Southwest does have something they call "Internet Special" fares, although I don't know for sure if they absolutely won't give you that price over the phone- I tend to think they would anyway. Nevertheless, the complaint is certainly valid. Personally I think suing is a little harsh, but perhaps repeated requests to accommodate his needs have been ignored, so suing is the next step.
Everything about 'Set Program Access and Defaults' says consumers are unwelcome here," the developer said. "It's a barren place, compared to the rest of Windows XP, bereft of simple instructions or extended Help......
.....The trade group contended that the Windows 2000 version "is substantially less intuitive than (the one) in Windows XP
i have sp3 on win2k and i just took a look at the "set program access and defaults" which is so conveniently located on my start menu. (almost annoyingly convenient since i won't use it very often- if ever) Well, it was so easy to use that I can't even imagine what the help doc might say, perhaps something like this: if you want to use you current web browser instead of internet explorer, then select the choice for "use your current web browser", or if you would prefer to use internet explorer as your web browser, then select "use internet explorer". IMAO, if you need a help file to use this tool, then you have no business ever logging in to your machine as Administrator, which is what you need to be in order to use it (and rightly so).
Slashdot Mirror
22.8 teraflops sounds like a high number, but speed is not the problem... Our brains have approximately 10E11 neurons and each has about 10E4 connections, for an effective 10E15 connections. This would be more comparable to memory rather than processing power.
Furthermore, the difficulty in simulating the human brain is actually more of a software problem rather than a hardware one. Throwing lots of money into bigger and faster machines won't get us too much closer to a workable human brain model. But it might play chess better...
"Not everyone agrees, but it's my conclusion that it is possible to make a conscious computer with superhuman levels of intelligence before 2020"
Even though he's a mathematician, I question the equation he used to come up with 2020. At the rate we've developed in the last 5 years, by 2020 we'd be lucky if automatic vacuums could dust first.
Good lock experts can break into a safe by using a stethoscope to listen to the tumblers in the lock. This is because they have a precise understanding of how the lock works, and a tool accurate enough to distinguish the differences (mainly the stethoscope and their ear). An absurd extension of this might be, if we had a precise understanding of the human brain, and instruments accurate enough to measure the differences in a paramter (like sound, heat, or electric current), one could put a stethoscope up to someone's head and know what they are thinking. Or use an infared signature, or EEG, etc. Equally absurd is knowing what a computer is "thinking" by listening to the noise of the CPU. But, with a precise understanding of the how the CPU works, and tools accurate enough to measure the signatures, it is theoretically possible.
but only if you have an unlimited bankroll, and if there is no limit to how much you can bet. There are very few casinos that have the latter, and no one has the former. So although logically sound, the system is realistically invalid.
and you were born in the year 2100 then you would be half the age of the Universe!
How expensive would life in prison become? (Or the ridiculous 300+ years that we sometimes have now?) In fact, imagine that we were immortal; that should lead you to realize that there may be something logically flawed with the punishment of life in prison to begin with. (Of course, I cannot propose a better alternative...)
Tennis has had computerized cameras signaling service errors for years, and it works quite well in conjunction with the line judges. Sometimes the camera signals a fault, and the judge does not. Sometimes the camera doesn't signal a fault, but the judge does find it a fault. Those times are relatively rare, but it hardly changes the game at all. One could argue that with 2 ways to find a fault, there will be slightly more faults than before, so this could translate to slightly more strikes being called in the future. But I don't see this as a big deal for baseball. (And they haven't even turned on the system for decisions during the game- it appears it is only used for post-game analysis at the moment.) As far as the judges fearing for their jobs, I don't think their jobs are being threated by this device. And after using it for a while, I don't think they'll mind it so much either- assumming it is very accurate- which given today's capabilities, I imagine it would be.
That isn't quite what I intended. First of all, in the case I gave, there is only one answer, so that answer would be desired. But for the case of a number that has, say, 10 factors, this function might return a Set of 5 pairs. The return set can be defined in many different ways, and that would be best determined by the designer. But the idea is that the function is called one time, with an entire set as an argument, (or a pointer to a sample space if you prefer), and the compiler/hardware realizes this, and calculates each test in parallel utilizing the "magic" of quantum mechanics. I hope that was more clear.
I agree that solutions are built into a superposition of answers, but that is at the hardware level, or at least IMHO that's where it belongs. In order for the true merits of quantum computing to be useful to a programmer, I believe the language should encapsulate the physics, especially when dealing with finite algorithms such as factoring numbers. The programmer should not need to think (or even know) about probablities when writing algorithms based on discrete mathematics.
Here's my take on the new language. (Sorry this is so simple for you seasoned programmers.)
... ,sqrt(N)}
Consider how you might factor a large number:
N = 23489803289
for (i=3;i lessthan N;i=i+2)
{
if (N/i has remainder 0)
FACTORS = i and N/i
}
This algorithm takes up to the square root of N tries to complete. This is really slow for big numbers.
If you look at the algorithm, even a quantum computer would not really be able to improve on it, unless you had an EXTREMELY smart compiler that could recognize that each try is independent and could be separated. But that is wishful thinking. Instead, consider using sets:
S: {3, 5, 7,
(S is the set of odd numbers from 3 to the square root of N)
Now the code might look like this:
Function Divide(S(x), N)
{
if (N/S(x) has remainder 0)
FACTORS = S(x) and N/S(x)
}
Now the Divide function would be called with the entire set. Compilers would still need to be smart, but the intent here is utilize the parallel processing of the New hardware. So I'm guessing a language similar to LISP might be a good starting point.
Thoughts?
if you haven't seen it, do so. It's about a guy who has a damaged hippocampus. (Can't make new memories.)
Another stat, 73% of US downloaders report that their motivation for trading was to sample music for later purchase...
I'm sorry, but that is BS. Granted most people would like to sample music before they buy, and many probably do this. BUT, this is definitely not the primary motivation for downloading music. The primary motivation is more likely to build up their MP3 collection. I always was amazed at how many people bragged about their Gigs and Gigs of music files. These folks ALWAYS listened to their music directly from their computers too. If they didn't have cars, they might never even listen to CDs at all. And this isn't uncommon. I'm not actually saying that those taking the survey were lying. It is completely truthful to say that I download music to sample before I buy. But, it is certainly not the main reason for doing it. I believe most people feel obliged to say this on the survey- because it helps the cause. If you download music just for listening from your computer with no intent to buy, you aren't going to admit that to the record industries (AKA surveys), because that would give them reasons to stop you from doing what you are currently enjoying.
In short, surveys can oftentimes contain loaded questions designed to manipulate the results. I believe this is one of them.
Food for thought:
(The songs I list here are my examples, you may disagree, just substitute appropriate songs for you...)
When I think back to the first time I heard particular songs, even without knowing who the artist was, I recall certain times I loved the song right away, for example:
Enter Sandman- Metallica
Still the One- Shania Twain
(I still enjoy those songs today.)
Then there was some songs that I thought were interesting, for example:
Informer- Snow
I'm Blue (ah ba dee aba dah)- still don't know by whom
These songs were interesting, not great but the third or fourth time I heard them I kind of liked listening to them.
(Now I hate listening to them.)
Then there's songs like Abercrombie and Fitch girls, which I always hated, and still do. I think there's an obvious marketing trend. The Abercrombie and Fitch song was hyped so much, that they "MADE" you like it, or at least they "MADE" the people like it who would call up and request it to be played, thus making it a hit.
The first group represents good songs that stand the test of time. The middle group represesnts something somewhere in the middle. Now all of these songs were top hits. How do you suppose a computer program will differentiate them? (Or does it matter? A hit is a hit.)
they could put such fine goodies in there that it kills you in 3 months instead of 40 years. that would probably help people quit sooner. (i know, i know, that wouldn't be as profitable ....)
most smokers who try to quit end up starting to smoke again days, weeks, or even months later- long after the nicotine addiction has passed. this is due to a psychological addiction which is usually much stronger than the physical addiction to nicotine. this product does not really address this issue, and IMHO, might cause people to smoke more, since they won't be experiencing the nicotine which they need to "take the edge off" of a stressful situation.
I see a couple of posters potentially mistinterpreting some of the information.
"spent 18 months writing 780,000 lines of computer code to develop the browser"
to develop, so the browser itself might only be 20,000 lines. just counting all of the lines in all of your temporary directories, and example code could very easily be that high.
"At seven times it actually crashes so I have limited it to six."
this doesn't say the computer crashed (as many people above mentioned), it doesn't specify. perhaps the application crashed instead (ran out of memory?)
"It has got every single media player built in. It is the first Internet browser in the world to actually incorporate a DVD sidebar. So you can watch a DVD movie in whatever screen size you want and browse the Internet at the same time."
ok, i find this extremely odd. One, every single media player built in? Did he say this? A programmer of the caliber necessary to build this browser would unlikely say something as obviously stupid as that. Who cares? Why do you need more than one media player? If this is a direct quote, then I don't believe it. Surely he must have meant every media format (even that would be hard to believe), but every player just doesn't make sense. Two, did he purchase the encryption algorithm to build his own DVD player? I'm not quite sure how you could do this without modifying an existing DVD player, or building your own. Both of which would require a special license (or breaking the law).
"To make the software more user friendly, it features a talking animated figure called Phoebe."
hmmm, what is the product here? This alone would be a fantastic product. Suddenly I find it hard to believe that a browser that incorporates this would ALSO be 4 times faster, and plays every media format (or has every player), and plays DVD at any size, and was made by one person, who is 16, and in 18 months, no one knew about it. Don't be surprised if we soon find out he's a Raelian.
But, hey, you never know.
this is a good idea as long as you can assume that the majority of people make the correct choices, but certainly this is not always the case.
This article is not about domains. This has nothing to do with domains. All it has to do with is a journalist who has the same name as a member of the band he sometimes writes about. That's it. He is being asked to explicitly say in these articles something like this, "My name is Bill Wyman, but I'm not the same Bill Wyman that is in the band." The request is to prevent confusion of the readers. I don't see why this is such a big deal. In fact, I bet Bill Wyman the journalist IS more successful because of the name, for I bet his articles about the Stones may get more reads if some people think it is written by one of the members. I don't see the request as being so out of line. Of course, it's more of a lawsuit instead of request, which is probably the problem to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Wyman (the Stones) personally called up and made the request, then perhaps Bill Wyman (the journalist) would be honored, and happy to comply. But sending a nasty threatening letter probably didn't make him want to throw up his arms and apologize- as if he never noticed he had the same name before.
From the article, he talks about all of these software tools that he knows: All high level tools compared to the old K&R stuff, but I still have to know the K&R stuff or I'm toast.
(By K&R stuff he is referring to C and pointers.) This is a very good point. Many universities are choosing to teach Java as the first programming language- even to CS majors. This is fine, but it might be very important to learn C++ before becomming an expert in Java, otherwise there could be a tremendous hole in your knowledge, and you won't even realize it. So, if the first language or tool you ever learn is one that does not include all the fundamentals, such as pointers or memory management, make sure you learn these before embarking into the real world. It would be a sad day indeed if an advanced or expert programmer does not understand pointers.
It has been 800,000 years since the last time the poles flipped. At that time, our ancestors were walking around, munching on wooly mammoths an giant sloths, etc., armed with such amazing modern tech as sharpened flint and fire. If they can take it, so can we.
but everyone knows that the earth is really less than 6,000 years old, and that it was created to look like we've had magnetic shifts already, but we really haven't experienced it yet- so you cannot be so sure we'll survive. in fact, it just might be the ending we've been waiting for..... best to double your sunday offering, just in case.
The shift in the magnetic fields is being artifically sped up by a secret operation by the united states government.
a statement like this would be easy to prove if you are "in the know", yet impossible to disprove (regardless of how unlikely it seems). thus, these types of statements will be completely disregarded unless further information is given. so, if you really do have inside information, then please at least share the motive.
I think this should actually shield the virus-writer from any sort of prosecution, shouldn't it? I suppose you could do all sorts of nasty stuff and be completely protected so long as you could prove the user clicked "ok" to the license.
I wouldn't be so sure. No one in their right mind would agree to the things listed in the EULA if they did read it, so its intent is obviously to deceive. Purposely presenting contracts in such a way as to deceive the signer is illegal. Presenting a contract that you know would only be signed (or agreed to) if the signer does not understand the terms of the contract, is blatantly robbing someone of their rights (or attempting to). This is why a guilty plea in the US courts cannot be accepted unless it is clear that the defendent fully understands the charges.
I feel that most of the above posters are missing the point of what they [UR and Xerox] are actually doing. The problem with normal information embedding is that some of the least significant bits are irreversibly altered, whether it's noticeable to the naked eye or not. This idea is taking a portion of the image's least significant bits, compressing them, and adding whatever they want (checksums, author info, etc.) with the compressed data and embedding that into the extra space left over. The amount of data that they can add depends on the entropy of the least significant bits in the image. A completely random picture (white noise), will probably not work for them. The fact is, almost any picture that is worth looking at, whether it be gif, jpeg, bmp, whatever, will have enough entropy to add a significant amount of info to the picture. This is truly an elegent and simple idea.
I believe some other companies have experimented with similiar systems, which they've dubbed 'call centres'.
Although I do see the validity of this statement, I would like to point out that just last night I reserved a room at a hotel in Las Vegas. I saw their prices on the internet and then called to reserve the room. They told me I could only have that price if I actually reserved the room online- they could not give me that price over the phone. I happen to know that Southwest does have something they call "Internet Special" fares, although I don't know for sure if they absolutely won't give you that price over the phone- I tend to think they would anyway. Nevertheless, the complaint is certainly valid. Personally I think suing is a little harsh, but perhaps repeated requests to accommodate his needs have been ignored, so suing is the next step.
Everything about 'Set Program Access and Defaults' says consumers are unwelcome here," the developer said. "It's a barren place, compared to the rest of Windows XP, bereft of simple instructions or extended Help......
.....The trade group contended that the Windows 2000 version "is substantially less intuitive than (the one) in Windows XP
i have sp3 on win2k and i just took a look at the "set program access and defaults" which is so conveniently located on my start menu. (almost annoyingly convenient since i won't use it very often- if ever) Well, it was so easy to use that I can't even imagine what the help doc might say, perhaps something like this: if you want to use you current web browser instead of internet explorer, then select the choice for "use your current web browser", or if you would prefer to use internet explorer as your web browser, then select "use internet explorer". IMAO, if you need a help file to use this tool, then you have no business ever logging in to your machine as Administrator, which is what you need to be in order to use it (and rightly so).