Where to get more information? Is there a job board somewhere, preferably not monster, careerbuilder, etc.?
Me and a group of friends are looking for something to do for the next few years, working for oil in Canada sounds interesting. All different backgrounds and skills.
Re:Do we need to encourage evangelism?
on
World Firefox Day
·
· Score: 1
I agree with you. Being a long time Firefox user, I have no real desire to engage in this evangelism as you put it.
However, thinking about the newly converted, I'm guessing there's a lot of folks who are still goofily happy over finding and using Firefox that their enthusiasm to engage in this campaign will be great.
Because of the large number of recent convertees, I'm sure this campaign may very will succeed. I guess we'll see.
You've all seen games.yahoo.com. A lot of the games there are priced at $20, which for the simplistic and fun nature of the games is the right price.
Yes, I'm guessing the hard core video game market is suffering, but that doesn't mean the video game industry as a whole is suffering. I bet Yahoo is making a killing on these games, as are the independant little game studios producing them. Or how about the cell phone game market? They're definetly not suffering.
Do we really need epic $60-100 games? Or do these $20 games satisfy, both the kids and the wallet? It's just a changing of the video game landscape. Those game companies who adapt will reap the rewards. It's not suprising really, is it?
For ClearPlay, the money is all in the services. They don't really make anything with the hardware. The hardware is simply a delivery mechanism for the subscription service.
I actually did some very short term consulting with ClearPlay. At one point, we talked about the open / community model being a potential (unbeatable) competitor. Once a community effort goes out to replicate their edit codes, there will be no more reason to pay for their service.
However, this is quite unlikely to ever happen for two reasons:
1) If any community goes out to duplicate their edit codes, it will likely be "kids" looking to hack up a movie and make some crazy concoction. These community efforts will likely not have the conservative family as their audience. There's even an issue of trust here, in that said family would more likely trust a company which is being paid for the time codes rather than some script kiddie.
2) There has been relatively zero effort by community members to create open hardware. Having the ClearPlay technology embedded in a stand-alone dvd console is the real killer for any community effort. We just don't watch movies on our computers enough, especially with the family. The convenience is too great.
Again, when I was working with them a little (this being before their hardware dvd player when they were just doing software on windows only), I suggested that one of the _best_ things they could do would be to open up their platform entirely. Let their edit protocols and software be open. Let communities develop using their standard. This would just feed their existing model. As is typical, they were very afraid of opening up their platform because they couldn't see or get the viral effect of the community.
If they were to open up their platform, I think it would drive entirely new markets that they haven't seen yet. It just comes back to the fact that content is king. A business will always get paid for its content, not for its delivery mechanism and not for having a proprietary format. If their business model depends on the other two, they will eventually lose. In ClearPlay's case, the value is in the time codes, nothing more. They can open up all their other technologies and be even stronger because they aren't holding onto a revenue stream that will ultimately fail.
Before 9/11, this type of overreaching on the government was still somewhat kept in check.
Today, all the legislative or executive branch has to do is tack on the phrase, "it would aid in terrorism investigations" and poof, instant justification for abuse of our constitutional rights.
Right to privacy, right to free speech, all thrown out because we Americans (you Brits too) are sheep. We are told we are scared of terrorists, and therefore we act scared. And the government manipulates it, feeding the trolls and then benefiting from the hysteria. A wicked cycle that will ultimately be the downfall of the very freedoms we have paid blood for.
Once all those issues are solved, you would have missed the boat. The game will already be over. The real money would have already been made.
You obviously are risk adverse, so am I, and that's ok. But, it's thinking like this that keeps folks like me and you on the sidelines watching as the world changes.
I wish I was more visionary and dedicated. It's seeing the future and being able to knock down the barriers (like you've described) that makes great entrepreneurs. It's not like video on the internet is a big secret or anything. It doesn't take a mystical "futurist" to predict internet video "disrupting" traditional media. It's having the tenacity to see the vision and knock down the barriers.
Of course having money up front helps (but is not strictly a requirement).
I don't see all the fuss. I think the telcos have a legitimate concern.
However, the free market (crippled as it may be) will prevail. It'll take some time, but it'll all work out. It'll go something like this:
o Telcos start charging content providers for delivery of their content.
o Content providers refuse to pay such an extortion fee.
o Content providers also inform their users if their content is not being delivered at full throughput due to their telco.
o Customers, expecting the full package, change to a different service provider.
See, the service providers have business exactly because the content providers are providing content worth requesting. If there wasn't anything useful on the internet, there wouldn't be any reason for the $50 / month broadband service.
It'll all work out, just let it ride. It might be bumpy for a couple of years, but it's eventually a losing proposition for the telcos.
Java is already something that the anti-virus guys and people are wary about, it is widely exploited to plant a phletora of stuff in visitor pcs.
I'm somewhat arguing with this point, but also legitimately curious. There are really only a few very insignificant examples of Java applet based virus, all of which use outdated JVM. Your statements make it sound otherwise. Do you have proof of "widely exploited" holes in the Java sandbox?? I doubt it, but I'd appreciate being proven wrong otherwise.
For stand alone Java applications, yes there are exploits. This is no different an issue than running any *.exe program. But, it seems like you're only addressing sandboxed applets.
It is frustrating for me to watch because everytime I get a pay raise or sell out a small investment for capital, the price of houses jump and I still can't afford the house I want. I have seen my target price rise from $180,000 to $300,000 for the same houses over the last five years.
Me too. Just hang in there. The market is going to correct and you'll be ready to pounce. I predict a huge drop in housing prices coming soon, especially on the coasts, TX, etc. The interior probably will fair ok.
The question will be, will we get out of our current houses in order to move up into ones which under a normal market we could have afforded?
For Walmart, the person behind the return counter is a fixed cost. They don't care if there is nobody in line or a hundred people in line at the return counter. They have to have someone there regardless.
Also, consider that Walmart doesn't really lose any money from returned goods. There's maybe some shipment costs involved in returning goods back to the manufacturer, but I doubt it. Because Walmart has such a large buying volume, it can in essence demand any terms from the manufacturers of a product. One of those terms is the ability to return goods for credit from the mfg pretty much whenever it wants.
The point is, it doesn't really cost Walmart anything to have product returned to them. That's why they (like other stores) offer great return policies (as opposed to your local mom & pop retailer).
As with anything, you get what you pay for, which isn't much at WMT.
Right, but then they'll just run them in some other neighbor's backyard who doesn't know or care enough to charge. So, unless you own a huge lot of land and a service provider _has_ to use it, you can't leverage the easement too much anyway.
But can I actually sell my pre-1982 pennies for more than a cent? If I take them to a copper dealer, I probably end up making less than the copper is worth, due to dealer markup, refinement costs and the fact it's not 100% copper.
My guess, you're still probably better to count pre-1982 pennies as 1 cent, like a bank would. Your value is greater than trying to sell for the copper.
The problem with marijuana use while driving is not so much that the driver ends up only going 35, it's that his reaction time is also impaired. Because the world is "moving so fast, man", he gets caught up in the world and cannot make split second reactions to events around him.
The analogy might be to that of a cell phone user who is distracted. And, in some ways, similar to the drunk driver. Essentially the ability to make quick decisions has been impaired.
Now, however, pseudoephedrine (aka Sudafed, also in Dayquil and many other OTC drugs), is a stimulant (an upper). If you overdose on sudafed, for example, you get very jittery and your heart beat becomes very rapid and thready. However, your judgement and quick reaction abilities are not impaired. If anything, they're slightly enhanced.
Also, as a point to clarification, pseudoephedrine is not used to make speed, but is commonly used to make methamphetamine.
1. They don't understand economics and don't seem to understand states' rights
I disagree, I believe the Libertarian party to very much understand economics and believe strongly in states' rights.
a) Libertarians are very (very) free market oriented. Think Adam Smith. Frankly, the free market can provide solutions to many economic problems we face today, and this has been proven (though I'm blanking on an obvious example).
The Libertarians, being so focused on free market economics, are very much disciplined and understand economic issues.
A libertarian would not have supported the New Deal, believing instead that the market would have corrected as it always had. Not that I totally agree, as I think the New Deal was important for the depression. None-the-less, as a general rule, I tend to be persuaded by the libertarian POV that the market should generally be left alone.
b) Libertarians are also very strong believers of personal property and small local government. These tie together nicely because it's the libertarian's point of view that your property is your property and should not be meddled with at government levels. Basically, you're in charge of your property. Likewise, they believe that the local city and state governments should have a strong hand as well, since they regulate and govern more closely to the actual property owners.
The libertarians POV of federal government is that it should exist to facilitate market needs / commerce between the states (roads, infrastructure in general) and it should protect national interests (foreign policy) and national borders. This, in my mind, pretty much sums up the original founding father's vision of the federal government. That is, very small and limited in reach and power.
2. They tend to focus too much on controversial issues
Absolutely agree with you here. The Libertarian party sure seems, in my opinion, to focus on some whacky and way off issues. Possibly if you follow the libertarian logic to its end, you probably come to these fringe issues. However, because they bring up these fringe issues, they look more like, exactly as you say, a special interest group than a real political party.
I wish the Libertian party would choose some new leadership, particularly in the PR department. I think a "moderate" Libertarian candidate could really bend a lot of ears. As the Republicans and Democrates have both moved to the middle such that the differences between them are intangible, a Libertarian candidate could really get a lot of attention, imho. He/she would have to deal with all the "extreme" fringe issues though that they seem to have made a charter for.
Libertarians have hurt themselves by being the party for selfish redneck gun lovers and marijuana smoking potheads.
Not only that, in the process of controlling your life, they enlarge the government, both in terms of legislation and bureaucracy.
Both the Republicans and Democrats (currently) want larger government (particularly at the federal level). It's just what areas do they want: domestic social programs vs. strong foriegn military presence, etc.
Both parties want to spend more of your money. Tax favors for the rich (Republican) vs. tax favors for the poor (Democrat). Either means more taxes for the majority middle class.
The Libertarian Parts gets my local and state votes as well. Republicans (because I'm more closely aligned with them morally) get my votes otherwise.
I don't think the issue is about compatibility or IE7 adhering (or not) to W3C standards.
It's about the lame banking sites out there that look at User Agent string and say something to the effect of, "You must have Internet Explorer 5 or better..."
See, this "detection" routine is not detecting IE7, and the above message would confuse and/or infuriate most web users. Likely M$ will lose market share, get complaints via their support lines, have bad press, etc.
This has nothing to do with M$ saying that they will or will not produce a standards compliant browser. My guess is M$ cares very little about truly being standards compliant. They have the attitude that they will adhere to standards if it benefits them to do so.
This "trick" is not something new or only used by the Republican party. It's generally something that is used/abused by the majority party, regardless if they're Democrat or Republican.
I assume that you're just making commentary on the way things are currently on the hill, so that's ok. However, don't think it's just the "evil republicans" who do this railroading of bills.
So, if 15% don't show up, there's no vote? Sounds like a great way to completely shutdown the system entirely. This doesn't help with the problem, it makes it worse. There's really few votes that take place where more than 85% of congressmen are in attendance.
Google sells ads, that's the entire point of the company.
We in the tech/geek community seem to easily forget this fact, maybe because we dream of a utopian technology company.
You're exactly right. Google's primary (dare I say only) source of real revenue comes from selling ads. They are, of course, interested in other areas (like hardware somewhat), but ads are and will always be their cash cow.
1. Links that open another window stopped working entirely (although they worked if I right-clicked and selected "open in new tab")
2. Even after closing all Firefox windows, a firefox.exe process would remain running, and prevent any new firefox windows from being opened until it was manually killed
As another replier replied, these are Firefox problems. In particular, if you have recently upgraded to say Firefox 1.0.3, you might see these problems (or at least I did).
The issue was some extension wasn't working correctly after upgrading. I essentially ended up completely uninstalling version 1.0.3 and then reinstalling it. Finished by reinstalling my extensions. It was not too bad though, I just save my bookmarks.html file and reimported after this procedure.
Slashdot Mirror
Where to get more information? Is there a job board somewhere, preferably not monster, careerbuilder, etc.?
Me and a group of friends are looking for something to do for the next few years, working for oil in Canada sounds interesting. All different backgrounds and skills.
I agree with you. Being a long time Firefox user, I have no real desire to engage in this evangelism as you put it.
However, thinking about the newly converted, I'm guessing there's a lot of folks who are still goofily happy over finding and using Firefox that their enthusiasm to engage in this campaign will be great.
Because of the large number of recent convertees, I'm sure this campaign may very will succeed. I guess we'll see.
You've all seen games.yahoo.com. A lot of the games there are priced at $20, which for the simplistic and fun nature of the games is the right price.
Yes, I'm guessing the hard core video game market is suffering, but that doesn't mean the video game industry as a whole is suffering. I bet Yahoo is making a killing on these games, as are the independant little game studios producing them. Or how about the cell phone game market? They're definetly not suffering.
Do we really need epic $60-100 games? Or do these $20 games satisfy, both the kids and the wallet? It's just a changing of the video game landscape. Those game companies who adapt will reap the rewards. It's not suprising really, is it?
For ClearPlay, the money is all in the services. They don't really make anything with the hardware. The hardware is simply a delivery mechanism for the subscription service.
I actually did some very short term consulting with ClearPlay. At one point, we talked about the open / community model being a potential (unbeatable) competitor. Once a community effort goes out to replicate their edit codes, there will be no more reason to pay for their service.
However, this is quite unlikely to ever happen for two reasons:
1) If any community goes out to duplicate their edit codes, it will likely be "kids" looking to hack up a movie and make some crazy concoction. These community efforts will likely not have the conservative family as their audience. There's even an issue of trust here, in that said family would more likely trust a company which is being paid for the time codes rather than some script kiddie.
2) There has been relatively zero effort by community members to create open hardware. Having the ClearPlay technology embedded in a stand-alone dvd console is the real killer for any community effort. We just don't watch movies on our computers enough, especially with the family. The convenience is too great.
Again, when I was working with them a little (this being before their hardware dvd player when they were just doing software on windows only), I suggested that one of the _best_ things they could do would be to open up their platform entirely. Let their edit protocols and software be open. Let communities develop using their standard. This would just feed their existing model. As is typical, they were very afraid of opening up their platform because they couldn't see or get the viral effect of the community.
If they were to open up their platform, I think it would drive entirely new markets that they haven't seen yet. It just comes back to the fact that content is king. A business will always get paid for its content, not for its delivery mechanism and not for having a proprietary format. If their business model depends on the other two, they will eventually lose. In ClearPlay's case, the value is in the time codes, nothing more. They can open up all their other technologies and be even stronger because they aren't holding onto a revenue stream that will ultimately fail.
Before 9/11, this type of overreaching on the government was still somewhat kept in check.
Today, all the legislative or executive branch has to do is tack on the phrase, "it would aid in terrorism investigations" and poof, instant justification for abuse of our constitutional rights.
Right to privacy, right to free speech, all thrown out because we Americans (you Brits too) are sheep. We are told we are scared of terrorists, and therefore we act scared. And the government manipulates it, feeding the trolls and then benefiting from the hysteria. A wicked cycle that will ultimately be the downfall of the very freedoms we have paid blood for.
Once all those issues are solved, you would have missed the boat. The game will already be over. The real money would have already been made.
You obviously are risk adverse, so am I, and that's ok. But, it's thinking like this that keeps folks like me and you on the sidelines watching as the world changes.
I wish I was more visionary and dedicated. It's seeing the future and being able to knock down the barriers (like you've described) that makes great entrepreneurs. It's not like video on the internet is a big secret or anything. It doesn't take a mystical "futurist" to predict internet video "disrupting" traditional media. It's having the tenacity to see the vision and knock down the barriers.
Of course having money up front helps (but is not strictly a requirement).
I don't see all the fuss. I think the telcos have a legitimate concern.
However, the free market (crippled as it may be) will prevail. It'll take some time, but it'll all work out. It'll go something like this:
o Telcos start charging content providers for delivery of their content.
o Content providers refuse to pay such an extortion fee.
o Content providers also inform their users if their content is not being delivered at full throughput due to their telco.
o Customers, expecting the full package, change to a different service provider.
See, the service providers have business exactly because the content providers are providing content worth requesting. If there wasn't anything useful on the internet, there wouldn't be any reason for the $50 / month broadband service.
It'll all work out, just let it ride. It might be bumpy for a couple of years, but it's eventually a losing proposition for the telcos.
Java is already something that the anti-virus guys and people are wary about, it is widely exploited to plant a phletora of stuff in visitor pcs.
I'm somewhat arguing with this point, but also legitimately curious. There are really only a few very insignificant examples of Java applet based virus, all of which use outdated JVM. Your statements make it sound otherwise. Do you have proof of "widely exploited" holes in the Java sandbox?? I doubt it, but I'd appreciate being proven wrong otherwise.
For stand alone Java applications, yes there are exploits. This is no different an issue than running any *.exe program. But, it seems like you're only addressing sandboxed applets.
I thought BSD was dying?
It is frustrating for me to watch because everytime I get a pay raise or sell out a small investment for capital, the price of houses jump and I still can't afford the house I want. I have seen my target price rise from $180,000 to $300,000 for the same houses over the last five years.
Me too. Just hang in there. The market is going to correct and you'll be ready to pounce. I predict a huge drop in housing prices coming soon, especially on the coasts, TX, etc. The interior probably will fair ok.
The question will be, will we get out of our current houses in order to move up into ones which under a normal market we could have afforded?
For Walmart, the person behind the return counter is a fixed cost. They don't care if there is nobody in line or a hundred people in line at the return counter. They have to have someone there regardless.
Also, consider that Walmart doesn't really lose any money from returned goods. There's maybe some shipment costs involved in returning goods back to the manufacturer, but I doubt it. Because Walmart has such a large buying volume, it can in essence demand any terms from the manufacturers of a product. One of those terms is the ability to return goods for credit from the mfg pretty much whenever it wants.
The point is, it doesn't really cost Walmart anything to have product returned to them. That's why they (like other stores) offer great return policies (as opposed to your local mom & pop retailer).
As with anything, you get what you pay for, which isn't much at WMT.
I heard this awhile back, don't know the source. But, it's become my favorite new saying:
Finding porn on the internet is like finding hay in a haystack.
Sad but true.
Right, but then they'll just run them in some other neighbor's backyard who doesn't know or care enough to charge. So, unless you own a huge lot of land and a service provider _has_ to use it, you can't leverage the easement too much anyway.
But can I actually sell my pre-1982 pennies for more than a cent? If I take them to a copper dealer, I probably end up making less than the copper is worth, due to dealer markup, refinement costs and the fact it's not 100% copper.
My guess, you're still probably better to count pre-1982 pennies as 1 cent, like a bank would. Your value is greater than trying to sell for the copper.
A blind person isn't being annoyed by the lights.
Buffy, Lara Croft, and Xena ... all the women were either aliens or wore short skirts.
Looks like nothing has really changed.
No no no, I'm being the dumb one.
http://dancesafe.org/documents/druginfo/speed.php
You're right, sorry. Had a brain tremor.
I'm trying not to reply, but I can't help it...
The problem with marijuana use while driving is not so much that the driver ends up only going 35, it's that his reaction time is also impaired. Because the world is "moving so fast, man", he gets caught up in the world and cannot make split second reactions to events around him.
The analogy might be to that of a cell phone user who is distracted. And, in some ways, similar to the drunk driver. Essentially the ability to make quick decisions has been impaired.
Now, however, pseudoephedrine (aka Sudafed, also in Dayquil and many other OTC drugs), is a stimulant (an upper). If you overdose on sudafed, for example, you get very jittery and your heart beat becomes very rapid and thready. However, your judgement and quick reaction abilities are not impaired. If anything, they're slightly enhanced.
Also, as a point to clarification, pseudoephedrine is not used to make speed, but is commonly used to make methamphetamine.
1. They don't understand economics and don't seem to understand states' rights
I disagree, I believe the Libertarian party to very much understand economics and believe strongly in states' rights.
a) Libertarians are very (very) free market oriented. Think Adam Smith. Frankly, the free market can provide solutions to many economic problems we face today, and this has been proven (though I'm blanking on an obvious example).
The Libertarians, being so focused on free market economics, are very much disciplined and understand economic issues.
A libertarian would not have supported the New Deal, believing instead that the market would have corrected as it always had. Not that I totally agree, as I think the New Deal was important for the depression. None-the-less, as a general rule, I tend to be persuaded by the libertarian POV that the market should generally be left alone.
b) Libertarians are also very strong believers of personal property and small local government. These tie together nicely because it's the libertarian's point of view that your property is your property and should not be meddled with at government levels. Basically, you're in charge of your property. Likewise, they believe that the local city and state governments should have a strong hand as well, since they regulate and govern more closely to the actual property owners.
The libertarians POV of federal government is that it should exist to facilitate market needs / commerce between the states (roads, infrastructure in general) and it should protect national interests (foreign policy) and national borders. This, in my mind, pretty much sums up the original founding father's vision of the federal government. That is, very small and limited in reach and power.
2. They tend to focus too much on controversial issues
Absolutely agree with you here. The Libertarian party sure seems, in my opinion, to focus on some whacky and way off issues. Possibly if you follow the libertarian logic to its end, you probably come to these fringe issues. However, because they bring up these fringe issues, they look more like, exactly as you say, a special interest group than a real political party.
I wish the Libertian party would choose some new leadership, particularly in the PR department. I think a "moderate" Libertarian candidate could really bend a lot of ears. As the Republicans and Democrates have both moved to the middle such that the differences between them are intangible, a Libertarian candidate could really get a lot of attention, imho. He/she would have to deal with all the "extreme" fringe issues though that they seem to have made a charter for.
Libertarians have hurt themselves by being the party for selfish redneck gun lovers and marijuana smoking potheads.
Not only that, in the process of controlling your life, they enlarge the government, both in terms of legislation and bureaucracy.
Both the Republicans and Democrats (currently) want larger government (particularly at the federal level). It's just what areas do they want: domestic social programs vs. strong foriegn military presence, etc.
Both parties want to spend more of your money. Tax favors for the rich (Republican) vs. tax favors for the poor (Democrat). Either means more taxes for the majority middle class.
The Libertarian Parts gets my local and state votes as well. Republicans (because I'm more closely aligned with them morally) get my votes otherwise.
I don't think the issue is about compatibility or IE7 adhering (or not) to W3C standards.
It's about the lame banking sites out there that look at User Agent string and say something to the effect of, "You must have Internet Explorer 5 or better..."
See, this "detection" routine is not detecting IE7, and the above message would confuse and/or infuriate most web users. Likely M$ will lose market share, get complaints via their support lines, have bad press, etc.
This has nothing to do with M$ saying that they will or will not produce a standards compliant browser. My guess is M$ cares very little about truly being standards compliant. They have the attitude that they will adhere to standards if it benefits them to do so.
This "trick" is not something new or only used by the Republican party. It's generally something that is used/abused by the majority party, regardless if they're Democrat or Republican.
I assume that you're just making commentary on the way things are currently on the hill, so that's ok. However, don't think it's just the "evil republicans" who do this railroading of bills.
So, if 15% don't show up, there's no vote? Sounds like a great way to completely shutdown the system entirely. This doesn't help with the problem, it makes it worse. There's really few votes that take place where more than 85% of congressmen are in attendance.
Google sells ads, that's the entire point of the company.
We in the tech/geek community seem to easily forget this fact, maybe because we dream of a utopian technology company.
You're exactly right. Google's primary (dare I say only) source of real revenue comes from selling ads. They are, of course, interested in other areas (like hardware somewhat), but ads are and will always be their cash cow.
1. Links that open another window stopped working entirely (although they worked if I right-clicked and selected "open in new tab")
2. Even after closing all Firefox windows, a firefox.exe process would remain running, and prevent any new firefox windows from being opened until it was manually killed
As another replier replied, these are Firefox problems. In particular, if you have recently upgraded to say Firefox 1.0.3, you might see these problems (or at least I did).
The issue was some extension wasn't working correctly after upgrading. I essentially ended up completely uninstalling version 1.0.3 and then reinstalling it. Finished by reinstalling my extensions. It was not too bad though, I just save my bookmarks.html file and reimported after this procedure.
Maybe this is the problem for you?