It's vendetta karma building. It's the only requirement Netscape (AOL) funding requires. They were so pissed off by Explorerthat they now want Microsoft to load Mozilla and say "OMFG, this CAN'T be true! IT'S BACK AND ALIVE...!!! (sheer terror expresions from MS employees)":)
IE will always be "free", MS obviously does not want you to use another broswer. It probably is one of their #1 priority. They either sell you Windows or, better yet, sell companies stuff that works with their browser.
They are realizing companies are the ones to milk, and not the consumer (at least not directly).
A side note, that is exactly why Joe's don't like Linux stuff in general.
"To get this page right I use Mozilla with XTGD enabled, and when the site CHDI I can use Opera, it works great, but you need version 7.zx at least. If the computer is kind of slow, I'd first try Phoenix with automunching enabled and hi-lo meta res.".
I love choices, but when I made a choice I stick to it. I can't use more than one browser, it just harms my experience that much that I can feel the pain. If a site does not load under Galeon (ie: mozilla) then both of us are out of luck: I won't visit it anymore.
I am not bshing you at all for using the right browser for the task, but rahter pointing out that we need each option to work well on all tasks intentended, though the interface or strong points may differ.
First: I am looking forward to that day. Second, if a poll was made and all humans on earth consulted, I am pretty sure they would allow companies to try to reach the stars.
Remember, thoughout history, goverment weren't any better than companies. In fact, they were mostly the property of a selected bunch of individuals, and that's still the case today. Regarding companies, as long as they are not granted monopolies from the states, they usually tend to favour developement and empower the people.
Moreover, it the was motivation that opened up the way for the modern states, as you'd recall from when you studied history.
Couldn't they add a "strong" parachute, very big one, so that if something fails (and it didn't explode) then the payload would slowly return to earth?
Wouldn't that be a cheap solution to the X% of failures? You should only pray to your god so that it lands on firm land:)
They'll bring them down with lasers easily, or something better. The problem is the killing of species on earth and the pollution that's getting everywhere (pollution in every sense of the world not just smog, let vegetation, contaminated water, soil without nutrients or plainly poisoned, deserts).
Computer science teaches you to think about systems and how to describe them. It could be ANY system, related to any field in science. So you are basically not a "generic scientist". You have to fill the gap with working on some field. If you don't, you could be called Computer Scientist, for lack of a better word. But of source, to do anything usefull at all you need to know about other fields, be it music / sound, physics, pictures, biology. If they hire you in the biology industry, you will need to learn something about biology because then _and only then_ you'll be able to add more than "machine translating" the way a biologist thinks about systems.
What I am trying to say is that C.S. is very abstract and it is completely different from any other science. Has nothing to do with engineering unless you think of engineering as "guys that know a lot of math and physics, and, oh go, they study difficult stuff, no way i am doing that".
The skycrapper is harder because it's taller and because of gravity, not because it's basically harder. A "horizontal" skycrappers is very easy to do. Of course, you need to have a good plan to be able to use resources effectively (certain tasks require that another task be finished before it can be done, and it's better to have that task done in a row wherever it is needed and for the entire building (if speed is important). If you have little resources, you are better finishing of part by part (say room by room).
I think it's somewhat different that CS. Yes, you need to know the field, but they are very different beasts. Even the "screw it easly" has very different costs. When building a skycrapper, if you screw early (structure wise) you are dead (you lost most of the money lets say). If CS, you need to restart and lost a little time and resources (linear cost). But in CS, if you didn't screw much early you may reach the destination (in the skycrapper analogy that would be all that's required), and then, when you need to make a modification you'll learn that it's really difficult because you didn't abstract hard enough, or your abstractions where not the needed ones.
"... which is why the construction industry can work on lower margins."
What are the requirements? A limited list of facilities, style considereations, cost. It's very listable, you can do a mockup very easily. It's very static.
On the other hand, computing would be the same if you where required to do something like a specific algorithm.
Lasting software is as generic as you can think. The most generic. It's dynamic, you need to be able to reuse, expand, maintain (very different meaning than in the construction industry), reshare and many other things. It's yes, engineering, but in a very different way that the average engineer of any other field.
I know this myself beause I worked with very smart industrial engineers and they don't abstract as much as they have to. They go for a an simple analisis of what is required now and don't have a very long term goal when they start coding. It took me exponetial time to try and maintain industrial engineers code. They are used to and are very good at building things or things that build things, NOT systems.
That's my private experience. And it's very common for consulting firms to hire engineers, because they like their problem solving attitude and delivery ratio. It has a cost though, for the solution will usually not be very flexible. But the nor the consultant nor the company realize this.
But are they doing clean room implementations? It doesn't look like that to me. I suspect they will that pass for now, but in the future when everyone has embraced the API, they may (will?) follow another trend.
"Do you follow rules when you day dream? How about when you masturbate*?"
Everyone follows the rules. In these case, I suspect it must be a real babe(s), factual or imaginary. If it is a real babe(s) she (they) must be out of reach and you out of posibilities.
You could modify at will, but some rules apply, depending on tastes:).
And sometimes, too pretty = too fake. I don't know, but the original Millenium Falcon looks to me more real than the shiny silver plane in the new series or the "parachute" weasel.
The SW story in the original SW was not *that* much innovative, but it was beautifully narrated, well acted and at times hilariuos (not perfect, but the guys looked like they actually where there and alive, real people not script-followers). The plot had many unexpected clever twists also.
It was not so much the special effects. They added ambience, but the story could have been placed in the past or even further in the future and still be a classic.
The new saga well, I can't criticize part by part, I just didn't feel anything at all, the characters felt like reading a stupid script ("I MUST do this, it's in the script!!").
E.2 was a bit better (compared to the boredness that E.1 provided me). The only guy that felt slightly real was the fallen Jedi (which didn't even look like a bad guy at all) and the cloning aliens.
Handle with care. I read LOTR so much time ago that I forgot all the details. I'm trying and making a huge effort not to remember anything. Would be nice not to see many spoilers and still be able to have a discussion about the visual effects and other generics that do not tell what will happen.
Re:What about bitter/loner Sims?
on
Virtual Simerica
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
working as an offsite computer consultant
That got me thinking, how long until you can find a _real_ (pseudo anonymous) job inside the Sims? And submit the results from there of course, and get paid real money.
Now that'd be really weird and unnatural, but it could be made to work.:)
You mean like in real life, but with different constraints which are more appealing? It's not a matter of imagination. If you play dolls or soldiers I can claim "Hey, I killed you with the invisible super mighty gun! I win!". We'll, 100% unconstrained games can only be played alone or under the effect of dope (in which case nobody would care much about what happens and what's claimed).
The very thing that makes Sims interesting is that everyone faces the same constraints and different endowments than the ones that reality has granted you. It's kind of a virtual second chance (that doesn't last much).
Mh, now that I think about it, you are right. Maybe it's the kind of ads as the rest, like UN ads or programming ads (other features, and features in Discovery Ch.). It's pretty clear they make the money our of the cable companies and very little from the ads itself.
Compared to other channels, the ads are a pleasure. In Hallmark, they start increasing the ads as the movies starts to reach the end. That's unacceptable!
Kind of. Hey, the point I wanted to stress is not that I am all for pop-ups or sites full of ads that you can't read. My argument is simply stating that less income to the sites you like is probably not what we wont. And as we clearly are (in general) not willing to pay to view it (or maybe the hassle to transfer 50 cents per month makes it impractical) but we are still viewing them, why not support them by leaving the banners where they are, and if they advertize something that is of interest and we happened to pay attention, why not follow the link?
The bottom line: if a website you find usefull and does not have abusinve ads, why not let them get some income from those so that they can run the site? I love some non ads sites, and i love some high quality with decent ads campaing sites as well. And I do understand that blocking those ads hurts the website. You'll recognize some sites that follow in these categories, they are the ones we visit most and enjoy the most.
Well, I must agree with you. I never click at pop-up ads too, for the same reasons. That's very different to blocking all and every way of doing and adverticements.
Banners are actually a good thing, if not abused. When banners stop working they sometimes start selling "content". They start recoming the product that paid them more. And they do it very stealthly, so you don't notice the slight bias.
Slashdot Mirror
"What they are doing is price discrimination."
:)
Add to that that in any Microecomics basic course will tell you that only monopolists can do price discriminations on a permanent basis
Oh, it was X-Rays... changes everything. You can't get away with not reading the articles, it's a fact :).
It would be pretty untappable. You'd notice inmediately iF it's tapped. And it can't be jammed electronically, only blocked.
These are my guesses without looking at the article (ah, that bad habit).
One word: the empathy factor (citizens expect to see human in space).
It's vendetta karma building. It's the only requirement Netscape (AOL) funding requires. They were so pissed off by Explorerthat they now want Microsoft to load Mozilla and say "OMFG, this CAN'T be true! IT'S BACK AND ALIVE...!!! (sheer terror expresions from MS employees)" :)
IE will always be "free", MS obviously does not want you to use another broswer. It probably is one of their #1 priority. They either sell you Windows or, better yet, sell companies stuff that works with their browser.
They are realizing companies are the ones to milk, and not the consumer (at least not directly).
A side note, that is exactly why Joe's don't like Linux stuff in general.
"To get this page right I use Mozilla with XTGD enabled, and when the site CHDI I can use Opera, it works great, but you need version 7.zx at least. If the computer is kind of slow, I'd first try Phoenix with automunching enabled and hi-lo meta res.".
I love choices, but when I made a choice I stick to it. I can't use more than one browser, it just harms my experience that much that I can feel the pain. If a site does not load under Galeon (ie: mozilla) then both of us are out of luck: I won't visit it anymore.
I am not bshing you at all for using the right browser for the task, but rahter pointing out that we need each option to work well on all tasks intentended, though the interface or strong points may differ.
First: I am looking forward to that day. Second, if a poll was made and all humans on earth consulted, I am pretty sure they would allow companies to try to reach the stars.
Remember, thoughout history, goverment weren't any better than companies. In fact, they were mostly the property of a selected bunch of individuals, and that's still the case today. Regarding companies, as long as they are not granted monopolies from the states, they usually tend to favour developement and empower the people.
Moreover, it the was motivation that opened up the way for the modern states, as you'd recall from when you studied history.
Couldn't they add a "strong" parachute, very big one, so that if something fails (and it didn't explode) then the payload would slowly return to earth?
:)
Wouldn't that be a cheap solution to the X% of failures? You should only pray to your god so that it lands on firm land
They'll bring them down with lasers easily, or something better. The problem is the killing of species on earth and the pollution that's getting everywhere (pollution in every sense of the world not just smog, let vegetation, contaminated water, soil without nutrients or plainly poisoned, deserts).
Computer science teaches you to think about systems and how to describe them. It could be ANY system, related to any field in science. So you are basically not a "generic scientist". You have to fill the gap with working on some field. If you don't, you could be called Computer Scientist, for lack of a better word. But of source, to do anything usefull at all you need to know about other fields, be it music / sound, physics, pictures, biology. If they hire you in the biology industry, you will need to learn something about biology because then _and only then_ you'll be able to add more than "machine translating" the way a biologist thinks about systems.
What I am trying to say is that C.S. is very abstract and it is completely different from any other science. Has nothing to do with engineering unless you think of engineering as "guys that know a lot of math and physics, and, oh go, they study difficult stuff, no way i am doing that".
The skycrapper is harder because it's taller and because of gravity, not because it's basically harder. A "horizontal" skycrappers is very easy to do. Of course, you need to have a good plan to be able to use resources effectively (certain tasks require that another task be finished before it can be done, and it's better to have that task done in a row wherever it is needed and for the entire building (if speed is important). If you have little resources, you are better finishing of part by part (say room by room).
I think it's somewhat different that CS. Yes, you need to know the field, but they are very different beasts. Even the "screw it easly" has very different costs. When building a skycrapper, if you screw early (structure wise) you are dead (you lost most of the money lets say). If CS, you need to restart and lost a little time and resources (linear cost). But in CS, if you didn't screw much early you may reach the destination (in the skycrapper analogy that would be all that's required), and then, when you need to make a modification you'll learn that it's really difficult because you didn't abstract hard enough, or your abstractions where not the needed ones.
"... which is why the construction industry can work on lower margins."
What are the requirements? A limited list of facilities, style considereations, cost. It's very listable, you can do a mockup very easily. It's very static.
On the other hand, computing would be the same if you where required to do something like a specific algorithm.
Lasting software is as generic as you can think. The most generic. It's dynamic, you need to be able to reuse, expand, maintain (very different meaning than in the construction industry), reshare and many other things. It's yes, engineering, but in a very different way that the average engineer of any other field.
I know this myself beause I worked with very smart industrial engineers and they don't abstract as much as they have to. They go for a an simple analisis of what is required now and don't have a very long term goal when they start coding. It took me exponetial time to try and maintain industrial engineers code. They are used to and are very good at building things or things that build things, NOT systems.
That's my private experience. And it's very common for consulting firms to hire engineers, because they like their problem solving attitude and delivery ratio. It has a cost though, for the solution will usually not be very flexible. But the nor the consultant nor the company realize this.
"Would I be willing to get a fine or go to the bad place for playing a DVD on Linux"
:)
The fine could be a good topic to make a tshirt, a personal one with a stamped version of the very same fine and a quotes like:
* AND I DON'T CARE!
* I'll KEEP DOING IT
* PAID $500, SAVED THOUTHANDS!
* (add your own)
"... and to a lesser extent strength"
:)
Weren't the ants that could carry ten times their weights? Looks like a sine qua non feature to me
But are they doing clean room implementations? It doesn't look like that to me. I suspect they will that pass for now, but in the future when everyone has embraced the API, they may (will?) follow another trend.
I know about Mono, it looks very promising.
"Do you follow rules when you day dream? How about when you masturbate*?"
:).
Everyone follows the rules. In these case, I suspect it must be a real babe(s), factual or imaginary. If it is a real babe(s) she (they) must be out of reach and you out of posibilities.
You could modify at will, but some rules apply, depending on tastes
And sometimes, too pretty = too fake. I don't know, but the original Millenium Falcon looks to me more real than the shiny silver plane in the new series or the "parachute" weasel.
The SW story in the original SW was not *that* much innovative, but it was beautifully narrated, well acted and at times hilariuos (not perfect, but the guys looked like they actually where there and alive, real people not script-followers). The plot had many unexpected clever twists also.
It was not so much the special effects. They added ambience, but the story could have been placed in the past or even further in the future and still be a classic.
The new saga well, I can't criticize part by part, I just didn't feel anything at all, the characters felt like reading a stupid script ("I MUST do this, it's in the script!!").
E.2 was a bit better (compared to the boredness that E.1 provided me). The only guy that felt slightly real was the fallen Jedi (which didn't even look like a bad guy at all) and the cloning aliens.
Handle with care. I read LOTR so much time ago that I forgot all the details. I'm trying and making a huge effort not to remember anything. Would be nice not to see many spoilers and still be able to have a discussion about the visual effects and other generics that do not tell what will happen.
working as an offsite computer consultant
:)
That got me thinking, how long until you can find a _real_ (pseudo anonymous) job inside the Sims? And submit the results from there of course, and get paid real money.
Now that'd be really weird and unnatural, but it could be made to work.
You mean like in real life, but with different constraints which are more appealing? It's not a matter of imagination. If you play dolls or soldiers I can claim "Hey, I killed you with the invisible super mighty gun! I win!". We'll, 100% unconstrained games can only be played alone or under the effect of dope (in which case nobody would care much about what happens and what's claimed).
The very thing that makes Sims interesting is that everyone faces the same constraints and different endowments than the ones that reality has granted you. It's kind of a virtual second chance (that doesn't last much).
Mh, now that I think about it, you are right. Maybe it's the kind of ads as the rest, like UN ads or programming ads (other features, and features in Discovery Ch.). It's pretty clear they make the money our of the cable companies and very little from the ads itself.
Compared to other channels, the ads are a pleasure. In Hallmark, they start increasing the ads as the movies starts to reach the end. That's unacceptable!
Kind of. Hey, the point I wanted to stress is not that I am all for pop-ups or sites full of ads that you can't read. My argument is simply stating that less income to the sites you like is probably not what we wont. And as we clearly are (in general) not willing to pay to view it (or maybe the hassle to transfer 50 cents per month makes it impractical) but we are still viewing them, why not support them by leaving the banners where they are, and if they advertize something that is of interest and we happened to pay attention, why not follow the link?
The bottom line: if a website you find usefull and does not have abusinve ads, why not let them get some income from those so that they can run the site? I love some non ads sites, and i love some high quality with decent ads campaing sites as well. And I do understand that blocking those ads hurts the website. You'll recognize some sites that follow in these categories, they are the ones we visit most and enjoy the most.
Really????? Wow :) That's amazing
Well, I must agree with you. I never click at pop-up ads too, for the same reasons. That's very different to blocking all and every way of doing and adverticements.
Banners are actually a good thing, if not abused. When banners stop working they sometimes start selling "content". They start recoming the product that paid them more. And they do it very stealthly, so you don't notice the slight bias.