Re:What about the other ones?
on
Google's new toys
·
· Score: 3, Informative
No, Platypus was right. Peter Norvig, Director of Search Quality at Google, said in a talk that things on labs.google.com may never see final release. It is a test ground, in all senses of the phrase (test the software, test how people like it, etc).
Re:The last of the V8 Interceptors
on
New Mad Max Film
·
· Score: 2
When I saw RW at 20 (or thereabouts) it was the most violet movie I had ever seen (including Alien, which was a close 2nd). I can't imagine a 5 yr old seeing it. That's messed up.
From a technical perspective,.NET might be a very nice platform. I'm certaining hearing that it is. The speed with which the Mono team formed and started executing was impressive.
People, you need to wake up. Stop being technophiles and think. This is Microsoft we are talking about here. They do NOTHING for the benefit of their customers. They do EVERYTHING to gain market share and ensure the domination of their operating system.
MS is playing "nice" now by not serving legal injunctions based on their patents. Will they continue?
Let's say some of the people that reply to this post say "The patents are irrelevant blah blah blah blah". OK, fine. Let's say they are. That doesn't even matter, here's why:
MS defines.NET. Mono copies that design. If Microsoft's patents were not enough to stop people using.NET apps on non-MS platforms, all MS has to do is CHANGE THE DESIGN.
Remember when OS/2 had win32s compatibility? Remember Microsoft's response? IBM took the win32s distribution from MS and binary mapped it into a valid set of OS/2 libraries and programs. Within a very short period of time, MS released a NEW VERSION OF WIN32S TO BREAK IBM'S USE. Analysis at the time showed that the changes, which were few, were gratuitous and the only conclusion was as I've stated it. I did some googling and this is a good summary.
If Mono is too successful, this will happen again. "Too successful" means that.NET apps will be TRULY portable, something MS DOES NOT WANT because it makes their platform inconsequential. In fact, if they did not defend their platform, this would be the death of MS.
Let me put it another way:
Microsoft is enabling, for the first time in their history, users to write portable programs and that portability could kill or severely damage Microsoft. Microsoft knows that they will be able to prevent this, if need be, and they will only show that card if they need to. After all, no need to give the conspiracy theorists ammo, right?
We use spamcop.net at work. It's gets 95% of the spam. The thing which made us move on it was female employees complaining of sexually explicit spam from porn sites--with an HTML enabled mail reader, sometimes the first thing they saw was some pornographic picture.
Unless a company makes a best effort to protect people from exposure to offensive material (as defined by them, within reason), the company could be sued by the employee for creating a hostile workplace. While I haven't heard of cases of this yet, it's only a matter of time. (I hope I didn't give anyone any ideas here...)
We've been experimenting with spamassassin, and it's roughly as good as spamcop (as to how much spam gets through to the end user), but it's free. Note: spamcop and spamassassin have to completely different approaches to determining what is spam.
There is no replacement for old fashion hard work. Reporting is hard work, and the reason you don't see more of it these days is that hard work is expensive. All the networks are opting for "soft news", stuff that doesn't have to be researched, because
1. it sells 2. it's cheap
I mean, if (approximately) 50% of the voters voted for Bush in 2000, how are they going to wade through a hard news story about anything??
Frontline is the only (IMO) hard news program left on the boob tube. It is thoughtful, balanced and fair. You can't ask more from a news program, and those words don't apply to hardly anything on TV that calls itself news.
I'm a digital photographer, and using
ThumbsPlus is a huge time saver for me. I have 10k+ images that I manage with it, including keyword annotations that help me classify and tag images.
Next is Photoshop, which I use to adjust imperfect images. I tried the gimp, so please don't even mention it. It's not in the same class.
What do I use PS for, specifically? Adjusting color and brightness of images, mostly. Even ThumbsPlus, which has these functions, isn't as good as Photoshop.
I used to watch TV on my Windows PC, but since I got TiVo, I never do that anymore.
I believe Quicken could be replaced with GNU Cash, but since I'm stuck on Windows for other stuff I've never tried it. I don't use the bill pay features of Quicken, since my bank (E*Trade Bank) doesn't support them.
they never said a word when I said I was running linux.
Also, I chose the self install. I can't even remember if it came with a windoze cd-rom. Even if I was running windoze, I would never have installed it. What's the point?
I agree. It's getting to the point that EVERYONE has chosen sides and the resulting debate has a decidedly religious flavor (ie, no one will ever switch sides from this point on).
You responded to the outrage being expressed here that CEOs could be worth 500x an average Joe. Your response was genuine, I believe, and basically said the big bucks are your reward for working your ass off. Fine. That's reasonable. What compensation is fair, though?
My answer to that is, first, a compensation that does not harm the company. A CEO paying themselves so much that it financially hurts the company is just as bad as an insider loan that hurts the company. And pay isn't just cash.
Second, you have to work with the people under you.... that's right, the rest of the company. An insane paycheck after years of 4AM tower climbs might feel good to you, but does everyone that works for you hate you for it? Yeah, some of the hate will be jealousy, but some might not be. These types of situations have a habit of playing themselves out in a predictable way. The bottom line here is your pay is a factor in how you "treat" your employees.
Lastly, I've been around a while, and I've seen another factor come into play with CEOs: ego. Your head seems screwed on relatively tight right now, but what about in 5 years? 10? I find it rare to meet a CEO that doesn't have an ego completely out of control. An out of control ego does all kinds of things, like insider loans to themselves, excessive pay, etc. It's a hazard of the job.
If you work hard, treat everyone fairly and pay yourself a lot but not too much, things should be OK. Otherwise, it's a train wreck in the making.
I was once in a really small theatre, and a guy got a cell phone call. Lots of us groused. Then, about 5 minutes later he got another one. This time, more people complained. You know what he did? He stood up a said "fuck all y'all" really loudly.
WHY do all the people in the film-is-better camp keep forgetting about the cost of film developing when comparing the prices of film to digital? Ohh, I remember, because it makes their argument for film that much "stronger".
I have a D30 and have taken close to 10k pictures in the last couple of years. I used my Nikon 6006 almost not at all compared to my D30 because of the cost of film developing. For 10k pictures, I saved myself more than $4k in developing costs (10k/36 * $15). N6006 + $4000 > D30. 'nuff said.
According to
this, there is also $75M in CDs to be given away to non-profits.
the new version is MUCH faster on win2k
on
VNC, No Longer Orphaned
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I use the client and server on win2k boxes, and the new version is noticeably faster. I definitely recommend an upgrade for anyone using the older version on windows.
This is a case of winning a battle and losing the war. Yes, Wollersheim won. How many other people are in his position? None that I know of. How many corporations are standing up to them? Few. Google comes to mind.
1. The weak. They need to be told what to do because they can't figure it out for themselves. When they finally figure out $cientology is not the right place for them, it's too late. The hooks are in too deep.
2. The hunters. They have happened on a good scam and they know it. The "good" part of it is the secrecy and the use of the legal system. It means that their critics must have VERY deep pockets to fight them.
3. The celebs. We know most actors are idiots and they are easily hoodwinked. They are lavished with all kinds of things (praise, attention, gifts) and think all $cientologists are treated this way. Listen to Tom or Jenna or any of the others talk about it. Pathetic.
The only way $cientology can lose is for The Word about their scam to be so well known they can't get new members. We aren't even close to getting that type of exposure. We'd need the mainstream media for that, and those fucks are too scared of lawsuits. Remember Time's article about $cientology and what it got them? They won, yes, but it too many years and MILLIONS of $$$.
Slashdot Mirror
index page 2 and
index page 3 and
index page 4 and
index page 5 and
index page 6 and
index page 7.
this is better than the link given.
No, Platypus was right. Peter Norvig, Director of Search Quality at Google, said in a talk that things on labs.google.com may never see final release. It is a test ground, in all senses of the phrase (test the software, test how people like it, etc).
When I saw RW at 20 (or thereabouts) it was the most violet movie I had ever seen (including Alien, which was a close 2nd). I can't imagine a 5 yr old seeing it. That's messed up.
From a technical perspective, .NET might be a very nice platform. I'm certaining hearing that it is. The speed with which the Mono team formed and started executing was impressive.
.NET. Mono copies that design. If Microsoft's patents were not enough to stop people using .NET apps on non-MS platforms, all MS has to do is CHANGE THE DESIGN.
.NET apps will be TRULY portable, something MS DOES NOT WANT because it makes their platform inconsequential. In fact, if they did not defend their platform, this would be the death of MS.
People, you need to wake up. Stop being technophiles and think. This is Microsoft we are talking about here. They do NOTHING for the benefit of their customers. They do EVERYTHING to gain market share and ensure the domination of their operating system.
MS is playing "nice" now by not serving legal injunctions based on their patents. Will they continue?
Let's say some of the people that reply to this post say "The patents are irrelevant blah blah blah blah". OK, fine. Let's say they are. That doesn't even matter, here's why:
MS defines
Remember when OS/2 had win32s compatibility? Remember Microsoft's response? IBM took the win32s distribution from MS and binary mapped it into a valid set of OS/2 libraries and programs. Within a very short period of time, MS released a NEW VERSION OF WIN32S TO BREAK IBM'S USE. Analysis at the time showed that the changes, which were few, were gratuitous and the only conclusion was as I've stated it. I did some googling and this is a good summary.
If Mono is too successful, this will happen again. "Too successful" means that
Let me put it another way:
Microsoft is enabling, for the first time in their history, users to write portable programs and that portability could kill or severely damage Microsoft. Microsoft knows that they will be able to prevent this, if need be, and they will only show that card if they need to. After all, no need to give the conspiracy theorists ammo, right?
We use spamcop.net at work. It's gets 95% of the spam. The thing which made us move on it was female employees complaining of sexually explicit spam from porn sites--with an HTML enabled mail reader, sometimes the first thing they saw was some pornographic picture.
Unless a company makes a best effort to protect people from exposure to offensive material (as defined by them, within reason), the company could be sued by the employee for creating a hostile workplace. While I haven't heard of cases of this yet, it's only a matter of time. (I hope I didn't give anyone any ideas here...)
We've been experimenting with spamassassin, and it's roughly as good as spamcop (as to how much spam gets through to the end user), but it's free. Note: spamcop and spamassassin have to completely different approaches to determining what is spam.
back in the 90's. Does this mean I get a discount?
Anyone else think it's expensive? $80 for Windows for one year, or $165 for a perpetual license. Ouch!
There is no replacement for old fashion hard work. Reporting is hard work, and the reason you don't see more of it these days is that hard work is expensive. All the networks are opting for "soft news", stuff that doesn't have to be researched, because
1. it sells
2. it's cheap
I mean, if (approximately) 50% of the voters voted for Bush in 2000, how are they going to wade through a hard news story about anything??
Frontline is the only (IMO) hard news program left on the boob tube. It is thoughtful, balanced and fair. You can't ask more from a news program, and those words don't apply to hardly anything on TV that calls itself news.
Reality warp detected. Yes, PBS/NPR has a left leaning. All the others you mentioned are far from lefty.
Have you ever watched CNN????? Cripes, it appears to me that all you have to do to get a show on that network is say you're a conservative.
The same perspectives used in the original works, I might add.
Next is Photoshop, which I use to adjust imperfect images. I tried the gimp, so please don't even mention it. It's not in the same class. What do I use PS for, specifically? Adjusting color and brightness of images, mostly. Even ThumbsPlus, which has these functions, isn't as good as Photoshop.
I used to watch TV on my Windows PC, but since I got TiVo, I never do that anymore.
I believe Quicken could be replaced with GNU Cash, but since I'm stuck on Windows for other stuff I've never tried it. I don't use the bill pay features of Quicken, since my bank (E*Trade Bank) doesn't support them.
It's one way to support them, after all. I'm eyeing some pies...
they never said a word when I said I was running linux.
Also, I chose the self install. I can't even remember if it came with a windoze cd-rom. Even if I was running windoze, I would never have installed it. What's the point?
I agree. It's getting to the point that EVERYONE has chosen sides and the resulting debate has a decidedly religious flavor (ie, no one will ever switch sides from this point on).
subject sez it all.
The first time I used it, I had some weird issues (having to click 3 times to get one through), but since then it's been fine.
I think they foresaw legal action...
You responded to the outrage being expressed here that CEOs could be worth 500x an average Joe. Your response was genuine, I believe, and basically said the big bucks are your reward for working your ass off. Fine. That's reasonable. What compensation is fair, though?
My answer to that is, first, a compensation that does not harm the company. A CEO paying themselves so much that it financially hurts the company is just as bad as an insider loan that hurts the company. And pay isn't just cash.
Second, you have to work with the people under you.... that's right, the rest of the company. An insane paycheck after years of 4AM tower climbs might feel good to you, but does everyone that works for you hate you for it? Yeah, some of the hate will be jealousy, but some might not be. These types of situations have a habit of playing themselves out in a predictable way. The bottom line here is your pay is a factor in how you "treat" your employees.
Lastly, I've been around a while, and I've seen another factor come into play with CEOs: ego. Your head seems screwed on relatively tight right now, but what about in 5 years? 10? I find it rare to meet a CEO that doesn't have an ego completely out of control. An out of control ego does all kinds of things, like insider loans to themselves, excessive pay, etc. It's a hazard of the job.
If you work hard, treat everyone fairly and pay yourself a lot but not too much, things should be OK. Otherwise, it's a train wreck in the making.
Don't foget the snacks. I hate it when I forget to bring my own (or don't have time). Last time I, I got some M&M's. A small bag, really. Cost? $5.
Seriously, it seems more and more the only people that go to movies are:
1. People with babies. I shit you not. Right behind me at the Barber Shop. 3 month old.
2. Teenagers. Where else can they hang out?
3. Little kids. Seems like lots of parents are dumping their kids at movies these days. Waaaay too many unescorted kids.
And given the prices, as people have pointed out, most of us would prefer to watch it on DVD...
I was once in a really small theatre, and a guy got a cell phone call. Lots of us groused. Then, about 5 minutes later he got another one. This time, more people complained. You know what he did? He stood up a said "fuck all y'all" really loudly.
It's not a myth.
WHY do all the people in the film-is-better camp keep forgetting about the cost of film developing when comparing the prices of film to digital? Ohh, I remember, because it makes their argument for film that much "stronger".
I have a D30 and have taken close to 10k pictures in the last couple of years. I used my Nikon 6006 almost not at all compared to my D30 because of the cost of film developing. For 10k pictures, I saved myself more than $4k in developing costs (10k/36 * $15). N6006 + $4000 > D30. 'nuff said.
According to this, there is also $75M in CDs to be given away to non-profits.
I use the client and server on win2k boxes, and the new version is noticeably faster. I definitely recommend an upgrade for anyone using the older version on windows.
This is a case of winning a battle and losing the war. Yes, Wollersheim won. How many other people are in his position? None that I know of. How many corporations are standing up to them? Few. Google comes to mind.
1. The weak. They need to be told what to do because they can't figure it out for themselves. When they finally figure out $cientology is not the right place for them, it's too late. The hooks are in too deep.
2. The hunters. They have happened on a good scam and they know it. The "good" part of it is the secrecy and the use of the legal system. It means that their critics must have VERY deep pockets to fight them.
3. The celebs. We know most actors are idiots and they are easily hoodwinked. They are lavished with all kinds of things (praise, attention, gifts) and think all $cientologists are treated this way. Listen to Tom or Jenna or any of the others talk about it. Pathetic.
The only way $cientology can lose is for The Word about their scam to be so well known they can't get new members. We aren't even close to getting that type of exposure. We'd need the mainstream media for that, and those fucks are too scared of lawsuits. Remember Time's article about $cientology and what it got them? They won, yes, but it too many years and MILLIONS of $$$.