Lets be honest, not many people switch to Linux so they can use KDE, now I far prefer KDE over explorer.exe but still it's not really a reason people migrate over. At this point people switch for three general reasons, 1. Geeks, enough said 2. Tired of viruses and spyware 3. Cost and stability, though this is generally only for corporations.
Porting linux apps over to windows doesn't really hurt any of these reasons, all it really does is expand the user base and help with the transition in showing these people that if they do switch they will still be able to use their computers. Right now the biggest hurdle to Linux adoption is the transition itself and anything we can do to ease that can only help.
Get a firewall, block all inbound and outbound traffic, unplug your ethernet cable and shut off your computer. It's that easy to protect yourself.
I think you can probably even skip the first couple steps.
Actually maybe not, I've heard (rumors) some network cards have the ability to start up your computer if they're pinged, as a result if your cable is still plugged and and your computer powered off it might power right back up and find yourself vulnerable!
Get a firewall, block all inbound and outbound traffic, unplug your ethernet cable and shut off your computer. It's that easy to protect yourself.
I think you can probably even skip the first couple steps.
Actually maybe not, I've heard (rumors) some network cards can start up your computer if they're pinged, as a result if your cable is still plugged and and your computer powered off it might power right back up and find yourself vulnerable!
> Au contraire, there is a hell of a lot of money up for grabs for any > 'scientist' who wants to 'disprove' global warming.
Not really. But even if you found some funding (probably from a corp) to do some research in a 'forbidden' direction, try getting your conclusions published in a peer reviewed journal. Won't happen. And of course after that you will be blacklisted so you can change careers because you will never be accepted as a 'real scientist' again, because all 'real scientists' believe in Global Warming about like Christians believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
The difference here is that no Christian wants to question the accepted truths of the establishment, but every scientist dreams of proving that the entire establishment is out to lunch (yes this is a generalisation).
> What's controversial about this issue?
By asking that question it is clear no rational discourse is possible with you, you too are a religious zealot. Hopefully others reading this thread are less invested in the theory to reject all discussion out of hand on the issue. I'll not reguritate the other side here, that is what Google is for. Suffice to say that despite twenty years of vigorous politically correct intellectual supression there are still a few intellectually independent souls standing up and shouting that you guys are full of it.
Not all discourse is accurate discourse, that is what this article is about they have scientific consensus here, there must still be debate (this they say too) and they may still be wrong but there currently isn't any controversy with a scientific basis.
Are they right? Not really sure myself, but they do make some good points, enough that calls to close discussion and move on to dismantling Western Civilivation in response to a -potential threat- is somewhat rash in my humble opinion.
This is one thing that always gets me, if we make the right call all is fine of cource but consider the two scenerios where we choose wrong. Consider the possibility that we're wrong about global warming and do nothing, we probably lose a few hundred billions (yeah I'm pulling those numbers out of a certain orfice) and rush along some new energy sources that we were going to need anyways (fossil fuels are going to run out). Now scientists are pretty embaressed and will take a long time to be trusted again, economic damage will be significant but nothing too catastrophic.
Now consider the possibility that global warming is right (this article suggests that some kind of climate change is very probable) and we do nothing. Mass flooding in some areas, mass droughts in others, huge ecological damage (mass extinction), and of course economic damage orders of magnitude higher than anything that a false global warming scare would have cost.
Don't think of this as a "should we do something or not" think of it as a "should we turn left or right", go left and you have some definate but substancial costs, go right and you have maybe nothing, but probably far more costs than you ever would have gotten if you went left, and then you might have to turn back and go left anyway. This is way there isn't much controversy, because it's kind of a no-brainer.
Then if one is politically aware, one notices that the loudest voices in the Global Warming crowd also want to dismantle Western Civilivation for any of a dozen other totally unrelated reasons, a little more suspicion is justified.
The loudest voices are always extremists, that's the case in any group, just note that no the other side almost all the voices have a much greater economic vested interest in the matter (think big oil).
Mr. Schleicher said that students in countries that emphasized theorems and rote learning tended not to do as well as those that emphasized the more practical aspects of mathematics.
Not to challenge the fact that the US education system is mathematically challenged but I have to wonder if the test might of had a more practical bias skewing the results somewhat, kinda like having a developer having their computer skill tested by their ability to do system administration.
I've coded, on average, 70 hours a week, for the last six years. This has been on my own project, which is coming along nicely (after about a dozen complete rewrites, language changes, and overhauls).
So in other words you made some design errors that required massive amounts of extra work. I wonder if you took it a little easier and had cut back your workweek a ways if you would of had a better perspective on your project and avoided some of those poor design decisions before it required a rewrite.
You should try cutting back your work week for a while, drastically, you won't have as many hours but those hours you have will be a heck of a lot sharper. I suspect that in programming, more than most other fields, a small design decision early on can have massive reprecussions down the road. Consider it can take hours of hard work to write a good function but only a moment of clarity to remember there's one already built in.
I'd be very careful about the computer knowledge of the people you give these to. Consider the fact that a lot of people have no idea what a bootable CD is, nor do they realize that their computer can boot another OS and will be baffled by what's happened to all their stuff. I'd suspect there's a pretty good chance that you'll end up with a lot of irate people calling you asking what you did to their compute!!
What we need is some form of write only media that can be cached for later verification. Paper is just the most redily available form that I know of, not to mention that it is already widely accepted.
Close but what we really need is some form of write only media that can both be cached for later verification and can be verified as correct by the voter at the time of the vote.
You probably intended this meaning but I felt it was better to make it explicit, write-only doesn't help you at all if it's the wrong thing written and you can't tell.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that any political leader should/could/would set policy based upon something like that rather than what is in the best interest of the country he/she serves?
Are you really stupid enough to believe that any political leader should/could/would set policy based upon something like what is in the best interest of the country he/she serves rather than their personal welfare?
Kyoto is in the best interests of the US, just not within the next 10 years. Besides sometimes what's in the best interest of a country isn't so easy to judge. For instance ratifying Kyoto would give a lot of people a warm fuzzy feeling, isn't that in the best interest of the country? What about the warm fuzzy feelings from other countries, isn't that beneficial?
I don't think so. That's not how nature works, human or otherwise. Survival is about taking care of #1. We're not all one big happy family. I'm going to make sure that I survive and my family survives regardless of the cost to anyone or anything else. THAT is how the president or any other political leader makes his decisions.
You know I think I have a counter example to your point, governments! If everyone was only looking out for #1 then no one would be looking out for eachother and everyone would suffer, people figured this out a long time ago which is why we have governments. In fact it's so simple a concept that even governments have figured it out, which is why we have NATO, the UN, and other treaties. The fact is that sometimes ensuring your survival requires taking a short term hit for a long term gain, like Kyoto.
Look at WWII for a moment. Look at all the terrible loss of life. For that matter, look at all the environmental damage that resulted. Based on your logic, Churchill and Stallin should have just handed over the keys to their countries to Hitler and saved all that. Sure a few jews would have died but many more people would have lived and the environment would not have received such harm.
This analogy is far fetched enough that I haev to think you were trying to invoke a Godwin reference:)
So despite the best efforts of Michael Moore, CBS, the NY Times, China, Osama Bin Laden, and Slashdot to swing the election the Kerry, it didn't work.
(emphasis added)
I'm sorry but that was just stupid and childish. Both sides can argue concincingly about who is worse for the terrorists but at the end of the day you don't know what bin Laden intended with that tape. Did he mean to show that Bush had been ineffective in capturing him or did he mean to show terrorism was a threat and all the scared people should run back to Bush like they did around 9/11? Did he expect his slight criticism of Bush to hurt Bush or did he realize that criticising Bush in any way would help Bush? You can't know and throwing in his name with the others like that is nothing better than a troll.
I was cruising factcheck.org looking at at the proof that things like "flip-flopping", and banning certain shotguns were complete and utter lies and lamenting that most people would never have a clue how utterly decieved they were. I was thinking that I wished there was some well known organizations where people could go that they could trust to call the lies.
Then I realized there was already supposed to be someone doing that, the %&#@ing media!!!
How on earth can the media justify the job they did, both campaigns made blatant lies in their advertising and never was anything but a one line mention that it wasn't completely accurate. There was direct evidence to easily contradict most of that stuff and the mainstream media didn't touch it, all they did was recycle sound bites from the campaigns which doesn't sort out anything because everyone knows both sides lie through their teeth because the media doesn't call anyone on it!!!
I'm still by the number of people who were taken in by Bush but I think the media hold the blame for allowing those people to decieve themselves so easily
Yes, let's face it, Kerry was not fit to be president -- he was a complete demagogue who told the people only what they wanted to hear, and refused to take a stand on anything.
Sorry but you're just plain WRONG, yes that's the non-partisan site that Cheney intended to plug during the vice-presidential debate. If you want a dissection both of Kerry's other "flip-flops" and some of the tricks the Democrats pulled as well read the articles.
I'd think Iraq would of taught you that it's important to do some actual research before coming to a definate conclusion, I want to thank uneducated voters like you for another four years of destabalization and alienation on a global scale.
Anyone who is undecided about who they will vote for I have exactly one question
Why?
It's pretty obvious that nothing useful is going to come out of Bush vs Kerry supporters going at it, I would be extremely surprised if a single hard-core Bush/Kerry supporter is swayed at all by what they read here. But there's some undecided who have questions they want answered and this is the perfect place to do so. Lets see what's keeping you few who are still undecided from making a decision and see if we can give them the final bits of the puzzle that allow them to make a decision that's right for them.
For the hard core supporters who try to win over these voters remember this though,/. is unforgiving to those who skew the facts, sure you'll have a couple likeminded backing you up but this isn't a campaign speech or some TV ad. This forum is brimming full of vultures who will leap on any inconsistency, false-dichotomy, or misleading statistic with so many counter arguments and links that it will make your head spin and make you (and your side) look like a fool. Play it clean and hold back the trolling if you want to actually convice someone.
It really depends on your state. If you are for instance voting for Nader in a swing state then that's effectively a vote for Bush (well a half vote anyway). The fact is that taking your vote away from Kerry (if he was your major party choice) and giving it to the 3rd party means that you are helping Bush to get in. Same deal if Bush is your major party choice. The unfortunate fact is that if you're in a swing state your only real options are the two major candidates if you wish your vote to affect the outcome of the election.
If however you're in a state that is already decided (ie the only way candidate X is going to lose is if he says he wants to change the constitution to allow Osama bin Laden to run for president) than you should by all means vote for your 3rd party candidate. You know that your individual vote won't have an impact on this race but the fact that you're voting for a third party tells your major party choice that they were out of touch with you enough that you were willing to vote for another party, this tells them that they need to make changes to avoid you, and others, doing the same next election, and threaten the two party system. This is something they are very concerned about and they will try very hard to win back your support and say some of the same things as ____________ did.
While my french was good enough to tell me somthing about your version of the anthem was a little off I couldn't come up with anything more comprehensible then the babelfish translation (which wasn't:). Anyone who's fluent have a proper translation?
So since she wasn't murdering people and instead concentrated on suing 12 year old s and reducing our freedoms, she deserves a cookie or something?
And look at all the great PR that's gotten them, besides if she didn't do something as drastic it is very likely her replacement would of (and perhaps more). In the struggle for freedom sometimes the greatest sacrifice is by those who would have you believe they work for the enemy so that they may fight them from within. Now I don't believe for a second Rosen was in an allout subversive struggle against them but I do feel she was a more moderate force trying to hold back the true extremists, perhaps given the organizations she was representing it was all we could of reasonably hoped for.
How about a "Products" section where stories about fancy new program X can be posted and the people who are interested in them can read the slashvertisments to their heart's delight. Stories like this which are really just an advertisment for something there doesn't appear to be a lot of interest in don't belong on the front page.
Re:I'm the editor of weerd magazine and
on
The Long Tail
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't mind the editor of wired submitting a story. He was certainly very upfront about it and as far as I know hasn't submitted a story like this before.
Of course his objective in doing so is to generate page hits but if he does provide us with an intesting article and doesn't make a habit of it unlike some other submitters I don't really mind.
I think you're looking for Cyborg Steve, and he's from UofT not MIT. Could know something about some kind of a electronic magnifying glass to zoom in on maps or books but I don't think he'll be able to offer any real assistance.
Not really but I know that marketing -> band awareness && good will == assets. I'm not an accountant and I won't pretend to be but I know that Google News is an asset if not on a balence sheet then in the minds of the investors, if it and other assets from marketing didn't get thought of as an asset then I wouldn't be looking at a Dell Ad at the top of the screen right now. This is what the parent of the thread and myself were talking about, not a literal balance sheet but the broader picture which is the more important thing to consider since obviously neither of us know what a real balance sheet is.
As I am about to graduate in May with an accounting degree I was worried the world didn't need anymore accountants. Thank you for giving me a reason why they do, to fix problems people like you cause when you somehow mistakenly get into management.
Don't worry when I become your manager I'll go by this broader picture idea and let you sort out the details, just like my manager does to me:)
Re:None of that shows up on a balance sheet
on
The Google News Dilemma
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Of course you can put it on a balance sheet. You call it marketing, companies pay A LOT for marketing, they put out commercials, ads in webpages, magazinges, newpapers, and countless other places.
Look at what most commercials are selling nowadays, how often is the commercial actually on the product? Heck you see computer commercials that are based more on the company image than the computer! People are becoming more and more suspicious of corporations and that affects the bottom line, heck if Microsoft or Nike had kept my Good Will they might both have a few hundred more of my dollars and they know it. Why do you think America's Army exists? They spent what, $10 million getting it made and who knows how much more on maintainance and bandwidth. That's all for good will, get more recruits, more public support because people are now associating the army with this fun free game.
Now google has a service, that tons of people use daily, that is free, high quality, and extrememly useful without getting any real bad will. How many commercials, heck how many sponserships could say that? I don't doubt there's a good pile of companies who would love to spend a big pile of money buying Goole News, keeping it the same, and just renaming it "[Company Name] News" and google or their stockholders would be foolish to want it cancelled.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets be honest, not many people switch to Linux so they can use KDE, now I far prefer KDE over explorer.exe but still it's not really a reason people migrate over. At this point people switch for three general reasons,
1. Geeks, enough said
2. Tired of viruses and spyware
3. Cost and stability, though this is generally only for corporations.
Porting linux apps over to windows doesn't really hurt any of these reasons, all it really does is expand the user base and help with the transition in showing these people that if they do switch they will still be able to use their computers. Right now the biggest hurdle to Linux adoption is the transition itself and anything we can do to ease that can only help.
I think you can probably even skip the first couple steps.
Actually maybe not, I've heard (rumors) some network cards have the ability to start up your computer if they're pinged, as a result if your cable is still plugged and and your computer powered off it might power right back up and find yourself vulnerable!
(missed preview the first time)
I think you can probably even skip the first couple steps.
Actually maybe not, I've heard (rumors) some network cards can start up your computer if they're pinged, as a result if your cable is still plugged and and your computer powered off it might power right back up and find yourself vulnerable!
> Au contraire, there is a hell of a lot of money up for grabs for any
> 'scientist' who wants to 'disprove' global warming.
Not really. But even if you found some funding (probably from a corp) to do some research in a 'forbidden' direction, try getting your conclusions published in a peer reviewed journal. Won't happen. And of course after that you will be blacklisted so you can change careers because you will never be accepted as a 'real scientist' again, because all 'real scientists' believe in Global Warming about like Christians believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
The difference here is that no Christian wants to question the accepted truths of the establishment, but every scientist dreams of proving that the entire establishment is out to lunch (yes this is a generalisation).
> What's controversial about this issue?
By asking that question it is clear no rational discourse is possible with you, you too are a religious zealot. Hopefully others reading this thread are less invested in the theory to reject all discussion out of hand on the issue. I'll not reguritate the other side here, that is what Google is for. Suffice to say that despite twenty years of vigorous politically correct intellectual supression there are still a few intellectually independent souls standing up and shouting that you guys are full of it.
Not all discourse is accurate discourse, that is what this article is about they have scientific consensus here, there must still be debate (this they say too) and they may still be wrong but there currently isn't any controversy with a scientific basis.
Are they right? Not really sure myself, but they do make some good points, enough that calls to close discussion and move on to dismantling Western Civilivation in response to a -potential threat- is somewhat rash in my humble opinion.
This is one thing that always gets me, if we make the right call all is fine of cource but consider the two scenerios where we choose wrong. Consider the possibility that we're wrong about global warming and do nothing, we probably lose a few hundred billions (yeah I'm pulling those numbers out of a certain orfice) and rush along some new energy sources that we were going to need anyways (fossil fuels are going to run out). Now scientists are pretty embaressed and will take a long time to be trusted again, economic damage will be significant but nothing too catastrophic.
Now consider the possibility that global warming is right (this article suggests that some kind of climate change is very probable) and we do nothing. Mass flooding in some areas, mass droughts in others, huge ecological damage (mass extinction), and of course economic damage orders of magnitude higher than anything that a false global warming scare would have cost.
Don't think of this as a "should we do something or not" think of it as a "should we turn left or right", go left and you have some definate but substancial costs, go right and you have maybe nothing, but probably far more costs than you ever would have gotten if you went left, and then you might have to turn back and go left anyway. This is way there isn't much controversy, because it's kind of a no-brainer.
Then if one is politically aware, one notices that the loudest voices in the Global Warming crowd also want to dismantle Western Civilivation for any of a dozen other totally unrelated reasons, a little more suspicion is justified.
The loudest voices are always extremists, that's the case in any group, just note that no the other side almost all the voices have a much greater economic vested interest in the matter (think big oil).
Mr. Schleicher said that students in countries that emphasized theorems and rote learning tended not to do as well as those that emphasized the more practical aspects of mathematics.
Not to challenge the fact that the US education system is mathematically challenged but I have to wonder if the test might of had a more practical bias skewing the results somewhat, kinda like having a developer having their computer skill tested by their ability to do system administration.
How about International Business Organizers then?
I've coded, on average, 70 hours a week, for the last six years. This has been on my own project, which is coming along nicely (after about a dozen complete rewrites, language changes, and overhauls).
So in other words you made some design errors that required massive amounts of extra work. I wonder if you took it a little easier and had cut back your workweek a ways if you would of had a better perspective on your project and avoided some of those poor design decisions before it required a rewrite.
You should try cutting back your work week for a while, drastically, you won't have as many hours but those hours you have will be a heck of a lot sharper. I suspect that in programming, more than most other fields, a small design decision early on can have massive reprecussions down the road. Consider it can take hours of hard work to write a good function but only a moment of clarity to remember there's one already built in.
I'd be very careful about the computer knowledge of the people you give these to. Consider the fact that a lot of people have no idea what a bootable CD is, nor do they realize that their computer can boot another OS and will be baffled by what's happened to all their stuff. I'd suspect there's a pretty good chance that you'll end up with a lot of irate people calling you asking what you did to their compute!!
What we need is some form of write only media that can be cached for later verification. Paper is just the most redily available form that I know of, not to mention that it is already widely accepted.
Close but what we really need is some form of write only media that can both be cached for later verification and can be verified as correct by the voter at the time of the vote.
You probably intended this meaning but I felt it was better to make it explicit, write-only doesn't help you at all if it's the wrong thing written and you can't tell.
Are you really stupid enough to believe that any political leader should/could/would set policy based upon something like that rather than what is in the best interest of the country he/she serves?
:)
Are you really stupid enough to believe that any political leader should/could/would set policy based upon something like what is in the best interest of the country he/she serves rather than their personal welfare?
Kyoto is in the best interests of the US, just not within the next 10 years. Besides sometimes what's in the best interest of a country isn't so easy to judge. For instance ratifying Kyoto would give a lot of people a warm fuzzy feeling, isn't that in the best interest of the country? What about the warm fuzzy feelings from other countries, isn't that beneficial?
I don't think so. That's not how nature works, human or otherwise. Survival is about taking care of #1. We're not all one big happy family. I'm going to make sure that I survive and my family survives regardless of the cost to anyone or anything else. THAT is how the president or any other political leader makes his decisions.
You know I think I have a counter example to your point, governments! If everyone was only looking out for #1 then no one would be looking out for eachother and everyone would suffer, people figured this out a long time ago which is why we have governments. In fact it's so simple a concept that even governments have figured it out, which is why we have NATO, the UN, and other treaties. The fact is that sometimes ensuring your survival requires taking a short term hit for a long term gain, like Kyoto.
Look at WWII for a moment. Look at all the terrible loss of life. For that matter, look at all the environmental damage that resulted. Based on your logic, Churchill and Stallin should have just handed over the keys to their countries to Hitler and saved all that. Sure a few jews would have died but many more people would have lived and the environment would not have received such harm.
This analogy is far fetched enough that I haev to think you were trying to invoke a Godwin reference
So despite the best efforts of Michael Moore, CBS, the NY Times, China, Osama Bin Laden, and Slashdot to swing the election the Kerry, it didn't work.
(emphasis added)
I'm sorry but that was just stupid and childish. Both sides can argue concincingly about who is worse for the terrorists but at the end of the day you don't know what bin Laden intended with that tape. Did he mean to show that Bush had been ineffective in capturing him or did he mean to show terrorism was a threat and all the scared people should run back to Bush like they did around 9/11? Did he expect his slight criticism of Bush to hurt Bush or did he realize that criticising Bush in any way would help Bush? You can't know and throwing in his name with the others like that is nothing better than a troll.
I was cruising factcheck.org looking at at the proof that things like "flip-flopping", and banning certain shotguns were complete and utter lies and lamenting that most people would never have a clue how utterly decieved they were. I was thinking that I wished there was some well known organizations where people could go that they could trust to call the lies.
Then I realized there was already supposed to be someone doing that, the %&#@ing media!!!
How on earth can the media justify the job they did, both campaigns made blatant lies in their advertising and never was anything but a one line mention that it wasn't completely accurate. There was direct evidence to easily contradict most of that stuff and the mainstream media didn't touch it, all they did was recycle sound bites from the campaigns which doesn't sort out anything because everyone knows both sides lie through their teeth because the media doesn't call anyone on it!!!
I'm still by the number of people who were taken in by Bush but I think the media hold the blame for allowing those people to decieve themselves so easily
Yes, let's face it, Kerry was not fit to be president -- he was a complete demagogue who told the people only what they wanted to hear, and refused to take a stand on anything.
Sorry but you're just plain WRONG, yes that's the non-partisan site that Cheney intended to plug during the vice-presidential debate. If you want a dissection both of Kerry's other "flip-flops" and some of the tricks the Democrats pulled as well read the articles.
I'd think Iraq would of taught you that it's important to do some actual research before coming to a definate conclusion, I want to thank uneducated voters like you for another four years of destabalization and alienation on a global scale.
Anyone who is undecided about who they will vote for I have exactly one question
/. is unforgiving to those who skew the facts, sure you'll have a couple likeminded backing you up but this isn't a campaign speech or some TV ad. This forum is brimming full of vultures who will leap on any inconsistency, false-dichotomy, or misleading statistic with so many counter arguments and links that it will make your head spin and make you (and your side) look like a fool. Play it clean and hold back the trolling if you want to actually convice someone.
Why?
It's pretty obvious that nothing useful is going to come out of Bush vs Kerry supporters going at it, I would be extremely surprised if a single hard-core Bush/Kerry supporter is swayed at all by what they read here. But there's some undecided who have questions they want answered and this is the perfect place to do so. Lets see what's keeping you few who are still undecided from making a decision and see if we can give them the final bits of the puzzle that allow them to make a decision that's right for them.
For the hard core supporters who try to win over these voters remember this though,
It really depends on your state. If you are for instance voting for Nader in a swing state then that's effectively a vote for Bush (well a half vote anyway). The fact is that taking your vote away from Kerry (if he was your major party choice) and giving it to the 3rd party means that you are helping Bush to get in. Same deal if Bush is your major party choice. The unfortunate fact is that if you're in a swing state your only real options are the two major candidates if you wish your vote to affect the outcome of the election.
If however you're in a state that is already decided (ie the only way candidate X is going to lose is if he says he wants to change the constitution to allow Osama bin Laden to run for president) than you should by all means vote for your 3rd party candidate. You know that your individual vote won't have an impact on this race but the fact that you're voting for a third party tells your major party choice that they were out of touch with you enough that you were willing to vote for another party, this tells them that they need to make changes to avoid you, and others, doing the same next election, and threaten the two party system. This is something they are very concerned about and they will try very hard to win back your support and say some of the same things as ____________ did.
While my french was good enough to tell me somthing about your version of the anthem was a little off I couldn't come up with anything more comprehensible then the babelfish translation (which wasn't:). Anyone who's fluent have a proper translation?
So since she wasn't murdering people and instead concentrated on suing 12 year old s and reducing our freedoms, she deserves a cookie or something?
And look at all the great PR that's gotten them, besides if she didn't do something as drastic it is very likely her replacement would of (and perhaps more). In the struggle for freedom sometimes the greatest sacrifice is by those who would have you believe they work for the enemy so that they may fight them from within. Now I don't believe for a second Rosen was in an allout subversive struggle against them but I do feel she was a more moderate force trying to hold back the true extremists, perhaps given the organizations she was representing it was all we could of reasonably hoped for.
How about a "Products" section where stories about fancy new program X can be posted and the people who are interested in them can read the slashvertisments to their heart's delight. Stories like this which are really just an advertisment for something there doesn't appear to be a lot of interest in don't belong on the front page.
I don't mind the editor of wired submitting a story. He was certainly very upfront about it and as far as I know hasn't submitted a story like this before.
Of course his objective in doing so is to generate page hits but if he does provide us with an intesting article and doesn't make a habit of it unlike some other submitters I don't really mind.
NITPIIIIIIIIICK!!!!!!!!!
(yeah I agree with you but it was just too tempting)
Only on /. does a Simpson's quote get mangled in the headling.
For future reference,
My Eyes! The goggles do nothing!
I think you're looking for Cyborg Steve, and he's from UofT not MIT. Could know something about some kind of a electronic magnifying glass to zoom in on maps or books but I don't think he'll be able to offer any real assistance.
The cam for the volcano seems to be down
/. front page we can bring it back up.
So clearly by putting a link to it on the
Do you even know what a balance sheet is?
:)
Not really but I know that marketing -> band awareness && good will == assets. I'm not an accountant and I won't pretend to be but I know that Google News is an asset if not on a balence sheet then in the minds of the investors, if it and other assets from marketing didn't get thought of as an asset then I wouldn't be looking at a Dell Ad at the top of the screen right now. This is what the parent of the thread and myself were talking about, not a literal balance sheet but the broader picture which is the more important thing to consider since obviously neither of us know what a real balance sheet is.
As I am about to graduate in May with an accounting degree I was worried the world didn't need anymore accountants. Thank you for giving me a reason why they do, to fix problems people like you cause when you somehow mistakenly get into management.
Don't worry when I become your manager I'll go by this broader picture idea and let you sort out the details, just like my manager does to me
Of course you can put it on a balance sheet. You call it marketing, companies pay A LOT for marketing, they put out commercials, ads in webpages, magazinges, newpapers, and countless other places.
Look at what most commercials are selling nowadays, how often is the commercial actually on the product? Heck you see computer commercials that are based more on the company image than the computer! People are becoming more and more suspicious of corporations and that affects the bottom line, heck if Microsoft or Nike had kept my Good Will they might both have a few hundred more of my dollars and they know it. Why do you think America's Army exists? They spent what, $10 million getting it made and who knows how much more on maintainance and bandwidth. That's all for good will, get more recruits, more public support because people are now associating the army with this fun free game.
Now google has a service, that tons of people use daily, that is free, high quality, and extrememly useful without getting any real bad will. How many commercials, heck how many sponserships could say that? I don't doubt there's a good pile of companies who would love to spend a big pile of money buying Goole News, keeping it the same, and just renaming it "[Company Name] News" and google or their stockholders would be foolish to want it cancelled.