1) Click the little arrow next to Google's icon in the search box. 2) Pick "Manage Search Engines...". 3) Select any that is listed and click "Move Up" until your selection is at the top of the list. 4) ??? 5) Profit?
Wow. That's much easier than the instructions I found online. Those involved modifying about:config.
So much for the claim that it's hard to make Bing default on Firefox. (You still have to download an add-on, but the link to appropriate add-ons is right there, under "Manage Search Engines".
Double click that entry (or right click and choose “Modify”) and then type in the name of the search engine you wish to have as the default search engine. It must be one that you already have installed and also make sure you type in the name correctly.
I'm not sure what it means to have a search engine installed. Ah, here's the results of a quick search:
Looks like you just hit the "add to firefox" button.
I can't say whether this is easier or harder than IE, since I don't know IE. The little warning you see when you type "about:config" is a bit scary, I guess, but the procedure looks simple enough.
No one has claimed that making a pop hit is easy. Indeed, that's utterly irrelevant to the claim that copyright terms should be no more than a few decades.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage the production of new material. Either shorter terms are incentive enough for artists to create works like "Hotel California" or not. At the time the song was written, copyright was for 28 years, renewable once, and so would go in the public domain around 2032 (still some years off). So, at least, it is obvious that the Eagles felt that 56 years was incentive enough.
In all likelihood, they would have felt incentive enough to write and publish the song for only 28 years protection, but this is just my uneducated guess. Let's ask about you: do you honestly believe that, were terms shorter, you'd feel little incentive to produce your music? If not, then what is the purpose of such lengthy copyright durations? This is a right granted by the government to the artist for a particular purpose, namely, to encourage the production of works. Unless longer terms have an actual effect, then they are not defensible. (Retroactive term extensions are even more implausible!)
Note: The Europeans have a different view of copyright. They regard it as securing the natural rights of the content producer in law. But that's not the American legal view, which has (like the UK) recognized copyright as a granted right intended for a practical purpose.
no-one will want to do anything generally useful with alpha
It does raise the temptation though to go tossing random queries at the engine in the hopes that they try to register all of the results with the copyright office. I doubt the copyright people would be amused even if they tried to register all of the legitimate queries.
Why would they bother registering copyright? That's not necessary for holding the copyright.
Clearly, the broadband tax is worse. A fee the government charges to compensate for unknown losses due to copyright infringement is much worse than a private arrangement between ISPs and content providers.
Y'know I've never been a fan of negative ad campaigns. If the best thing you can say about your product is "we don't suck as much as the other guy" I'm probably not going to bother switching.
So, in your estimation, it's better to keep using the sucky product than to reward negative advertising?
I guess I don't see the reason. If, as it happens, the thing I'm using really does suck more, than I'd rather not use it. Even if it's the competition who pointed out its general suckiness.
Races aren't the sorts of things that the term "extinction" applies to. Nor are races a genetically recognizable category, as far as I've read, so this behavior is not explicable in terms of natural selection.
Nor is it obvious that identifying with one's race is a positive trait at all. Such behavior results in a greater likelihood of intra-species violence and a smaller likelihood of benefitting from intra-species altruism.
But why bother with armchair guesses about how evolution justifies your racism? Why not find some reputable scientific publication which backs up your prejudice? Or just accept your racism without trying to defend it on biological grounds?
I would guess that any female avatar would be more likely to get compliance, as men are still chivalrous, for the most part, and will comply with a woman when they wouldn't with a man.
I guess by "chivalrous", you mean "pathetically willing to do damn near anything to elicit a positive response from a female".
As an anarcho-communist, I have to say, I don't acknowledge property rights. Why? Because property rights boil down to "I was here first, I stuck a flag in it, it is mine", and everything had a flag stuck in it before I was born, and I refuse to acknowledge a system that considers all of this to be someone elses property. It is not. It is my birthright, to share with others of my generation. If you claim I do not have a right to my birthright, I consider that justification to kill you and take it by force. Golly. It's your birthright to share whatever you see with your own generation and you have the right to kill others who disagree. Exciting times!
Plan on exercising this fascinating right any time soon? I'm sure that justice is on your side and all. Fight the good fight, brother!
Obviously if you play online games instead of watching TV, you're not consuming enough. You're paying $10-$30 a month for your game, but you're not seeing enough television advertisements, not buying enough golf equipment, not buying as many movie tickets, expensive SUV's to haul your crotchfruit to soccer games, and so on. You might want to buy an upgrade for your computer now and then, but that's nothing compared to gearing out for an avid golfer, or an avid fisherman, or an avid television watcher. Oh, bollocks. I'm a somewhat avid fisherman, but I'd wager that most gamers spend a lot more on their hobby than I do on mine. I buy a rod every year or two, perhaps $50 tackle a year and several dozen nightcrawlers.
I'm also a somewhat avid gamer and I use free software exclusively, but even I spend more on my computing needs each year than I do on my fishing needs (just because I have to pay for the internet).
As usual, people jump on any mention of the term "Turing Test" and ignore the qualifications. Bringsjord was explicit and honest: an AI that can fool Second Life players isn't really passing the Turing Test, which requires an ability to engage in unrestricted conversations with a tester who (1) knows one of his two respondents is not human and (2) aims to figure out which one.
In fact, fooling Second Life players shouldn't be so hard, should it? Aren't many, if not most, players engaged in multiple activities while playing? Sometimes, a distracted participation in conversation is hard to tell from an incompetent participation.
In any case, it's a nice sounding experiment and good luck to them. But let's not kid ourselves that success in this experiment means Turing's goal has been realized.
And, in case you're forgetting, we're still talking about a very small minority of the BBC website's user base. As others have said, we're arguing about some small fraction of a percentage point here, so in the grand scheme of things it's not like he's radically out of touch with his customers, is it? Whether we are arguing about less than 1% is the question, isn't it?
It's certainly possible that the BBC has such low numbers of Linux visitors. It's also possible that it is considerably more than that. If I were to guess, I'd guess it's considerably less than 5%, but my guess is only based on anecdotal evidence. It would be nice to know how BBC makes its guesses...er, I mean, arrives at its estimates. Then we might have better reason to agree that it is some small fraction of 1%.
The purpose of publishing is to make the article available to peers, so you are right that there is the opportunity for review after publishing. But prior to publishing, the article will be reviewed by the editor and two or three anonymous reviewers and this process is commonly referred to as "peer review".
Well, to paraphrase someone famous (perhaps Edison?), we've learned another way that doesn't work. That's hardly the normal effect of peer review. Normally, mistaken approaches are not made public. Rather, they are known only to the author and the reviewer who rejects the submission (even more commonly, to the author alone).
Mathematicians don't tend to share failed approaches too much. They're not usually publishable. Which may be a darn shame, though I must confess I can't imagine wading through pages and pages of failed approaches to be sure I don't duplicate a previous error.
Smith's proof will be published in the journal Complex Systems. Meaning it had not yet been peer reviewed. On the contrary, if a result "will be published", then there is every reason to believe that it has been peer-reviewed.
One doesn't use such positive language prior to peer-review. If it hasn't been reviewed, there's very little reason to suppose that it will be published in the journal to which it has been submitted. (Indeed, as I recall, Wolfram formed a respectable group of scholars for reviewing this and other arguments for this proof and thus it had been reviewed.)
Which part of FALSE ADVERTISING don't you understand? Maybe you should read his whole post before replying.
What they rightly got slapped for is false advertising - A service with a 5GB cap isn't 'unlimited' by any standard definition.
You can consider the absence of a rise in prices (or, a rise which is not as steep as it otherwise might have been) as a discount. Wow. You must be the world's favorite customer and a very happy man indeed. Each day that McDonald's doesn't raise their prices is another economic victory for you!
Slashdot Mirror
1) Click the little arrow next to Google's icon in the search box.
2) Pick "Manage Search Engines...".
3) Select any that is listed and click "Move Up" until your selection is at the top of the list.
4) ???
5) Profit?
Wow. That's much easier than the instructions I found online. Those involved modifying about:config.
So much for the claim that it's hard to make Bing default on Firefox. (You still have to download an add-on, but the link to appropriate add-ons is right there, under "Manage Search Engines".
Now try changing the default in Firefox from Google to *anything* else.
Doesn't seem so difficult.
http://www.firefoxfacts.com/2008/01/13/change-default-search-in-firefox/
In your address bar, type in: “about:config”
Inside of the filter search box, type in:
browser.search.defaultenginename
Double click that entry (or right click and choose “Modify”) and then type in the name of the search engine you wish to have as the default search engine. It must be one that you already have installed and also make sure you type in the name correctly.
I'm not sure what it means to have a search engine installed. Ah, here's the results of a quick search:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:4
Looks like you just hit the "add to firefox" button.
I can't say whether this is easier or harder than IE, since I don't know IE. The little warning you see when you type "about:config" is a bit scary, I guess, but the procedure looks simple enough.
No one has claimed that making a pop hit is easy. Indeed, that's utterly irrelevant to the claim that copyright terms should be no more than a few decades.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage the production of new material. Either shorter terms are incentive enough for artists to create works like "Hotel California" or not. At the time the song was written, copyright was for 28 years, renewable once, and so would go in the public domain around 2032 (still some years off). So, at least, it is obvious that the Eagles felt that 56 years was incentive enough.
In all likelihood, they would have felt incentive enough to write and publish the song for only 28 years protection, but this is just my uneducated guess. Let's ask about you: do you honestly believe that, were terms shorter, you'd feel little incentive to produce your music? If not, then what is the purpose of such lengthy copyright durations? This is a right granted by the government to the artist for a particular purpose, namely, to encourage the production of works. Unless longer terms have an actual effect, then they are not defensible. (Retroactive term extensions are even more implausible!)
Note: The Europeans have a different view of copyright. They regard it as securing the natural rights of the content producer in law. But that's not the American legal view, which has (like the UK) recognized copyright as a granted right intended for a practical purpose.
no-one will want to do anything generally useful with alpha
It does raise the temptation though to go tossing random queries at the engine in the hopes that they try to register all of the results with the copyright office.
I doubt the copyright people would be amused even if they tried to register all of the legitimate queries.
Why would they bother registering copyright? That's not necessary for holding the copyright.
You're discussing two completely different issues: patents and copyrights.
In particular, did you really mean to advocate a radical lengthening of patent terms? You wrote:
Patents should be 70 years or 30 years after the creator's death
As it stands, most patents are only valid for 20 years (some have different terms in the US, depending on subject matter, I think).
Right, it is within their rights to ship a lousy, unsupported product, as long as they don't say otherwise.
I just don't get why you think this means we shouldn't complain about getting a lousy, unsupported product.
You can try "Proofs Without Words", which is an entertaining presentation of dozens of mathematical proofs using pictures only.
See http://www.amazon.com/Proofs-without-Words-Exercises-Classroom/dp/0883857006.
I second that suggestion.
Clearly, the broadband tax is worse. A fee the government charges to compensate for unknown losses due to copyright infringement is much worse than a private arrangement between ISPs and content providers.
Just another indication that McCain is not ready for the national spotlight. Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008? KIDSPA ?
Just what sort of mixed message does that send?
Real Republican leaders produce acts with clear acronyms, like PATRIOT. Something ain't right with McCain.
Y'know I've never been a fan of negative ad campaigns. If the best thing you can say about your product is "we don't suck as much as the other guy" I'm probably not going to bother switching.
So, in your estimation, it's better to keep using the sucky product than to reward negative advertising?
I guess I don't see the reason. If, as it happens, the thing I'm using really does suck more, than I'd rather not use it. Even if it's the competition who pointed out its general suckiness.
Wow. You express a lame joke with tortured English and suggest that everyone who fails to get it is too stupid to live.
Now that's how you turn defeat into victory, baby!
Races aren't the sorts of things that the term "extinction" applies to. Nor are races a genetically recognizable category, as far as I've read, so this behavior is not explicable in terms of natural selection.
Nor is it obvious that identifying with one's race is a positive trait at all. Such behavior results in a greater likelihood of intra-species violence and a smaller likelihood of benefitting from intra-species altruism.
But why bother with armchair guesses about how evolution justifies your racism? Why not find some reputable scientific publication which backs up your prejudice? Or just accept your racism without trying to defend it on biological grounds?
I would guess that any female avatar would be more likely to get compliance, as men are still chivalrous, for the most part, and will comply with a woman when they wouldn't with a man.
I guess by "chivalrous", you mean "pathetically willing to do damn near anything to elicit a positive response from a female".
I have never seen any claim that the white race is a biological category nor that evolution has provided instincts regarding "racial preservation".
It's a cute but specious defense of your own biases (known in other contexts as racist tendencies).
Whether he was guilty or not is another matter. That's why I used 'the perpetrator' in my post above.
I think you're confusing suspect with perpetrator. The perpetrator did the crime. The suspect is thought to be the perpetrator.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetrator.
Plan on exercising this fascinating right any time soon? I'm sure that justice is on your side and all. Fight the good fight, brother!
I'm also a somewhat avid gamer and I use free software exclusively, but even I spend more on my computing needs each year than I do on my fishing needs (just because I have to pay for the internet).
As usual, people jump on any mention of the term "Turing Test" and ignore the qualifications. Bringsjord was explicit and honest: an AI that can fool Second Life players isn't really passing the Turing Test, which requires an ability to engage in unrestricted conversations with a tester who (1) knows one of his two respondents is not human and (2) aims to figure out which one.
In fact, fooling Second Life players shouldn't be so hard, should it? Aren't many, if not most, players engaged in multiple activities while playing? Sometimes, a distracted participation in conversation is hard to tell from an incompetent participation.
In any case, it's a nice sounding experiment and good luck to them. But let's not kid ourselves that success in this experiment means Turing's goal has been realized.
It's certainly possible that the BBC has such low numbers of Linux visitors. It's also possible that it is considerably more than that. If I were to guess, I'd guess it's considerably less than 5%, but my guess is only based on anecdotal evidence. It would be nice to know how BBC makes its guesses...er, I mean, arrives at its estimates. Then we might have better reason to agree that it is some small fraction of 1%.
The purpose of publishing is to make the article available to peers, so you are right that there is the opportunity for review after publishing. But prior to publishing, the article will be reviewed by the editor and two or three anonymous reviewers and this process is commonly referred to as "peer review".
Mathematicians don't tend to share failed approaches too much. They're not usually publishable. Which may be a darn shame, though I must confess I can't imagine wading through pages and pages of failed approaches to be sure I don't duplicate a previous error.
One doesn't use such positive language prior to peer-review. If it hasn't been reviewed, there's very little reason to suppose that it will be published in the journal to which it has been submitted. (Indeed, as I recall, Wolfram formed a respectable group of scholars for reviewing this and other arguments for this proof and thus it had been reviewed.)