Has anybody noticed that telemarketers are already making evasive maneuvers to elude the "please do not call me again" warning?
Sample:
[phone rings] Me: "Hello?" Telemarketer: "Yes, I just know you'll be pleased with our offer of Product Y." M: "Sorry--" T: [interrupts] "OkaythenI'llcallbacksomeothertimethankyouforyourt imegoodbye." [click]
As long as they can "complete the call" and hang up before you can identify them and make that "do not call" demand, they simply put you back in the call carousel for the next round of pitches. They want to preserve you as a potential resource. All they're looking for is the tiniest negative reaction to trigger that defensive response.
A good countermove is to engage the caller first. Make them jump through your hoops.
Sample:
[phone rings] Me: "Hello?" Telemarketer: ""Yes, I just know you'll be pleased with our offer of Product Y." M: "Can I ask you two questions?" T: "Sure." M: "What company do you represent?" T: "Company X." M: [quickly] "Put me on your do-not-call list immediately. Can you do that for me? I do not want to receive any more calls from your company."
Write the company name down and the time of the call. Get the caller to spell it out if you're not sure. Keep a list of these calls available whenever the phone rings.
Solicitors are required by law to identify themselves clearly, and to comply with any "do not call" demand. One by one, they can be made to comply.
Act of 22 May 1981 No. 25 relating to Legal Procedure in Criminal Cases (The Criminal Procedure Act) with subsequent amendments, most recently by Act of 17 July 1998 No. 56
Specifically, p.22:
" 69. Even though guilt is deemed to be proved, a prosecution may be waived provided that such special circumstances exist that the prosecuting authority on an overall evaluation finds that there are weighty reasons for not prosecuting the act.
Waiver of prosecution pursuant to the first paragraph can be made conditional upon the person charged not committing any new offence during the probationary period. The probationary period is two years from the day the decision to waive the prosecution was made, but not longer than the limitation period for the institution of criminal proceedings for the act in question.
Waiver of prosecution can also be made conditional upon such conditions as are specified in section 53 of the Penal Code, subsection 2, subsection 3 litrae a to f, subsection 4, and subsection 5. The person charged shall be given the opportunity to comment on the conditions beforehand. When the circumstances of the person charged provide reason for doing so, the prosecuting authority may during the probationary period terminate or alter conditions that have been laid down and fix new conditions."
Apparently, unless a prosecution (trial) is waived, he's assumed guilty until proven innocent. Is this correct, or am I missing something?
*Rights of the accused. The rights of the accused are described in the Criminal Procedures Act. The accused must be informed of the nature of the charge(s) brought against him or her upon being arrested and attending court for the first time. The accused must also be given the chance to refute the grounds on which the charge is based. (Criminal Procedures Act, Sect.90,92,171).
Although the accused has a general right to attend court proceedings and to summon and examine witnesses, the court can order him or her to leave the courtroom while a witness is being examined "if there is special reason to fear that an unreserved statement will not otherwise be made." The accused must be informed subsequently of the proceedings that occurred in his or her absence. In special circumstances, such as if national security interests are at stake, the accused may be entirely excluded from the proceedings. (Criminal Procedures Act, Sect. 135,245).
The court's verdict must be communicated to the accused as soon as possible, along with information on rights of appeal. Court judgements and orders are to be accompanied by reasons. (Criminal Procedures Act, Sect.39-41,43,52).
The accused has the right to bring appeals against court verdicts, both on questions of fact and questions of law. There are, however, several limitations on the exercise of this right. For example, appeals to the Supreme Court, which is the highest judicial body, can only take place if permitted by the Court's Appeals Selection Committee (Kjoeremlsutvalget). Moreover, the general rule is that such appeals can only be based on alleged errors of law. In other words, the Supreme Court is unable to try questions of evidence related to the issue of guilt. (Administration of Justice in Norway, 1980: 65-66; Criminal Procedures Act, as amended new Chapt 23, Sect. 323, 1993).
The accused do not have the right to have their cases tried by jury. As a basic rule, however, appeals from verdicts reached by the court of first instance on cases concerning felonies punishable by more than 6 years' imprisonment are dealt with by the High Court (Lagmannsrett). In these cases, there is a jury (lagrett) present to decide the question of guilt. (Criminal Procedures Act, new Chapt 24, as amended, 1993).
*Assistance to the accused. As a general rule, the accused is entitled to the assistance of defense counsel of his or her choice during all stages of the judicial process. The accused is also provided with the free assistance of defense counsel, chosen by the court, during the main court hearing. There are several exceptions to the latter rule, such as if the case involves a certain minor offense, like driving under the influence of alcohol, or when the accused has made an unreserved confession. However, these exceptions apply only in cases tried by the City or District Court. (Criminal Procedures Act, Sect. 94,96,100,107,262).
IBM thinks differently in this paper and so does CyberSource here.
Summary of the CyberSource comparison study (all $ in US):
Scenario 245 workstations 5 file/print servers 3 developer workstations 1 each mail server, proxy firewall server, intranet/SQL server, e-commerce server 3-year usage period
Caveats Assume all hardware costs are equal (that MS costs are not already applied to each box) Assume all server and infrastructure costs are equal Assume all connectivity costs, consultancy fees, and miscellaneous costs are equal
Windows costs Norton Antivirus: $49.95 MS IIS 5.0: free (bundled with NT and 2000 Server) MS Windows 2000 Advanced Server: $3,999 per 25 licenses (extra licenses $67 ea.) MS Commerce Server: $12,999 per processor MS ISA Standard Server: $1,499 per processor MS SQL Server: $4,999 per processor MS Exchange Server 2000: $1,299 per 5 licenses (extra licenses $67 ea.) MS Windows 2000 Professional full version: $299 per user MS Visual Studio 6.0: $1,079 MS Office Standard Edition $479 per user
Total software cost, Windows: $282,973.50
Linux costs Choice of Red Hat 7.2: $59.95; Mandrake 8.1: $55.00; SuSE 7.3: $79.95 Apache (web server): included or free Squid (proxy server): included or free PostgreSQL (database): included or free Iptables (firewall): included or free Sendmail or Postfix (mail server): included or free KDevelop (development): included or free Gimp (graphics): included or free OpenOffice (office suite): included or free The Exchange Project (e-commerce): included or free
Total software cost, Linux: $79.95
Conclusion Linux software savings: $282,893.55 Translation: More than $1,000 savings per workstation. The only other applicable difference is in administration costs. Just for Windows to draw even, it would have to cost an extra $1,000 per workstation to administrate Linux across 250 workstations. That's a lot of extra money available to spend on competent Linux administration.
The uReach service started in ca. 1999 as a pioneer of sorts in integrating free e-mail with free voice mail, and gave each signup a toll-free number and extension for voice messages.
I signed up early on, and it didn't take very long to figure out that the actual quota (not alluded to in uReach's signup) was 30 MB. uReach's intention was to allocate most of the quota for voice mail, but that wasn't enforced, so my friends and I never used our uReach accounts for anything but e-mail.
The 30 MB space was so generous (five times that of Yahoo Mail, whose 6 MB was generous then) that for about two years my uReach address was my "only" address. At one time I had archived about 24 MB worth of stuff, mostly attachments. In addition to e-mail, I was using my uReach account as a dirty kind of file transfer and storage system.
Therein lies the problem for uReach. My friends and I were only a few of probably tens of thousands of uReach users who used the service for e-mail, file storage and transfer, and nothing else. uReach could not keep up with the increased usage and increased costs of providing the service. So eventually they had to start cranking the screws on its user base. First they yanked the toll-free access number, and I think the voice mail feature likewise disappeared. Then they offered a premium service with increased space (I think it was 100 MB!). Finally, they abruptly scaled back the free e-mail quota to 6 MB. So most of us who had 10, 15, or more MB of stuff on uReach were left in the lurch. Now I don't use uReach for anything except the occasional "yoo-hoo-I'm-still-here" login to ping the account.
Point is, it's simply taken Yahoo longer to arrive at the economic possibility that free e-mail services may not be free forever.
The company she runs from her home, Data Resource Consulting Inc., sends out as many as 60 million such messages a month . ..
Ms. Betterly quickly discovered that she could make a profit if she got as few as 100 responses for every 10 million messages sent for a client, and she figures her income will be $200,000 this year.
Millions people mad at you . . . $200k.
Thousands of/. readers knowing who you are . . . zero dollars.
One lawsuit that puts you out of business . . . priceless.
I don't understand. Are these features you want? Or features included that will get users back?
Um, both. That's the idea.
1. Mozilla does this, and I guess Netscape can if you hand edit the prefs file.
Of course. It's an incentive to use Mozilla (which I use quite often).
2. Most of the time you wouldn't be able to do anything with the edited source, not like you can change other people's pages. Most of the time I just want to see how some effect on a page was done. Copy and Paste work from View, Source. But for when you want to edit, File, Edit Page works fine.
Well, when I'm working on my own pages, in IE all I have to do is edit the code on the fly, then name and save the file appropriately. IE wins there, IMO. Copy and Paste adds unnecessary steps, but ultimately it comes down to apples and oranges.
3. I don't want enter to submit a comment when I'm typing in a text box, I want it to add a new line. On input field it is differt, there aren't multiple lines so enter does what you want. Actually I wish tab didn't leave a text box sometimes.
Okay, I used a rather direct example for convenience, and no, I would never "just hit enter" to submit on Slashdot. (Obviously when pressing enter for a command button, this assumes you have tabbed and highlighted the button first.) But when I use Yahoo Mail I use the enter button to submit the login info... that way I don't have to reach for the mouse. And there are a number of other sites where this is desirable. A few seconds here and there makes a subtle difference. IE and Mozilla win here.
So really, Mozilla already fulfills the criteria I mentioned. It still suffers from some bugs, but it is pretty close to replacing IE full-time for my browsing needs. On the popup-killing issue alone, Mozilla makes the choice almost academic, and I like that:-)
1. Popup blocking (see parent). Yeah, companies might justify the few clickthroughs they get from popups, but they also get poor public relations from the consumers they piss off.
2. Source code in editable format. What good is looking at the source code of a page when I can't do anything with it directly?
3. Command button functionality. I'm entering this comment using Netscape. I can hit the enter key to submit this comment, but Netscape won't comply. Little things mean a lot.
The electronic parking brake is unintuitive and dangerous.
Why? In the BMW if you punch the parking brake button (not controlled by the main iDrive controls, but with a dedicated button on the driver's left hand) while moving, you induce a computer-controlled panic stop on all four wheels. This is way better than a lever-controlled rear-wheel parking brake, because in a panic situation the driver is likely to pull it up too hard, lock up the rear end, and spin.
I think a parking brake button as a replacement to a brake lever is wrong wrong wrong. There are still situations where the driver, and not the car, should control the stop.
BMW's parking brake button only allows one outcome: bringing the car to a panic stop. A brake lever at least allows a measure of control from the driver, so that if the primary brakes fail, the driver may make a modulated stop with the emergency brake.
As a driver I have been in brake-failure situations on two occasions. I used an emergency footbrake in one situation and a handbrake in the other. Each time, I was able to steer the vehicle to a controlled stop in the safe location of my choosing.
In the Bimmer, I would have had to spend precious seconds weighing my options, since I would have had to maneuver in traffic and safely find a place to start the panic stop. This means I would have had fewer situational choices and less control of the stop. That would have made both events more dangerous.
As a result, I would rule out that model BMW as a purchase option based solely on that criteria.
I like an emergency brake that I can control myself, and I do not want to drive a car without one.
With a $3.5 billion drop in net sales in FY2001, and with a stock price under $7 a share, not to mention an increasingly competitive marketplace for OEMs, dontcha think Gateway ought to be focusing on consolidating their business instead of trying wacky new ventures?
Mobilize 500-1,000 Linux consultants for a special "teaching assignment": helping Oregon's students install Linux on all 25,000 computers.
It doesn't take special training to do each install, but multiple installs (say, 15-20) can be overseen at once, by people with adequate experience.
If the logistical details can be achieved (i.e. Linux CDs, consultants, scheduling, workspace requirements, etc.), the actual install can be done in 30 days or less.
This is a real possibility, especially as a real-world, hands-on experience for students who tend to be computer-savvy anyway.
Salon.com's "revelation" that the Star Wars series has a lot in common with classic sci-fi is extremely old news. We knew this almost 25 YEARS ago, people! George Lucas is well documented as having said the series pays homage to Hollywood serials and Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress, among other things. Most people already knew Star Wars is a clever derivative of popular influences, except for Salon.com's clueless writer.
As for the Joseph Campbell reference, the influence he had on Star Wars is way overblown by Bill Moyers, and doubly so by Salon's writer by casting another light on it. That reference should be obscure to the point of complete triviality. I don't think Lucas was nearly as serious about a Campbell association as Moyers, who is really stretching a thin argument.
This brand of Salon.com journalism doesn't pass the "so what" test.
-- Buy a fscking clue. Or steal one. Or rent one. But get one.
A few years ago my girlfriend told me that her next-door apartment neighbor liked to play loud, bassy rap music. She had politely complained to him on a couple of occasions, but he tended to resume his behavior after a while, and she was ready to get the landlord involved.
I decided to try a psyop instead, so I brought my CD of Pulse Demon by Merzbow, stayed at my gf's apartment for a couple of days, and waited.
Her neighbor began pumping his stereo pretty loud, and I gave it a few minutes before I ran my "test." I pointed my gf's speakers to the wall and started Merzbow on very low volume, and slowly cranked it until there would be no mistaking the unholy scream of industrial noise on the other side of the wall. Then we closed the bedroom door and turned up the TV to mask the noise (we didn't want to terrorize ourselves too!).
We waited a full half hour before the guy finally came to the door, and although he was miffed, he seemed more confused than angry. He didn't know what it was. I apologized sweetly and explained that I was showing my gf how to use a shortwave radio a bit too loudly, and oh-by-the-way, could he turn his stereo down too? He said sorry, and left with the same quizzical look he brought with him.
I left my Merzbow CD with her, just in case, and her neighbor rarely played his stereo very loud after that. Apparently the guy moved out a couple of months later. We have Merzbow to thank for his service.
He is not suggesting that capitalism is centrally controlled, because of course it isn't. He was merely pointing out that governmental functions such as the SEC and the Federal Reserve Bank are some of the cornerstones of capitalism -- they set the rules by which the U.S. financial system survives and thrives.
Does governmental policy "promote capitalism"? Damn right it does. Is its role "very, very limited"? Ask a CFO how important the Federal Reserve Chairman is to economic policy.
The federal government's role in capitalism is not to provide it, or to control it, but literally to help govern it.
The line between governance and control is discrete. If an economy is centrally controlled, it is communism. Conversely, an economy without rules is anarchy.
Capitalism is a free market system with rules. George Will knows that.
Northern Light downgraded its relevance about two years ago when they weren't generating enough capital and decided to charge its visitors for "premium" articles. At that point, NL effectively ceased to be a search engine and became an information broker. Nothing's really changed.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see it now.
Clones of Michael Jackson.
Has anybody noticed that telemarketers are already making evasive maneuvers to elude the "please do not call me again" warning?
t imegoodbye."
Sample:
[phone rings]
Me: "Hello?"
Telemarketer: "Yes, I just know you'll be pleased with our offer of Product Y."
M: "Sorry--"
T: [interrupts] "OkaythenI'llcallbacksomeothertimethankyouforyour
[click]
As long as they can "complete the call" and hang up before you can identify them and make that "do not call" demand, they simply put you back in the call carousel for the next round of pitches. They want to preserve you as a potential resource. All they're looking for is the tiniest negative reaction to trigger that defensive response.
A good countermove is to engage the caller first. Make them jump through your hoops.
Sample:
[phone rings]
Me: "Hello?"
Telemarketer: ""Yes, I just know you'll be pleased with our offer of Product Y."
M: "Can I ask you two questions?"
T: "Sure."
M: "What company do you represent?"
T: "Company X."
M: [quickly] "Put me on your do-not-call list immediately. Can you do that for me? I do not want to receive any more calls from your company."
Write the company name down and the time of the call. Get the caller to spell it out if you're not sure. Keep a list of these calls available whenever the phone rings.
Solicitors are required by law to identify themselves clearly, and to comply with any "do not call" demand. One by one, they can be made to comply.
"Remember where you are. This is Thunderdome. Death is listening, and will take the first man who screams."
.
I remember that! I saw a sneak preview of "Thunderdome" at the Mann Chinese in July 1985 (holy shite, that's 17 YEARS!) . .
When that line was uttered, some guy in the back let out a yell. The theater erupted with laughter, followed by lots of hasty shushing. Great moment.
More to the point:
Act of 22 May 1981 No. 25 relating to Legal Procedure in Criminal Cases (The Criminal Procedure Act) with subsequent amendments, most recently by Act of 17 July 1998 No. 56
Specifically, p.22:
" 69. Even though guilt is deemed to be proved, a prosecution may be waived provided that such special circumstances exist that the prosecuting authority on an overall evaluation finds that there are weighty reasons for not prosecuting the act.
Waiver of prosecution pursuant to the first paragraph can be made conditional upon the person charged not committing any new offence during the probationary period. The probationary period is two years from the day the decision to waive the prosecution was made, but not longer than the limitation period for the institution of criminal proceedings for the act in question.
Waiver of prosecution can also be made conditional upon such conditions as are specified in section 53 of the Penal Code, subsection 2, subsection 3 litrae a to f, subsection 4, and subsection 5. The person charged shall be given the opportunity to comment on the conditions beforehand. When the circumstances of the person charged provide reason for doing so, the prosecuting authority may during the probationary period terminate or alter conditions that have been laid down and fix new conditions."
Apparently, unless a prosecution (trial) is waived, he's assumed guilty until proven innocent. Is this correct, or am I missing something?
From WORLD FACTBOOK OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS -- NORWAY:
excerpt 1:
PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL PROCESS
1. Rights of the accused.
*Rights of the accused. The rights of the accused are described in the Criminal Procedures Act. The accused must be informed of the nature of the charge(s) brought against him or her upon being arrested and attending court for the first time. The accused must also be given the chance to refute the grounds on which the charge is based. (Criminal Procedures Act, Sect.90,92,171).
Although the accused has a general right to attend court proceedings and to summon and examine witnesses, the court can order him or her to leave the courtroom while a witness is being examined "if there is special reason to fear that an unreserved statement will not otherwise be made." The accused must be informed subsequently of the proceedings that occurred in his or her absence. In special circumstances, such as if national security interests are at stake, the accused may be entirely excluded from the proceedings. (Criminal Procedures Act, Sect. 135,245).
The court's verdict must be communicated to the accused as soon as possible, along with information on rights of appeal. Court judgements and orders are to be accompanied by reasons. (Criminal Procedures Act, Sect.39-41,43,52).
The accused has the right to bring appeals against court verdicts, both on questions of fact and questions of law. There are, however, several limitations on the exercise of this right. For example, appeals to the Supreme Court, which is the highest judicial body, can only take place if permitted by the Court's Appeals Selection Committee (Kjoeremlsutvalget). Moreover, the general rule is that such appeals can only be based on alleged errors of law. In other words, the Supreme Court is unable to try questions of evidence related to the issue of guilt. (Administration of Justice in Norway, 1980: 65-66; Criminal Procedures Act, as amended new Chapt 23, Sect. 323, 1993).
The accused do not have the right to have their cases tried by jury. As a basic rule, however, appeals from verdicts reached by the court of first instance on cases concerning felonies punishable by more than 6 years' imprisonment are dealt with by the High Court (Lagmannsrett). In these cases, there is a jury (lagrett) present to decide the question of guilt. (Criminal Procedures Act, new Chapt 24, as amended, 1993).
*Assistance to the accused. As a general rule, the accused is entitled to the assistance of defense counsel of his or her choice during all stages of the judicial process. The accused is also provided with the free assistance of defense counsel, chosen by the court, during the main court hearing. There are several exceptions to the latter rule, such as if the case involves a
certain minor offense, like driving under the influence of alcohol, or when the accused has made an unreserved confession. However, these exceptions apply only in cases tried by the City or District Court. (Criminal Procedures Act, Sect. 94,96,100,107,262).
***
excerpt 2:
PENALTIES AND SENTENCING
2. Types of penalties.
*Death penalty. There is no death penalty.
IBM thinks differently in this paper and so does CyberSource here.
Summary of the CyberSource comparison study (all $ in US):
Scenario
245 workstations
5 file/print servers
3 developer workstations
1 each mail server, proxy firewall server, intranet/SQL server, e-commerce server
3-year usage period
Caveats
Assume all hardware costs are equal (that MS costs are not already applied to each box)
Assume all server and infrastructure costs are equal
Assume all connectivity costs, consultancy fees, and miscellaneous costs are equal
Windows costs
Norton Antivirus: $49.95
MS IIS 5.0: free (bundled with NT and 2000 Server)
MS Windows 2000 Advanced Server: $3,999 per 25 licenses (extra licenses $67 ea.)
MS Commerce Server: $12,999 per processor
MS ISA Standard Server: $1,499 per processor
MS SQL Server: $4,999 per processor
MS Exchange Server 2000: $1,299 per 5 licenses (extra licenses $67 ea.)
MS Windows 2000 Professional full version: $299 per user
MS Visual Studio 6.0: $1,079
MS Office Standard Edition $479 per user
Total software cost, Windows: $282,973.50
Linux costs
Choice of Red Hat 7.2: $59.95; Mandrake 8.1: $55.00; SuSE 7.3: $79.95
Apache (web server): included or free
Squid (proxy server): included or free
PostgreSQL (database): included or free
Iptables (firewall): included or free
Sendmail or Postfix (mail server): included or free
KDevelop (development): included or free
Gimp (graphics): included or free
OpenOffice (office suite): included or free
The Exchange Project (e-commerce): included or free
Total software cost, Linux: $79.95
Conclusion
Linux software savings: $282,893.55
Translation: More than $1,000 savings per workstation. The only other applicable difference is in administration costs. Just for Windows to draw even, it would have to cost an extra $1,000 per workstation to administrate Linux across 250 workstations. That's a lot of extra money available to spend on competent Linux administration.
All it means is that you're standing in the moon's shadow.
That's CowboyNeal, you insensitive clod!
The uReach service started in ca. 1999 as a pioneer of sorts in integrating free e-mail with free voice mail, and gave each signup a toll-free number and extension for voice messages.
I signed up early on, and it didn't take very long to figure out that the actual quota (not alluded to in uReach's signup) was 30 MB. uReach's intention was to allocate most of the quota for voice mail, but that wasn't enforced, so my friends and I never used our uReach accounts for anything but e-mail.
The 30 MB space was so generous (five times that of Yahoo Mail, whose 6 MB was generous then) that for about two years my uReach address was my "only" address. At one time I had archived about 24 MB worth of stuff, mostly attachments. In addition to e-mail, I was using my uReach account as a dirty kind of file transfer and storage system.
Therein lies the problem for uReach. My friends and I were only a few of probably tens of thousands of uReach users who used the service for e-mail, file storage and transfer, and nothing else. uReach could not keep up with the increased usage and increased costs of providing the service. So eventually they had to start cranking the screws on its user base. First they yanked the toll-free access number, and I think the voice mail feature likewise disappeared. Then they offered a premium service with increased space (I think it was 100 MB!). Finally, they abruptly scaled back the free e-mail quota to 6 MB. So most of us who had 10, 15, or more MB of stuff on uReach were left in the lurch. Now I don't use uReach for anything except the occasional "yoo-hoo-I'm-still-here" login to ping the account.
Point is, it's simply taken Yahoo longer to arrive at the economic possibility that free e-mail services may not be free forever.
The company she runs from her home, Data Resource Consulting Inc., sends out as many as 60 million such messages a month . . .
/. readers knowing who you are . . . zero dollars.
Ms. Betterly quickly discovered that she could make a profit if she got as few as 100 responses for every 10 million messages sent for a client, and she figures her income will be $200,000 this year.
Millions people mad at you . . . $200k.
Thousands of
One lawsuit that puts you out of business . . . priceless.
I almost thought it said...
...and I quickly thought,
Australia, China Snowboard Shops Use Linux
Wait, there are snowboard shops in China???
Hey, you never know. Someday...
You have requested data that the server has decided not to provide to you. Your request was understood and denied.
It would be nice if the first link loaded.
Anyhow, just judging from the headline and writeup, I don't think it's a "lose" for OS X. These are two solid, admirable servers.
I'd love to pit these against a "comparable" MS product.
....Tux eating an Apple.
Microsoft declined comment on how much of a threat it considers Mozilla, saying it cannot speak on rival products.
By admitting that Mozilla is a rival product, Microsoft has already conceded the first battle.
I don't understand. Are these features you want? Or features included that will get users back?
... that way I don't have to reach for the mouse. And there are a number of other sites where this is desirable. A few seconds here and there makes a subtle difference. IE and Mozilla win here.
:-)
Um, both. That's the idea.
1. Mozilla does this, and I guess Netscape can if you hand edit the prefs file.
Of course. It's an incentive to use Mozilla (which I use quite often).
2. Most of the time you wouldn't be able to do anything with the edited source, not like you can change other people's pages. Most of the time I just want to see how some effect on a page was done. Copy and Paste work from View, Source. But for when you want to edit, File, Edit Page works fine.
Well, when I'm working on my own pages, in IE all I have to do is edit the code on the fly, then name and save the file appropriately. IE wins there, IMO. Copy and Paste adds unnecessary steps, but ultimately it comes down to apples and oranges.
3. I don't want enter to submit a comment when I'm typing in a text box, I want it to add a new line. On input field it is differt, there aren't multiple lines so enter does what you want. Actually I wish tab didn't leave a text box sometimes.
Okay, I used a rather direct example for convenience, and no, I would never "just hit enter" to submit on Slashdot. (Obviously when pressing enter for a command button, this assumes you have tabbed and highlighted the button first.) But when I use Yahoo Mail I use the enter button to submit the login info
So really, Mozilla already fulfills the criteria I mentioned. It still suffers from some bugs, but it is pretty close to replacing IE full-time for my browsing needs. On the popup-killing issue alone, Mozilla makes the choice almost academic, and I like that
1. Popup blocking (see parent).
Yeah, companies might justify the few clickthroughs they get from popups, but they also get poor public relations from the consumers they piss off.
2. Source code in editable format.
What good is looking at the source code of a page when I can't do anything with it directly?
3. Command button functionality.
I'm entering this comment using Netscape. I can hit the enter key to submit this comment, but Netscape won't comply. Little things mean a lot.
. . . where you get your news from.
Me? The only source I trust is Pierre Salinger.
The electronic parking brake is unintuitive and dangerous.
Why? In the BMW if you punch the parking brake button (not controlled by the main iDrive controls, but with a dedicated button on the driver's left hand) while moving, you induce a computer-controlled panic stop on all four wheels. This is way better than a lever-controlled rear-wheel parking brake, because in a panic situation the driver is likely to pull it up too hard, lock up the rear end, and spin.
I think a parking brake button as a replacement to a brake lever is wrong wrong wrong. There are still situations where the driver, and not the car, should control the stop.
BMW's parking brake button only allows one outcome: bringing the car to a panic stop. A brake lever at least allows a measure of control from the driver, so that if the primary brakes fail, the driver may make a modulated stop with the emergency brake.
As a driver I have been in brake-failure situations on two occasions. I used an emergency footbrake in one situation and a handbrake in the other. Each time, I was able to steer the vehicle to a controlled stop in the safe location of my choosing.
In the Bimmer, I would have had to spend precious seconds weighing my options, since I would have had to maneuver in traffic and safely find a place to start the panic stop. This means I would have had fewer situational choices and less control of the stop. That would have made both events more dangerous.
As a result, I would rule out that model BMW as a purchase option based solely on that criteria.
I like an emergency brake that I can control myself, and I do not want to drive a car without one.
Villaneuva Nuñez is declaring that the People have a fundamental right to freely determine how their [computer] systems are governed.
This sounds familiar.
Whether proprietary or open source, We the People must be free to choose without constraints.
This is the Declaration of Software Independence.
--
give me liberty or give me death
With a $3.5 billion drop in net sales in FY2001, and with a stock price under $7 a share, not to mention an increasingly competitive marketplace for OEMs, dontcha think Gateway ought to be focusing on consolidating their business instead of trying wacky new ventures?
Better still...
There are more than 25,000 students in Oregon.
Mobilize 500-1,000 Linux consultants for a special "teaching assignment": helping Oregon's students install Linux on all 25,000 computers.
It doesn't take special training to do each install, but multiple installs (say, 15-20) can be overseen at once, by people with adequate experience.
If the logistical details can be achieved (i.e. Linux CDs, consultants, scheduling, workspace requirements, etc.), the actual install can be done in 30 days or less.
This is a real possibility, especially as a real-world, hands-on experience for students who tend to be computer-savvy anyway.
What a discovery!
Salon.com's "revelation" that the Star Wars series has a lot in common with classic sci-fi is extremely old news. We knew this almost 25 YEARS ago, people! George Lucas is well documented as having said the series pays homage to Hollywood serials and Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress, among other things. Most people already knew Star Wars is a clever derivative of popular influences, except for Salon.com's clueless writer.
As for the Joseph Campbell reference, the influence he had on Star Wars is way overblown by Bill Moyers, and doubly so by Salon's writer by casting another light on it. That reference should be obscure to the point of complete triviality. I don't think Lucas was nearly as serious about a Campbell association as Moyers, who is really stretching a thin argument.
This brand of Salon.com journalism doesn't pass the "so what" test.
--
Buy a fscking clue. Or steal one. Or rent one. But get one.
A few years ago my girlfriend told me that her next-door apartment neighbor liked to play loud, bassy rap music. She had politely complained to him on a couple of occasions, but he tended to resume his behavior after a while, and she was ready to get the landlord involved.
I decided to try a psyop instead, so I brought my CD of Pulse Demon by Merzbow, stayed at my gf's apartment for a couple of days, and waited.
Her neighbor began pumping his stereo pretty loud, and I gave it a few minutes before I ran my "test." I pointed my gf's speakers to the wall and started Merzbow on very low volume, and slowly cranked it until there would be no mistaking the unholy scream of industrial noise on the other side of the wall. Then we closed the bedroom door and turned up the TV to mask the noise (we didn't want to terrorize ourselves too!).
We waited a full half hour before the guy finally came to the door, and although he was miffed, he seemed more confused than angry. He didn't know what it was. I apologized sweetly and explained that I was showing my gf how to use a shortwave radio a bit too loudly, and oh-by-the-way, could he turn his stereo down too? He said sorry, and left with the same quizzical look he brought with him.
I left my Merzbow CD with her, just in case, and her neighbor rarely played his stereo very loud after that. Apparently the guy moved out a couple of months later. We have Merzbow to thank for his service.
--
He is not suggesting that capitalism is centrally controlled, because of course it isn't. He was merely pointing out that governmental functions such as the SEC and the Federal Reserve Bank are some of the cornerstones of capitalism -- they set the rules by which the U.S. financial system survives and thrives.
Does governmental policy "promote capitalism"? Damn right it does. Is its role "very, very limited"? Ask a CFO how important the Federal Reserve Chairman is to economic policy.
The federal government's role in capitalism is not to provide it, or to control it, but literally to help govern it.
The line between governance and control is discrete. If an economy is centrally controlled, it is communism. Conversely, an economy without rules is anarchy.
Capitalism is a free market system with rules. George Will knows that.
Northern Light downgraded its relevance about two years ago when they weren't generating enough capital and decided to charge its visitors for "premium" articles. At that point, NL effectively ceased to be a search engine and became an information broker. Nothing's really changed.