You're misunderstanding the OP's cutesy construction -- he was saying that the AOL browser is a mix of IE and Firefox, not Netscape. (Not that that's necessarily true -- isn't it an IE core with AOL's own interface around it?)
That's why annoying dweebs usually prefer ^H's in that context.
There is also the spanish equivalent to/. over at barrapunto.
Hmmm...
Quien modera? (Puntos:-1, Fuera de Tema)
por pobrecito hablador el Jueves, 22 de Diciembre 2005, a las 15:29h (n664129)
Quien se ha quedado moderando? Para el caso mejor que cerreis la página hasta despues de las fiestas. Devolved a Richelieu al psiquiatrico, que despues se transforma en Menguele, etc.
I'm not sure learning Spanish from them is any better an idea than trying to learn English here...
Yeah, it's very difficult to learn a language in a vacuum, unless you just want to read. I'd strongly recommend taking classes for at least the first year. The interactivity is key and the structure will also be valuable once your initial enthusiasm runs into reality.
Good luck, though! That's a great resolution, and if you stick out you'll be glad you did!
I don't know how much Microsoft needs the browser but Opera has (had?) some great developers. They don't get the credit they deserve for innovation (the market price for web browsers has always been zero, so almost no one has seen Opera) but they introduced a lot of new stuff including, IIRC, both tabbed browsing and popup blocking (later popularized by Galeon and Konqueror, respectively).
I totally concur, and would add that an additional effect of putting sugar in nearly everything is that the North American palate has now shifted to demand increasing sweetness in absolutely everything.
Cutting back on fructose because a couple of studies in rats with a link to "metabolic syndrome" (which the FDA is still reluctant to call a real disease) may not be a bad thing but cutting back on processed foods in general would probably be more effective.
Anywho, my answer. Hire an assistant/interpreter. That would probably be much cheaper, and much easier.
The question isn't what makes sense, it's how you would deal with a law that ties your hands. (If you take Adrian Trenholm's word that his country regulates the accessibility of blogs.)
I don't think that anyone is claiming that a proprietary license is a necessary ingredient for innovation. If you rephrase the question as what innovative software has been produced by the open-source / free software "movements", as opposed to academic work that has been retroactively claimed under the open-source umbrella, you're left with the bits and pieces others have mentioned: BitTorrent, ffmpeg, jack. Which is non-zero (although how "innovative" are ffmpeg and jack, really?) but looking back at the last decade, one certainly can't make a claim for the "movement" types doing much beside copying and incremental improvement.
Probably not -- Jurassic Bark is precisely the sort of Very Special Episode that obsessive fanboys love but which the rest of us find completely cringeworthy.
For that matter, the last season of Futurama (where it turned into Friends with a talking lobster) was also awful. I'd missed them all when they were originally on, but having seen them in reurns, it's like watching Ross and Rachel break up for the eleventeenth time.
I'm in the same boat as the questioner (inherited responsibility for an organization's web site and have been banging away at its Front Page-based files with Nvu with marginal success), and you've offered what seems like the most helpful reply so far, so I'd like to push it a bit more:
Backing up one more level -- what is a good resource, print or online, for giving the big picture of website management (design, servers and programming)? Something that explains the different pieces and how they fit together? The sites you mention look very helpful, but there's a layer of overview that's missing.
take Maddox (even though I'm not keen) for example. Zero advertising yet it's one of the most popular sites on the internet.
Umm, unless Angelina Jolie's kid has a website, I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. WTF is "Maddox", this? I don't think it's the biggest threat on, say, General Motors' radar.
From the VC's point of view, LinuxCare doesn't seem like a bad idea even in hindsight. If things had played out differently and Linux had a 25% desktop market share (which, for all anyone knew, was possible) LinuxCare would be sitting pretty today, even with their obvious managerial problems. It was a bet that had to be placed, even though it wound up coming up empty. VC's make their money on hitting enough lucrative longshots to make up for all their losses.
This is getting "Funny" although I don't think it was intended to...
Anyway, the point is that the paper (link for those with access) claimed to have produced 11 different clones, with DNA fingerprinting and photos of their morphology. Whether through error or fraud, and it looks more and more like fraud, both of those lines of evidence seem to be badly screwed up.
By the way -- anyone still believing that ridiculous claim from a few weeks ago about the Korean team curing spinal cord breakage with stem cells...?
Absolutely, although by the same token, today information collectors can be forced, by law, pressure or market forces to throw out or firewall certain data, while you couldn't make everyone in a village avert their eyes.
My point wasn't that there's an exact parallel between the past and future, just that the idea that anonymity has been continuously diminishing is false.
That's what people don't get when they freak out about, say, supermarket discount cards. Until a generation or two ago, everybody knew all your business. We've lived in a brief window when population sizes got far enough ahead of technology that you had anonymity. Technology has caught up, and we're back to the way things have always been.
Y'know, I realize I'm engaging in the sort of pointless arguing that annoys me when other people do it. You're right -- the original phrasing was inaccurate and I'll leave it at that...
"Properly" was a poor choice of words on my part. Nonetheless, potential energy is there to make the system net out to zero, and is only practically meaningful to the degree that it's converted into kinetic or thermal energy. The original phrasing was technically incorrect, agreed, but it's clear from the context that they're talking about kinetic energy, not physics problem energy.
So, it turns out that the systems haven't been "cut to a mere $150" but instead are being advertised at that price for a promotional bundle with Internet service. Given that you have a link with the correct story, what is the point of including the nonsensical one?
The best way to improve security is to give users more, longer, more complex, more frequently changed passwords. Eleven characters, including uppercase, lowercase, numbers and Unicode, changed every 30 days -- it's easy! The users should just keep making up new, easy to remember mnemonic phrases that, uh, include words begining with numbers and punctuation.
If users modify their system in any way, anything that happens is their fault. Smoke coming out of the power supply? It's because you added new applications to the Start toolbar!
If I've never heard of it, you obviously don't need it.
[Insert here some FUD/funny question about Microsoft Windows future]"
I always feel vaguely dirty when I include the Obligatory Stupid Question at the end of my story submissions and usually compensate by overdoing the Stupid to hint at the Obligatory. I like this guy's approach better.
Now that you've been chastised by the youngster, I'd like to step in with the old-school analogy you're looking for:
Remember how back in the olden days FTP servers allowed w4r3z site admins to set minimum upload:download ratios for users? Imagine if someone created a client that evaded those limits and the ftpd maintainers, who were shocked -- shocked! -- to find that w4r3z kiddies lack integrity and respect for the rights of others, locked it out.
That seems to be what happened here, except with some newfangled file transfer protocol that these lousy kids today use.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why annoying dweebs usually prefer ^H's in that context.
I also like the debates between the advocates of "Diseño Inteligente" and "religion del monstruo de espaguetis".
Hmmm...
I'm not sure learning Spanish from them is any better an idea than trying to learn English here...Good luck, though! That's a great resolution, and if you stick out you'll be glad you did!
I don't know how much Microsoft needs the browser but Opera has (had?) some great developers. They don't get the credit they deserve for innovation (the market price for web browsers has always been zero, so almost no one has seen Opera) but they introduced a lot of new stuff including, IIRC, both tabbed browsing and popup blocking (later popularized by Galeon and Konqueror, respectively).
1. There's no big company behind Python and Ruby.
2. There are no idiot VC's handing out cash to start Marimba-ish companies based on vague ideas about using Python and Ruby.
3. Python and Ruby don't have an easily-understandable if not really accurate hook comparable to Java's "write once, run anywhere" hype.
Cutting back on fructose because a couple of studies in rats with a link to "metabolic syndrome" (which the FDA is still reluctant to call a real disease) may not be a bad thing but cutting back on processed foods in general would probably be more effective.
The question isn't what makes sense, it's how you would deal with a law that ties your hands. (If you take Adrian Trenholm's word that his country regulates the accessibility of blogs.)
I don't think that anyone is claiming that a proprietary license is a necessary ingredient for innovation. If you rephrase the question as what innovative software has been produced by the open-source / free software "movements", as opposed to academic work that has been retroactively claimed under the open-source umbrella, you're left with the bits and pieces others have mentioned: BitTorrent, ffmpeg, jack. Which is non-zero (although how "innovative" are ffmpeg and jack, really?) but looking back at the last decade, one certainly can't make a claim for the "movement" types doing much beside copying and incremental improvement.
Probably not -- Jurassic Bark is precisely the sort of Very Special Episode that obsessive fanboys love but which the rest of us find completely cringeworthy.
For that matter, the last season of Futurama (where it turned into Friends with a talking lobster) was also awful. I'd missed them all when they were originally on, but having seen them in reurns, it's like watching Ross and Rachel break up for the eleventeenth time.
Backing up one more level -- what is a good resource, print or online, for giving the big picture of website management (design, servers and programming)? Something that explains the different pieces and how they fit together? The sites you mention look very helpful, but there's a layer of overview that's missing.
Umm, unless Angelina Jolie's kid has a website, I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. WTF is "Maddox", this? I don't think it's the biggest threat on, say, General Motors' radar.
From the VC's point of view, LinuxCare doesn't seem like a bad idea even in hindsight. If things had played out differently and Linux had a 25% desktop market share (which, for all anyone knew, was possible) LinuxCare would be sitting pretty today, even with their obvious managerial problems. It was a bet that had to be placed, even though it wound up coming up empty. VC's make their money on hitting enough lucrative longshots to make up for all their losses.
Anyway, the point is that the paper (link for those with access) claimed to have produced 11 different clones, with DNA fingerprinting and photos of their morphology. Whether through error or fraud, and it looks more and more like fraud, both of those lines of evidence seem to be badly screwed up.
By the way -- anyone still believing that ridiculous claim from a few weeks ago about the Korean team curing spinal cord breakage with stem cells...?
My point wasn't that there's an exact parallel between the past and future, just that the idea that anonymity has been continuously diminishing is false.
That's what people don't get when they freak out about, say, supermarket discount cards. Until a generation or two ago, everybody knew all your business. We've lived in a brief window when population sizes got far enough ahead of technology that you had anonymity. Technology has caught up, and we're back to the way things have always been.
Y'know, I realize I'm engaging in the sort of pointless arguing that annoys me when other people do it. You're right -- the original phrasing was inaccurate and I'll leave it at that...
"Properly" was a poor choice of words on my part. Nonetheless, potential energy is there to make the system net out to zero, and is only practically meaningful to the degree that it's converted into kinetic or thermal energy. The original phrasing was technically incorrect, agreed, but it's clear from the context that they're talking about kinetic energy, not physics problem energy.
"Potential energy" is a construct for convenient problem solving. It's not properly "energy" in the way that kinetic energy is.
So, it turns out that the systems haven't been "cut to a mere $150" but instead are being advertised at that price for a promotional bundle with Internet service. Given that you have a link with the correct story, what is the point of including the nonsensical one?
I always feel vaguely dirty when I include the Obligatory Stupid Question at the end of my story submissions and usually compensate by overdoing the Stupid to hint at the Obligatory. I like this guy's approach better.
Remember how back in the olden days FTP servers allowed w4r3z site admins to set minimum upload:download ratios for users? Imagine if someone created a client that evaded those limits and the ftpd maintainers, who were shocked -- shocked! -- to find that w4r3z kiddies lack integrity and respect for the rights of others, locked it out.
That seems to be what happened here, except with some newfangled file transfer protocol that these lousy kids today use.
I mean, it's undoubtedly true but I think he's severely confused about what it means.