The company where I work has countless internal and external web applications that were written specifically for IE5/6, and when accessed with IE7 cease to function properly, if at all. Developing for a specific http client, especially IE, is a very careless and foolish thing, but it's unfortunately been the way of the world until relatively recently.
I think the folks at youtube are aware that a ton of ads will piss off and lose them some users. I don't see any problem with introducing revelant, inobtrusive text ads. Why is everyone jumping to the conclusion that the only way that Youtube can survive, "in the real world," is to hold its users' heads under water with a torrent of advertising?
That's all in the works, the developers say, and will be available very soon. They have been very good about rolling out new features when they say they will, so I don't think it's an empty promise.
Your situation sounds like it's ideal for an online calendar. The newly-released AJAXified 30 Boxes is a great little online calendar, and is definitely worth a look.
As far as I know, a fixed trajectory only eases the acquisition by targeting systems, but is not a prerequisite for a missile-defense system even working. All that is required is enough lead time for the targeting systems to get a bead on the inbound target, and then it's vapor city.
I don't know, I think I'd prefer to get my internet access from a company that has a vested interest in providing a service for money, as opposed to a governmental body whose only motivation for uptime and happy users is... what? I don't know.
Government control of internet access? the terrible possibilities resound in my head: censorship, digital rights, privacy, and reprisal. If government controls the internet access, what happens to people who are delinquent on their property taxes? Have outstanding parking tickets? Have a late library book? Whatever mistakes I may make, I don't think my line into the world should be on the chopping block, as a means of coercion. I'd prefer to confine my internet access to an organization whose job it is to provide it, not one whose job it might become to withold it, or use it against me.
I meant it in the sense that people use IE and buy the ipod, because they don't know any better. It's the most common, most widely publicised/used player out there, and of the people that even know what an mp3 player is, I am willing to bet that a very significant portion couldn't name any other player than the ipod, just as a vast portion of http users have never even heard of Firefox.
Also, I fear that non-ipod players are to the point that they are regarded like using mozilla instead of IE, back in 99 or 2000. People don't call it an "mp3 player" or a "digital audio player" anymore. The common term, nowadays, is ipod.
When I try to convince friends that are in the market for an mp3 player to consider something besides an ipod, they look at me funny, and ask me a question to the tune of, "why would I want something else?"
I just hope that other companies can keep manufacturing great players.
Cowon makes a fantastic audio player that supports Ogg Vorbis. It's called the iAUDIO x5. I bought it to replace my aging Rio Karma(which also supports ogg), and am ecstatic with the features, battery life(35 hrs), storage(30 GB), and aesthetics of it.
That said, I'd recommend just getting a stereo with an aux-in port on it, and plug your player in whenever you get in the car. That way, you don't have to futz with primitive CDs either.
They have seen that Google's approach to web advertising works, and is mildly appreciated by the masses. I have no love for Microsoft, but if they are resorting to good-guy tactics to make money, then I'd say that the battle has just turned toward the good guys.
I couldn't disagree more. First of all. Linux is the kernel. If you could choose a different kernel, it'd be something else. There are other things(BSD, QNX, OS/2, BeOS, Apple), but they are not Linux.
Second, "overall usability" is a very subjective and(in your case, I think) loaded phrase. I think you refer to "overall usability," in a self-serving manner, that assumes that everyone wants everything to work the same. This line of thinking is contrary to the spirit behind Linux and open source application development.
Linux wasn't written to be a linear system, with no choices for the user. It was written to be a free alternative, with the ideals of freedom attached to it, to encourage as much independent and diverse development as possible.
Some things work very well, and some don't. That doesn't mean that the system has failed. The system is still moving, and by the grace of freedom, it always will be. Linux has made massive advances, and continues to do so, without restricting its users' creativity and ingenuity.
I trust a community a lot more than I trust a committee.
I personally love the idea of countless groups building their idea of the eprfect distribution. It's a perfect example of combining freedom and competition.
While it can be said that consolidation allows for a meeting of the minds, and often faster and more effective development, it also inherently takes people's choices away.
Just like breweries, I prefer diversity, freedom, and competition. It tastes a lot better.
It's not only unlikely that a corporation would put anything besides profit first, it's foolish. Of course Google is out to make money. That's what businesses do, especially publicly traded ones. They have a responsibility to themselves and to their stockholders to be profitable.
Last I heard, Tempe was not its own metropolitan area, but a segment of the Phoenix metro. Perhaps it has outgrown its neighbor.
Yes, it's nice to see high-speed wireless access all over town, but for one, I don't like to see a city government throwing tax dollars at it when there are other things to worry about, and for another, why create a monopoly with public funds?
I would understand if it was going to offer free(or even cheap) access to things like city services, and public access-type content, but they're talking about offering commercial wireless access to the people in the city that can afford it. On top of that, they're talking about it costing about the same as commercial cable or DSL, which is unequivocally superior and more secure.
I like the idea of the whole town getting access, but I think they're going about it all wrong. It could be a valuable civil service, but instead, it's a sweetheart monopoly deal.
It seems that spammers don't even know what they're sending anymore. I get emails with no attachments, no links, just gibberish, with no possible way for me to be that one in eighty-four million that makes them some money.
Is it not so much about money anymore, and more just about pissing people off?
It will not become legal unless Anheuser Busch or Philip Morris can get a piece of it, because it's cutting into their profits now. That's why they're the primary financiers of "Partnership for a Drug-free America."
Yeah, I am always skeptical when I see deals like this. On the surface, it looks wonderful, except that I live in SBC territory. What I wonder is what kind of contracts there will be. I wonder if the service will require some kind of privacy outrage. I wonder if the service will have any kind of SLA, considering they seem to be aiming this at business and home office.
I will watch this very closely, as I would love these kind of numbers, but I unfortunately don't think it'll be without more cost than the purported amount.
I have been soured on Ubisoft games, and the company's name has come to be synonymous with frustration, for me. The checkpoint-style saving makes even the funnest games frustrating, and replay value drops to zero for me. This game look beautiful, but I'll wait and see whether I want anything to do with it, when the saving/loading scheme is unveiled.
Slashdot Mirror
The company where I work has countless internal and external web applications that were written specifically for IE5/6, and when accessed with IE7 cease to function properly, if at all. Developing for a specific http client, especially IE, is a very careless and foolish thing, but it's unfortunately been the way of the world until relatively recently.
I think the folks at youtube are aware that a ton of ads will piss off and lose them some users. I don't see any problem with introducing revelant, inobtrusive text ads. Why is everyone jumping to the conclusion that the only way that Youtube can survive, "in the real world," is to hold its users' heads under water with a torrent of advertising?
It doesn't have to be that way.
This is a spyware/crap installer.
Isn't the internet wonderful?
That's all in the works, the developers say, and will be available very soon. They have been very good about rolling out new features when they say they will, so I don't think it's an empty promise.
Your situation sounds like it's ideal for an online calendar. The newly-released AJAXified 30 Boxes is a great little online calendar, and is definitely worth a look.
As far as I know, a fixed trajectory only eases the acquisition by targeting systems, but is not a prerequisite for a missile-defense system even working. All that is required is enough lead time for the targeting systems to get a bead on the inbound target, and then it's vapor city.
This requires that XP Service Pack 2 be installed, it seems.
I don't know, I think I'd prefer to get my internet access from a company that has a vested interest in providing a service for money, as opposed to a governmental body whose only motivation for uptime and happy users is ... what? I don't know.
Government control of internet access? the terrible possibilities resound in my head: censorship, digital rights, privacy, and reprisal. If government controls the internet access, what happens to people who are delinquent on their property taxes? Have outstanding parking tickets? Have a late library book? Whatever mistakes I may make, I don't think my line into the world should be on the chopping block, as a means of coercion. I'd prefer to confine my internet access to an organization whose job it is to provide it, not one whose job it might become to withold it, or use it against me.
I meant it in the sense that people use IE and buy the ipod, because they don't know any better. It's the most common, most widely publicised/used player out there, and of the people that even know what an mp3 player is, I am willing to bet that a very significant portion couldn't name any other player than the ipod, just as a vast portion of http users have never even heard of Firefox.
Also, I fear that non-ipod players are to the point that they are regarded like using mozilla instead of IE, back in 99 or 2000. People don't call it an "mp3 player" or a "digital audio player" anymore. The common term, nowadays, is ipod.
When I try to convince friends that are in the market for an mp3 player to consider something besides an ipod, they look at me funny, and ask me a question to the tune of, "why would I want something else?"
I just hope that other companies can keep manufacturing great players.
There's an ogg-capable flash player coming out from Cowon, the same people who made my HD-based X5L. It's called the U3.
p hp
http://mp3.iaudio.com/product/product_U3_feature.
Sorry the page is mostly in non-english, but with 1GB and 2GB models, it looks great for things like working out, et al.
Cowon makes a fantastic audio player that supports Ogg Vorbis. It's called the iAUDIO x5. I bought it to replace my aging Rio Karma(which also supports ogg), and am ecstatic with the features, battery life(35 hrs), storage(30 GB), and aesthetics of it.
That said, I'd recommend just getting a stereo with an aux-in port on it, and plug your player in whenever you get in the car. That way, you don't have to futz with primitive CDs either.
They have seen that Google's approach to web advertising works, and is mildly appreciated by the masses. I have no love for Microsoft, but if they are resorting to good-guy tactics to make money, then I'd say that the battle has just turned toward the good guys.
I seriously doubt they would close off their own revenue like that. They aren't *that* stupid.
I couldn't disagree more. First of all. Linux is the kernel. If you could choose a different kernel, it'd be something else. There are other things(BSD, QNX, OS/2, BeOS, Apple), but they are not Linux.
Second, "overall usability" is a very subjective and(in your case, I think) loaded phrase. I think you refer to "overall usability," in a self-serving manner, that assumes that everyone wants everything to work the same. This line of thinking is contrary to the spirit behind Linux and open source application development.
Linux wasn't written to be a linear system, with no choices for the user. It was written to be a free alternative, with the ideals of freedom attached to it, to encourage as much independent and diverse development as possible.
Some things work very well, and some don't. That doesn't mean that the system has failed. The system is still moving, and by the grace of freedom, it always will be. Linux has made massive advances, and continues to do so, without restricting its users' creativity and ingenuity.
I trust a community a lot more than I trust a committee.
I personally love the idea of countless groups building their idea of the eprfect distribution. It's a perfect example of combining freedom and competition.
While it can be said that consolidation allows for a meeting of the minds, and often faster and more effective development, it also inherently takes people's choices away.
Just like breweries, I prefer diversity, freedom, and competition. It tastes a lot better.
It's not only unlikely that a corporation would put anything besides profit first, it's foolish. Of course Google is out to make money. That's what businesses do, especially publicly traded ones. They have a responsibility to themselves and to their stockholders to be profitable.
That isn't evil, it's sense.
Last I heard, Tempe was not its own metropolitan area, but a segment of the Phoenix metro. Perhaps it has outgrown its neighbor.
Yes, it's nice to see high-speed wireless access all over town, but for one, I don't like to see a city government throwing tax dollars at it when there are other things to worry about, and for another, why create a monopoly with public funds?
I would understand if it was going to offer free(or even cheap) access to things like city services, and public access-type content, but they're talking about offering commercial wireless access to the people in the city that can afford it. On top of that, they're talking about it costing about the same as commercial cable or DSL, which is unequivocally superior and more secure.
I like the idea of the whole town getting access, but I think they're going about it all wrong. It could be a valuable civil service, but instead, it's a sweetheart monopoly deal.
Wow. RTFA, man.
It seems that spammers don't even know what they're sending anymore. I get emails with no attachments, no links, just gibberish, with no possible way for me to be that one in eighty-four million that makes them some money.
Is it not so much about money anymore, and more just about pissing people off?
in 1924 perspicacity glutton mining. Because of!
It will not become legal unless Anheuser Busch or Philip Morris can get a piece of it, because it's cutting into their profits now. That's why they're the primary financiers of "Partnership for a Drug-free America."
Yeah, I am always skeptical when I see deals like this. On the surface, it looks wonderful, except that I live in SBC territory. What I wonder is what kind of contracts there will be. I wonder if the service will require some kind of privacy outrage. I wonder if the service will have any kind of SLA, considering they seem to be aiming this at business and home office.
I will watch this very closely, as I would love these kind of numbers, but I unfortunately don't think it'll be without more cost than the purported amount.
I have been soured on Ubisoft games, and the company's name has come to be synonymous with frustration, for me. The checkpoint-style saving makes even the funnest games frustrating, and replay value drops to zero for me. This game look beautiful, but I'll wait and see whether I want anything to do with it, when the saving/loading scheme is unveiled.
While it can have some cap card driver and configuration issues, MythTV is just amazing, considering it's Free Software.
Taco is FIRARED