Ya know, you'd think they'd realise that if we WANTED the Mac user-interface and behaviour model, we'd BUY a bloody Mac in the first place. Making Windows more Mac-like may gratify the Mac fanboys, but a great many people use Windows specifically because it does NOT look or behave like a Mac.
I've read that if your machine doesn't have enough horsepower for the Aero interface, it'll default to an XP-alike interface. Hopefully that means one can turn the blasted thing off entirely... I can't stand XP's Fischer-Price look, and my first move with XP is always to set it back to the Win2K look. And from what I've seen so far of Aero... well, IMO the new eye candy is mostly just annoying and distracting, and it bloody well BETTER let us *set* it to look like W2K, or it ain't going on any machine of mine. Your eyeballs may vary.
M$Paint originated as ZSoft's Paint for DOS, released by ZSoft in *1985*. M$Paint had merely been made into a WinApp, but was otherwise identical to the DOS version (which I still have installed on some old machines). Incidentally some ZSoft code was the original core for CorelDraw, way back when.
The WinXP incarnation of M$Paint was the first one that didn't use glorified screen-capture per the old DOS method of saving images (that's why Save in M$Paint had always truncated any part of the image that wasn't visible in the window), and that knew more than one file format (tho the conversion to 8bit must use some really horrible dither method).
Paint was a dandy little app in its day, and is still useful for quick-and-dirty. But as a selling point for an OS...??!
I translated the move to mean "our adware product is now so ubiquitously blocked that it's become hard to make money with it, so we're selling it to some other sucker and finding a new area to sleeze in."
I was blessed with many good teachers in my academic passage, and very few bad ones.
The good ones all had one thing in common: joy in their subject, and a clear vision of how to share that joy. Some were better at getting that across than others, but they all wanted to see the students learn, and learn well. Their biggest reward was when the student stayed after class and asked a question about something in the material that had sparked thought or interest. (Even sheer bafflement can indicate you're THINKING about it.)
The bad ones came in three kinds: the little tin god who rules by fear (one usually learns, but mainly with the goal of escaping from the class), the monotonous pedant who doesn't get why a student didn't understand something (hard to go to when you need help), and (the worst for actual learning) the type that is more interested in student-feelgood ("self-esteem" crap) than in actually making sure knowledge finds its way into students' heads. Fortunately, these were all bloody rare when I was in school (exited in 1975).
As to the nominal topic... I've noticed that while writing by hand seems to go thru the brain's speech center, typing does not (it seems to route directly from ears to fingertips). I suspect this is why material recited =or= written down is far more likely to be learned and understood than material that one merely heard and retyped. I'd guess this professor has also made the connection.
IMO a redirected domain IS an active domain, no matter where it sits or how you get there -- not at all like a parked domain that does nothing beyond act as a placeholder.
That's a good explanation, thanks for the clarification.
It's ALWAYS a good idea to have someone available who is willing and able to say "But wait a minute, isn't Proposed Law X going to do THAT bad thing??" that the framers of Proposed Law X may not have fully understood (wilfully or from lack of perspective), or don't want discussed in the light of day.
Occurs to me that if the object is to have as complete an examination of propose law as possible, it's best if the various chambers it has to pass through are NOT too similar. An elected chamber would very quickly become filled with former MPs and wannabe-MPs (the only way around that would be if you served in one, you're barred for life in the other). So... I suspect the end result would be that an elected replacement for the Lords' function would wind up simply rubberstamping whatever the Commons wanted, lest they not Get Theirs when the next election rolls around. As others have pointed out, any elected official becomes at least somewhat beholden to his financial sponsors; the Lords at least don't have that drawback.
Also, coming out of old families and old money does tend to give one a completely different perspective. What seems like It's Gotta Be Done NOW to a working stiff, someone with a longer view may realise is not such a good idea, if your descendants have to live with the consequences.
There's much to be said for not having to rely on bri^H^H^H campaign contributions...
And as a general rule, the stability of the country is to the benefit of an hereditary class, so I expect the Lords also take a dim view of destabilizing legislation.
I'm led to wonder how different the U.S. would be if we had our own House of Lords.
One of my pet peeves is how developers no longer bother cleaning up the resource heap, because after all now WinXP can be expected to do it for you. Much the same principle -- XP's improved resource heap management lets coders be lazy and sloppy, so guess what, they are!!
As to preventing buffer overflows, I remember reading a couple years ago about how some compilers actually muck around with your code and *introduce* buffer overflows. Eeep!!
(BTW... hi Joe, didn't realise the nym was you til today!)
I've had a dozen with GoDaddy for almost 5 years now. No problems, good live-human support when I've needed it (except for the horrible HTML their support emails come in -- completely unreadable).
What I *am* annoyed with are their price creep and their site bloat, which led me to register my two newest domains with 1&1 (my web host). A little less money, and a WHOLE lot less time.
Does this also affect domains that use the free redirection service? are they considered "parked"??
Most of mine are set up that way; in fact the free redirect was what originally tipped my decision in GD's favour. However, now I have hosting elsewhere and could do my own redirect...
You misunderstand. This has nothing to do with people who try to look like a celeb. It has to do with how NO ONE (whether the star of the show or the most lowly extra) can have their likeness used (that is, be filmed or photographed), without first signing a "waiver" that allows the production company to use their "likeness" (that is, their most personally identifiable feature, ie. their face.)
So what I'm getting at is... why should other personally identifiable features (points of identity, such as personal information) be any different? could existing law regarding use of one's "likeness" be stretched to protect other personal info from exploitation by whomever can latch onto it??
Note: the waiver requirement is why production companies go out of their way to NOT film random passersby, who *could* demand that their likeness be removed from the final production.
Information brokers should be put in the same position, where they cannot use/sell/exploit our personal information without an individually granted waiver.
I wonder if the question of who owns your personal data could be framed in law akin to how an actor owns rights to their own likeness, and that likeness can only be used with their consent. While this is routinely violated by the paparazzi [sp?], when you work on a film set you DO have to sign a waiver allowing the film company to "use your likeness".
Now, how does my likeness fundamentally differ from my other personal information -- information that in some way defines or derives from ME and MY life??
And the net effect of the marketdroids' getting the upper hand is that instead of staying on such a site longer, I bail as quickly as possible, and instead of coming back often, I only visit when I absolutely can't avoid it.
In fact, when faced with having to contact a company afflicted with such a site, I'll use the phone, or go in person (when practical) instead.
Conversely, I'm in no rush to leave a simply-functional site (and am more likely to look around and see what else is offered), as it hasn't already annoyed me into wanting to be elsewhere.
IMO the REAL problem lies in that if it ain't broke, whoever wants to fix it is out of a job.
I do that with replies, too. Open Reply Link in New Window, have my way with it, Submit. So what if I don't immediately see it on the page I just came from?
As to the cited example, plentyoffish.com -- it immediately struck me as "the google of dating sites". Works in a stripped-down browser, loads quickly, produces results efficiently and readably. Since its mission is to find information, not to tittilate your artistic sensibilities, what is wrong with being plain and functional??
" I would argue that naturally occurring genetic material is the best example of prior art known to mankind, but the patent office disagrees and permits companies to claim parts of your body as their own, and declare that any knowledge of said material belongs to the company in question."
Occurs to me that the absurdity of the situation might be best illustrated by a patent on something more visible to the layman (who can't be expected to be able to visualize genes); frex, a patent on "a method of utilizing digits attached to the human extremities". Anyone who uses their fingers and toes is instantly in violation of the patent.
My bologna has a first name, it's bioresearch staff My bologna has a second name, it's gas chromatograph And I have wondered, so have you Why it tastes the way it do..... 'Cuz Oscar Mayer has a way With recombinant DNA!
(c) 1991 Offworld Press (that's me:)
Oh, and this ditty goes to support my patent on nonsense rhetoric used in support of nonsense patents.
No problem... I own the patent on "Oxygen". Pay up!
And to the dude who's about to protest, I also own the patents for protons, neutrons, electrons, random unnamed particles, and all forces known and unknown pertaining thereto.
As I recall the final and definitive analysis of the "Bye-bye CD drive" problem, the REAL cause was a Stupid Assumption in LG's firmware code, which MDK 9.2 just happened to trip over. (Sorry, I don't remember any more details than that.)
Slashdot Mirror
Ya know, you'd think they'd realise that if we WANTED the Mac user-interface and behaviour model, we'd BUY a bloody Mac in the first place. Making Windows more Mac-like may gratify the Mac fanboys, but a great many people use Windows specifically because it does NOT look or behave like a Mac.
I've read that if your machine doesn't have enough horsepower for the Aero interface, it'll default to an XP-alike interface. Hopefully that means one can turn the blasted thing off entirely... I can't stand XP's Fischer-Price look, and my first move with XP is always to set it back to the Win2K look. And from what I've seen so far of Aero ... well, IMO the new eye candy is mostly just annoying and distracting, and it bloody well BETTER let us *set* it to look like W2K, or it ain't going on any machine of mine. Your eyeballs may vary.
Is that a picture of a snail being used as wallpaper? Hmmm......
M$Paint originated as ZSoft's Paint for DOS, released by ZSoft in *1985*. M$Paint had merely been made into a WinApp, but was otherwise identical to the DOS version (which I still have installed on some old machines). Incidentally some ZSoft code was the original core for CorelDraw, way back when.
The WinXP incarnation of M$Paint was the first one that didn't use glorified screen-capture per the old DOS method of saving images (that's why Save in M$Paint had always truncated any part of the image that wasn't visible in the window), and that knew more than one file format (tho the conversion to 8bit must use some really horrible dither method).
Paint was a dandy little app in its day, and is still useful for quick-and-dirty. But as a selling point for an OS...??!
[goes off, reads specs]
[blink]
Are they designing an OS, or a video game??!
I translated the move to mean "our adware product is now so ubiquitously blocked that it's become hard to make money with it, so we're selling it to some other sucker and finding a new area to sleeze in."
I was blessed with many good teachers in my academic passage, and very few bad ones.
The good ones all had one thing in common: joy in their subject, and a clear vision of how to share that joy. Some were better at getting that across than others, but they all wanted to see the students learn, and learn well. Their biggest reward was when the student stayed after class and asked a question about something in the material that had sparked thought or interest. (Even sheer bafflement can indicate you're THINKING about it.)
The bad ones came in three kinds: the little tin god who rules by fear (one usually learns, but mainly with the goal of escaping from the class), the monotonous pedant who doesn't get why a student didn't understand something (hard to go to when you need help), and (the worst for actual learning) the type that is more interested in student-feelgood ("self-esteem" crap) than in actually making sure knowledge finds its way into students' heads. Fortunately, these were all bloody rare when I was in school (exited in 1975).
As to the nominal topic... I've noticed that while writing by hand seems to go thru the brain's speech center, typing does not (it seems to route directly from ears to fingertips). I suspect this is why material recited =or= written down is far more likely to be learned and understood than material that one merely heard and retyped. I'd guess this professor has also made the connection.
Thanks for the info, I'm glad to hear it.
IMO a redirected domain IS an active domain, no matter where it sits or how you get there -- not at all like a parked domain that does nothing beyond act as a placeholder.
That's a good explanation, thanks for the clarification.
It's ALWAYS a good idea to have someone available who is willing and able to say "But wait a minute, isn't Proposed Law X going to do THAT bad thing??" that the framers of Proposed Law X may not have fully understood (wilfully or from lack of perspective), or don't want discussed in the light of day.
Occurs to me that if the object is to have as complete an examination of propose law as possible, it's best if the various chambers it has to pass through are NOT too similar. An elected chamber would very quickly become filled with former MPs and wannabe-MPs (the only way around that would be if you served in one, you're barred for life in the other). So... I suspect the end result would be that an elected replacement for the Lords' function would wind up simply rubberstamping whatever the Commons wanted, lest they not Get Theirs when the next election rolls around. As others have pointed out, any elected official becomes at least somewhat beholden to his financial sponsors; the Lords at least don't have that drawback.
Also, coming out of old families and old money does tend to give one a completely different perspective. What seems like It's Gotta Be Done NOW to a working stiff, someone with a longer view may realise is not such a good idea, if your descendants have to live with the consequences.
From what little I've seen of the Queen from an across-the-ditch perspective, she certainly seems to have more common sense than Mr.Blair ....
There's much to be said for not having to rely on bri^H^H^H campaign contributions...
And as a general rule, the stability of the country is to the benefit of an hereditary class, so I expect the Lords also take a dim view of destabilizing legislation.
I'm led to wonder how different the U.S. would be if we had our own House of Lords.
One of my pet peeves is how developers no longer bother cleaning up the resource heap, because after all now WinXP can be expected to do it for you. Much the same principle -- XP's improved resource heap management lets coders be lazy and sloppy, so guess what, they are!!
As to preventing buffer overflows, I remember reading a couple years ago about how some compilers actually muck around with your code and *introduce* buffer overflows. Eeep!!
(BTW... hi Joe, didn't realise the nym was you til today!)
I've had a dozen with GoDaddy for almost 5 years now. No problems, good live-human support when I've needed it (except for the horrible HTML their support emails come in -- completely unreadable).
What I *am* annoyed with are their price creep and their site bloat, which led me to register my two newest domains with 1&1 (my web host). A little less money, and a WHOLE lot less time.
Does this also affect domains that use the free redirection service? are they considered "parked"??
Most of mine are set up that way; in fact the free redirect was what originally tipped my decision in GD's favour. However, now I have hosting elsewhere and could do my own redirect...
You misunderstand. This has nothing to do with people who try to look like a celeb. It has to do with how NO ONE (whether the star of the show or the most lowly extra) can have their likeness used (that is, be filmed or photographed), without first signing a "waiver" that allows the production company to use their "likeness" (that is, their most personally identifiable feature, ie. their face.)
... why should other personally identifiable features (points of identity, such as personal information) be any different? could existing law regarding use of one's "likeness" be stretched to protect other personal info from exploitation by whomever can latch onto it??
So what I'm getting at is
Note: the waiver requirement is why production companies go out of their way to NOT film random passersby, who *could* demand that their likeness be removed from the final production.
Information brokers should be put in the same position, where they cannot use/sell/exploit our personal information without an individually granted waiver.
I wonder if the question of who owns your personal data could be framed in law akin to how an actor owns rights to their own likeness, and that likeness can only be used with their consent. While this is routinely violated by the paparazzi [sp?], when you work on a film set you DO have to sign a waiver allowing the film company to "use your likeness".
Now, how does my likeness fundamentally differ from my other personal information -- information that in some way defines or derives from ME and MY life??
I've long contended that there's a stupid gene that gets activated the moment people have kids of their own...
I had a similar thought. And imagine the uses THAT "opt out" list could be put to...
And the net effect of the marketdroids' getting the upper hand is that instead of staying on such a site longer, I bail as quickly as possible, and instead of coming back often, I only visit when I absolutely can't avoid it.
In fact, when faced with having to contact a company afflicted with such a site, I'll use the phone, or go in person (when practical) instead.
Conversely, I'm in no rush to leave a simply-functional site (and am more likely to look around and see what else is offered), as it hasn't already annoyed me into wanting to be elsewhere.
IMO the REAL problem lies in that if it ain't broke, whoever wants to fix it is out of a job.
I do that with replies, too. Open Reply Link in New Window, have my way with it, Submit. So what if I don't immediately see it on the page I just came from?
As to the cited example, plentyoffish.com -- it immediately struck me as "the google of dating sites". Works in a stripped-down browser, loads quickly, produces results efficiently and readably. Since its mission is to find information, not to tittilate your artistic sensibilities, what is wrong with being plain and functional??
I like your solution, but more likely the patent holder would sue you for having an unlicensed case of diabetes.
:(
(I'm not entirely sure this is a joke, either.
" I would argue that naturally occurring genetic material is the best example of prior art known to mankind, but the patent office disagrees and permits companies to claim parts of your body as their own, and declare that any knowledge of said material belongs to the company in question."
Occurs to me that the absurdity of the situation might be best illustrated by a patent on something more visible to the layman (who can't be expected to be able to visualize genes); frex, a patent on "a method of utilizing digits attached to the human extremities". Anyone who uses their fingers and toes is instantly in violation of the patent.
Which brings to mind...
:)
My bologna has a first name, it's bioresearch staff
My bologna has a second name, it's gas chromatograph
And I have wondered, so have you
Why it tastes the way it do.....
'Cuz Oscar Mayer has a way
With recombinant DNA!
(c) 1991 Offworld Press (that's me
Oh, and this ditty goes to support my patent on nonsense rhetoric used in support of nonsense patents.
No problem... I own the patent on "Oxygen". Pay up!
And to the dude who's about to protest, I also own the patents for protons, neutrons, electrons, random unnamed particles, and all forces known and unknown pertaining thereto.
As I recall the final and definitive analysis of the "Bye-bye CD drive" problem, the REAL cause was a Stupid Assumption in LG's firmware code, which MDK 9.2 just happened to trip over. (Sorry, I don't remember any more details than that.)