How does mozilla release cross-platform the same day, when their codebase is supposedly a huge mess?
Simple: by not releasing a Windows version until the Mac and Linux versions are ready.
Also, it's a huge mess, but it's a huge cross-platform mess. Mozilla's predecessor, Netscape, was cross-platform from the beginning, and Mozilla has upheld that tradition.
Ya I know it's in beta, but FF is released for all platforms, beta or not.
I would just think (or I guess hope) google would 'get it' and release cross-platform, and not 5 months down the line get a feature lacking version, that forever will be behind the windows version.
I don't see why the Linux and Mac versions should lack features, when they finally ship. Why do you believe they will? What features do you expect to be missing?
For all that the Mozilla team isn't worried, they've got a long history of developers rejecting Gecko for other engines: first AOL rejected it in preference for IE (and then again on the Mac in preference for WebKit), then Apple (again for WebKit), and now Google (once again for WebKit). In the mobile space it isn't doing all that much better, with developers rejecting it in favor of Opera.
And WebKit. My Nokia N75 phone includes a WebKit-based browser.
I fail to see how Google making their own browser is any different than IE 1.0. The goals are the same from this chair. Get people away from using the market leader in order to benifit our own profits.
Getting people to move away from Internet Explorer is one of the goals of Google Chrome, but there is another even more important goal: making the web better. If you don't understand how, read the comic book.
What does this mean for Mozilla, which currently gets most of its financial support from Google? If Google has their own browser which competes against Firefox, will they be inclined to reduce their support of Firefox?
If not, it means Google will be paying for two competitors to Internet Explorer. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft complains about unfair competition.
In any event, if Google's aim is to further drive people away from IE, they'll have to spend some cash on advertising. Their target is people who are already familiar with Google's brand name, but believe the blue "e" is "how you get to Google." Some of these people launch IE and type "www.google.com" into the address bar every time they want to search for something, because their home page is set to MSN and they are unaware that it can be changed (or that other sites can be bookmarked), let alone know how to do so.
I believe you're confused as to what "404 Not Found" means. It means the page you're looking for isn't there, not that the server is overloaded or can't handle the request. It's not slashdotted.
However, this is not Google's normal 404 page. They've definitely configured www.google.com/chrome differently than the rest of the site, so they're obviously planning to put something there.
why can't you condemn the usa, AND condemn russia?
For the same reason I can't oppose gay marriage AND drilling in ANWR. The same reason I can't support sending more troops to Iraq AND universal healthcare. The reason I can't oppose abortion AND warrantless domestic wiretaps.
Faith is believing in something without having complete evidence thereof. Faith, by that definition, is always illogical.
There's nothing illogical about it. I believe that Cleveland exists, but I don't really have any direct evidence that it exists. I've never been there, and I don't think I've ever met someone from there. Sure, it's on the map, but that's hardly proof!
However, given what little evidence I do have, and the lack of evidence to the contrary, it would not be illogical for me to believe that Cleveland exists. In fact, it would be quite logical to hold firm to that belief, growing more and more sure every day, treating it as reliable fact and not merely a matter of opinion. If you claim to have evidence that Cleveland doesn't exist, I'm going to be very skeptical. I might dismiss you as a lunatic, even though I don't really have any substantial evidence of Cleveland's existence myself.
Similarly, I believe that God exists. I don't have any empirical proof of God's existence, but I wouldn't expect to, given that God has chosen not to reveal Himself in a testable way in the last two millennia. Just as I have maps that show the existence of Cleveland, created by people who claim to have actually been there, I have the Bible, written by people who claimed to have had direct personal experience with the Almighty. I don't think it's any less logical to believe the Bible is accurate than to believe a map of Cleveland is accurate.
I realize that a lot of people think the Bible is internally inconsistent or illogical, but it's been my experience that the majority of these people have only a cursory familiarity with its contents. I'm no expert, but I've met people who are, and I know people who have studied it for years. There's a well-known Christian university nearby; most (if not all) of their professors have PhDs relating to Biblical study, so they obviously understand the subject very deeply, and none of them believe the Bible to be internally inconsistent or illogical. It is certainly not illogical for me to believe that they're right.
Now, if you were to offer solid proof that either Cleveland or God does not exist, THEN it would be illogical for me not to change my position. Until you can do so, I will continue to dismiss your arguments.
By the way, I plan to vote for Obama; the only important issues I disagree with him on, McCain's position isn't significantly different.
That had occurred to me, but the company in question had recently been bought by the owner of a different company, and it was the new owner who was asking me to do this. I'm pretty sure the ISP wouldn't have been aware of the change of ownership.
I should also mention that I called the ISP from my cell phone, so the company's phone number would not have shown up on caller ID, and I was not asked for any form of identification.
I've been on the other end of that kind of thing. I had a client, who had an employee they suspected of doing something shady. The employee had already given notice that she would be leaving the company, and was finishing up her two weeks or whatever. Anyway, the boss asked me to set up her e-mail account to forward a copy of all her e-mail to him, so he could essentially spy on her incoming e-mail without her knowing about it.
I weighed the moral implications briefly, and decided that since this is a company e-mail account intended to be used exclusively for business purposes, and there was a specific issue he wanted to investigate, I didn't have a serious moral objection. Not entirely comfortable, but he's the boss.
The trick was, their ISP was hosting their e-mail accounts. They didn't have a domain name, just individual mailboxes for a couple of people. So I called them up, explained that I was the company's IT guy, and asked them to set the mailbox in question to forward a copy of everything to the owner's e-mail address. I gave them the address to forward the mail to. They set it up without question.
Telco immunity. Think about this, yea, they should have been nailed to the wall, but they WERE ordered by the government to do something. It is hard to resist being compelled like that. The real prosecution should be against BushCo.
I don't want the telcos to be punished by having large fines imposed (because they'd just pass it on to the consumer, and bitch about how unfair it is). I do want them to be dragged through the court system, because that's the ONLY way to get their dirty laundry out in the open.
It would be great to prosecute members of the Bush administration, but we CAN'T, because the Bush administration won't let us.
If a cop told you to help him, you'd feel compelled to help. If it is illegal, the cop is responsible, not you.
Wrong, and this causes all sorts of problems. Educate yourself about the law, so that you can begin to tell the difference between what's legal and what isn't. If the situation is unclear, consult a lawyer before taking action.
When he said "the question itself is not inherently partiisan", he meant that the real question is "What non-obvious things can nerds do to get involved in the political process?" That question had been stated as "What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Democrats win in November?" but that's just a partisan spin of the real question.
And yeah, you're right about everything else you said.:-)
I wrote him an e-mail expressing my disappointment about that. Didn't get a reply. However, he appears to share my views on most of the other issues that matter in this election: universal health care, sane foreign policy, open government, etc. I'm against abortion and gay marriage, but unlike a lot of people, I don't think those issues are important in the presidential race.
I may not be 100% satisfied with Obama, but I'd much rather have Obama become the next President than McCain.
They're also still scraping e-mail addresses off the web. And no, just because one spammer has your address does NOT mean that all spammers have it: spammer #1 is not going to give your address to spammer #2 without compensation, so unless spammer #2 buys a collection of addresses from spammer #1 (they were going for about $500 for a database on CD-ROM last time I checked), or spammer #2 discovers your e-mail address independently, then no, spammer #2 doesn't have your address.
The best idea I've seen is to use enclosed racks, sealed with weatherstripping except for vents at the bottom, and put a duct in the top that leads to an exhaust fan on the roof. Now you're not trying to cool the hot air produced by the servers; you're removing the hot air produced by the servers. Cool air from the already-air-conditioned room will be sucked up through ventilation at the bottom of the rack to keep the servers cool. And since your existing AC doesn't have to cool all that hot air, it should be able to keep the room temperature down to 20C.
Note that this is a long-term solution in terms of lower energy costs. I have no idea what it would cost up front to implement.
You can now buy Visa gift cards, which work like an anonymous debit card that you can buy with cash, then use anywhere Visa credit cards are accepted. At least I'm assuming that's how they work.
Yes, but if you read the chapter in context, it talks about a beast who will perform "great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast [mentioned previously], he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the [first] beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed."
So until the rest of that happens, whatever number you might be assigned is probably not the Mark of the Beast. I would suggest, however, that the two "beasts" mentioned here could be just about anything - for example, the first beast could be a corporation while the second beast could be a marketing campaign (I'm not suggesting this is a good interpretation, it's just one crazy idea).
We work using monthly iterations and when we told the people responsible for the software in the field that an iteration cost about 30 000$ just in labor costs they started paying attention and making the lists of demands count, i.e. removing the superflueous demands (ex: "it would look nicer in blue" was replaced with "The standard deviation calculation should be done with X+1, not just X.")
You're saying you explained the real costs of improving the software to the people using it, and with this new information, they were able to formulate better requests? Amazing.
I've always found it remarkable how many companies and organizations DON'T encourage this type of communication. For example, I used to work in tech support for a few ISPs, and we usually had no real way to communicate with the people responsible for developing the tools we had to use, or the people who maintained the network we were troubleshooting. Most of them had no tech support experience, so they had no idea what our needs were; they didn't work in the same location, so they never actually saw how we did our jobs, and there was basically no communication between departments about anything technical - only what could be relayed through management.
Slashdot Mirror
How does mozilla release cross-platform the same day, when their codebase is supposedly a huge mess?
Simple: by not releasing a Windows version until the Mac and Linux versions are ready.
Also, it's a huge mess, but it's a huge cross-platform mess. Mozilla's predecessor, Netscape, was cross-platform from the beginning, and Mozilla has upheld that tradition.
Ya I know it's in beta, but FF is released for all platforms, beta or not.
I would just think (or I guess hope) google would 'get it' and release cross-platform, and not 5 months down the line get a feature lacking version, that forever will be behind the windows version.
I don't see why the Linux and Mac versions should lack features, when they finally ship. Why do you believe they will? What features do you expect to be missing?
For all that the Mozilla team isn't worried, they've got a long history of developers rejecting Gecko for other engines: first AOL rejected it in preference for IE (and then again on the Mac in preference for WebKit), then Apple (again for WebKit), and now Google (once again for WebKit). In the mobile space it isn't doing all that much better, with developers rejecting it in favor of Opera.
And WebKit. My Nokia N75 phone includes a WebKit-based browser.
I fail to see how Google making their own browser is any different than IE 1.0. The goals are the same from this chair. Get people away from using the market leader in order to benifit our own profits.
Getting people to move away from Internet Explorer is one of the goals of Google Chrome, but there is another even more important goal: making the web better. If you don't understand how, read the comic book.
What does this mean for Mozilla, which currently gets most of its financial support from Google? If Google has their own browser which competes against Firefox, will they be inclined to reduce their support of Firefox?
If not, it means Google will be paying for two competitors to Internet Explorer. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft complains about unfair competition.
In any event, if Google's aim is to further drive people away from IE, they'll have to spend some cash on advertising. Their target is people who are already familiar with Google's brand name, but believe the blue "e" is "how you get to Google." Some of these people launch IE and type "www.google.com" into the address bar every time they want to search for something, because their home page is set to MSN and they are unaware that it can be changed (or that other sites can be bookmarked), let alone know how to do so.
I believe you're confused as to what "404 Not Found" means. It means the page you're looking for isn't there, not that the server is overloaded or can't handle the request. It's not slashdotted.
However, this is not Google's normal 404 page. They've definitely configured www.google.com/chrome differently than the rest of the site, so they're obviously planning to put something there.
why can't you condemn the usa, AND condemn russia?
For the same reason I can't oppose gay marriage AND drilling in ANWR. The same reason I can't support sending more troops to Iraq AND universal healthcare. The reason I can't oppose abortion AND warrantless domestic wiretaps.
Choose a side! Don't you realize we're at war?
Yes; if you never write me a check, or provide me with your account information in some other way, then I can't steal all your money.
The only form of authentication on a check is your signature. Electronic funds transfers don't have that.
Faith is believing in something without having complete evidence thereof. Faith, by that definition, is always illogical.
There's nothing illogical about it. I believe that Cleveland exists, but I don't really have any direct evidence that it exists. I've never been there, and I don't think I've ever met someone from there. Sure, it's on the map, but that's hardly proof!
However, given what little evidence I do have, and the lack of evidence to the contrary, it would not be illogical for me to believe that Cleveland exists. In fact, it would be quite logical to hold firm to that belief, growing more and more sure every day, treating it as reliable fact and not merely a matter of opinion. If you claim to have evidence that Cleveland doesn't exist, I'm going to be very skeptical. I might dismiss you as a lunatic, even though I don't really have any substantial evidence of Cleveland's existence myself.
Similarly, I believe that God exists. I don't have any empirical proof of God's existence, but I wouldn't expect to, given that God has chosen not to reveal Himself in a testable way in the last two millennia. Just as I have maps that show the existence of Cleveland, created by people who claim to have actually been there, I have the Bible, written by people who claimed to have had direct personal experience with the Almighty. I don't think it's any less logical to believe the Bible is accurate than to believe a map of Cleveland is accurate.
I realize that a lot of people think the Bible is internally inconsistent or illogical, but it's been my experience that the majority of these people have only a cursory familiarity with its contents. I'm no expert, but I've met people who are, and I know people who have studied it for years. There's a well-known Christian university nearby; most (if not all) of their professors have PhDs relating to Biblical study, so they obviously understand the subject very deeply, and none of them believe the Bible to be internally inconsistent or illogical. It is certainly not illogical for me to believe that they're right.
Now, if you were to offer solid proof that either Cleveland or God does not exist, THEN it would be illogical for me not to change my position. Until you can do so, I will continue to dismiss your arguments.
By the way, I plan to vote for Obama; the only important issues I disagree with him on, McCain's position isn't significantly different.
That had occurred to me, but the company in question had recently been bought by the owner of a different company, and it was the new owner who was asking me to do this. I'm pretty sure the ISP wouldn't have been aware of the change of ownership.
I should also mention that I called the ISP from my cell phone, so the company's phone number would not have shown up on caller ID, and I was not asked for any form of identification.
Small business with no full-time IT staff.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Natalie Portmans pouring hot grits down your pants, in Soviet Russia!
I've been on the other end of that kind of thing. I had a client, who had an employee they suspected of doing something shady. The employee had already given notice that she would be leaving the company, and was finishing up her two weeks or whatever. Anyway, the boss asked me to set up her e-mail account to forward a copy of all her e-mail to him, so he could essentially spy on her incoming e-mail without her knowing about it.
I weighed the moral implications briefly, and decided that since this is a company e-mail account intended to be used exclusively for business purposes, and there was a specific issue he wanted to investigate, I didn't have a serious moral objection. Not entirely comfortable, but he's the boss.
The trick was, their ISP was hosting their e-mail accounts. They didn't have a domain name, just individual mailboxes for a couple of people. So I called them up, explained that I was the company's IT guy, and asked them to set the mailbox in question to forward a copy of everything to the owner's e-mail address. I gave them the address to forward the mail to. They set it up without question.
Telco immunity. Think about this, yea, they should have been nailed to the wall, but they WERE ordered by the government to do something. It is hard to resist being compelled like that. The real prosecution should be against BushCo.
I don't want the telcos to be punished by having large fines imposed (because they'd just pass it on to the consumer, and bitch about how unfair it is). I do want them to be dragged through the court system, because that's the ONLY way to get their dirty laundry out in the open.
It would be great to prosecute members of the Bush administration, but we CAN'T, because the Bush administration won't let us.
If a cop told you to help him, you'd feel compelled to help. If it is illegal, the cop is responsible, not you.
Wrong, and this causes all sorts of problems. Educate yourself about the law, so that you can begin to tell the difference between what's legal and what isn't. If the situation is unclear, consult a lawyer before taking action.
When he said "the question itself is not inherently partiisan", he meant that the real question is "What non-obvious things can nerds do to get involved in the political process?" That question had been stated as "What non-obvious things can nerds who are so inclined do to help the Democrats win in November?" but that's just a partisan spin of the real question.
And yeah, you're right about everything else you said. :-)
I wrote him an e-mail expressing my disappointment about that. Didn't get a reply. However, he appears to share my views on most of the other issues that matter in this election: universal health care, sane foreign policy, open government, etc. I'm against abortion and gay marriage, but unlike a lot of people, I don't think those issues are important in the presidential race.
I may not be 100% satisfied with Obama, but I'd much rather have Obama become the next President than McCain.
What if you suddenly stop being able to remove the hot air? Your servers will be cooked inside their airtight racks.
So use multiple redundant exhaust fans.
They're also still scraping e-mail addresses off the web. And no, just because one spammer has your address does NOT mean that all spammers have it: spammer #1 is not going to give your address to spammer #2 without compensation, so unless spammer #2 buys a collection of addresses from spammer #1 (they were going for about $500 for a database on CD-ROM last time I checked), or spammer #2 discovers your e-mail address independently, then no, spammer #2 doesn't have your address.
The best idea I've seen is to use enclosed racks, sealed with weatherstripping except for vents at the bottom, and put a duct in the top that leads to an exhaust fan on the roof. Now you're not trying to cool the hot air produced by the servers; you're removing the hot air produced by the servers. Cool air from the already-air-conditioned room will be sucked up through ventilation at the bottom of the rack to keep the servers cool. And since your existing AC doesn't have to cool all that hot air, it should be able to keep the room temperature down to 20C.
Note that this is a long-term solution in terms of lower energy costs. I have no idea what it would cost up front to implement.
You can now buy Visa gift cards, which work like an anonymous debit card that you can buy with cash, then use anywhere Visa credit cards are accepted. At least I'm assuming that's how they work.
Yes, but if you read the chapter in context, it talks about a beast who will perform "great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast [mentioned previously], he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the [first] beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed."
So until the rest of that happens, whatever number you might be assigned is probably not the Mark of the Beast. I would suggest, however, that the two "beasts" mentioned here could be just about anything - for example, the first beast could be a corporation while the second beast could be a marketing campaign (I'm not suggesting this is a good interpretation, it's just one crazy idea).
Just ask someone else to say it for you.
Of course the people under you want you to be right. The people above you, though, probably want you to be popular.
We work using monthly iterations and when we told the people responsible for the software in the field that an iteration cost about 30 000$ just in labor costs they started paying attention and making the lists of demands count, i.e. removing the superflueous demands (ex: "it would look nicer in blue" was replaced with "The standard deviation calculation should be done with X+1, not just X.")
You're saying you explained the real costs of improving the software to the people using it, and with this new information, they were able to formulate better requests? Amazing.
I've always found it remarkable how many companies and organizations DON'T encourage this type of communication. For example, I used to work in tech support for a few ISPs, and we usually had no real way to communicate with the people responsible for developing the tools we had to use, or the people who maintained the network we were troubleshooting. Most of them had no tech support experience, so they had no idea what our needs were; they didn't work in the same location, so they never actually saw how we did our jobs, and there was basically no communication between departments about anything technical - only what could be relayed through management.
BannerFilter, but I've been neglecting it for years. :-\
That's NOT the full speech, that's two excerpts that have been cut together.