Seriously though, who is actually losing in this situation? Not having direct (deep) linking on your site confuses the users.
I mean, it would be highly impractical if I posted a link to a week old article on Slashdot on my website, and merely linked to slashdot.com. How exactly is the end user suppost to find that article? Sure, he/she could search Slashdot.. but why should they. It only wastes bandwidth and [more importantly] time for the person trying to find information. Why make it harder for them? It's a person asking "Where is the closest supermarket?" "Oh, it's in San Francisco!"
Not only is it bad for users, but it's bad for the other website - where they may never return because information is so hard to find.
In the auditorium, Skinner speaks to the children.
Skinner: Children, the times they are a-becoming quite different. Test
scores are at an all-time low, so I've come up with these
academic alerts. [hold stack of cards] You will receive one as
soon as your grades start to slip in any subject. This way
your parents won't have to wait until report card time to
punish you. Martin: How innovative. I like it! Kearney: Hey Dolph, take a memo on your Newton: beat up Martin.
[Dolph writes "Beat up Martin" which the Newton translates as
"Eat up Martha"]
Bah! [throws Newton]
Martin: [being bonked on the head] Ow! -- Good ol' Apple Computer, "Lisa on Ice" (Thanks to SNPP)
What companies need to start doing is ditching phone tech support. Not entirly, but just using phones is hard. It's so intangable. You can't see anything that's going on on the other side.
What I propose is using Terminal Services. If they're using Windows XP or Windows NT you can connect to their computer, and be able to control their computer on the other side. This can solve almost any software problems. (Maybe even some hardware). Of course, this would be useless if it's an "Internet is down" related problem.
Another thing to consider is a strong Online Tech Support. Where the company posts up all questions they are asked with their answers on the website, to create a knoledge base.
Or, you can go as far as installing an ALICE Bot and configure it to answer common problems the customer may have. They may never know they're talking to an AI instead of a human:)
Yeah, and do exactly what with them? If they sell my info to third parties, they're scum. If they don't sell it, but start pestering me via email, they're spammers, i.e. scum again.
It should be nessassary for the websites that have e-mail address's to give the option of "[ ] Join Newsletter". Most of the places where I download software have this option. If they don't have an option to get your name off their mailling lists, then they aren't a reputable organization from the start.
Whatever happened to e-mail filters? Who cares if you get a few e-mails of spam from the company, just ban it all together if it becomes abusive.
sorry, but at work we have a download that is only available after filling out a contact form.. OVER 50% of the email adresses are fake. so this makes this information collection system worthless and useless.
Simple. Just create an accout activation system, where it sends and e-mail to the user where they can click a link activating the account (so they can login and download the software).
They may be annoying, but if your software is good enough then I'm sure they'll comply. And in the end, you get all working e-mail addresses.
The problem I hate with wireless devices is having to replace batteries every two weeks or so. It's expensive and annoying.
Supposibly this monitor comes with a Rechargeable 1800 mAh Lithium Ion Battery Pack. I don't know much about batteries, but I suppose all you do is just plug this in and it recharges?
Ethics of changing history?
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
There would be government laws to control time travel, he believes.
Oh, yes, just like the "Government laws" to "control" Human Cloning.
Warcraft is nothing like Starcraft. I've been addicted to starcraft for about 1 year now, and have become an avid player/opponent.
A week ago I went over a friends house, who had Warcraft III beta, and played it. I was dissapointed. It was nothing like Starcraft. The buildings are too huge, your too close to the units, and it looks just like Age of Empires.. which is a horriably boring game, in my opinion. (About 20 minutes for a group of 10 units to destroy one building? Cumon' now!)
The good thing about Starcraft is it's the low HP of everything. In Warcraft, it takes way too long to destroy a unit. Why is this bad? Well, in Starcraft you can easily sneak into an opponents base and do some heavy damange before an ally comes to help, or counter. In Warcraft, once your attacking you'll be there for ages, easily allowing their allies to come and rescue them or counter you and destroy you while your away.
People say there isn't strategy in Starcraft [Broodwar]. That's not true. Okay, strategy may not entirly how you build your units and which spells you use (not that many spells), but it's how you build your base. You build supply depos in front of bunkers and nest Seige tanks behind the bunkers for choke defense. In Warcraft [III], that isn't really that possible. Especially in the early game. Ofcorse, there are defensive structures (for Night Elf, all structures can attack.. though poorly). Yes you can do it, but it isn't as good as it is in Starcraft. Another point is that in Starcraft Strategy is replenishing your dying/dead units. To hotkey your hatcheries and build constant hydras to send up to your opponents base. In Warcraft, you don't really have that. It's more build unit and preserve unit. It's more tech then micro, and that's dissapointing. In Starcraft, you can either tech or micro. In Warcraft, if you micro it's foolish, so basically there is just tech. (Also noting that the more diverse group *easily* will win over the less diverse)
Well, what I would like to see, is faster build times, and lower the HP of everything (buildings and units). A fast game is a better game. Also, it would be nice to drop into enemies bases. Having your tree of life eat through an enemies barrier defense isn't fun.
In another way, I can see their intentions. It's Warcraft, not Starcraft. But I swear, if they screw up Starcraft II (if they even make it) then I'll never buy a Blizzard product again, and advise all those I know to fall suit as well.
Other than the various rumors at TheForce.net, I found this on AintItCoolNews a few days ago. And it seems that this movie is alot better than Episode I. With Yoda Fight scenes, Amazing scenery of an underground "gotham-like" Coruscant's underworld.
I'm really excited about this, and can't wait to see it. Finally something else to be excited to see on Fox other than the Simpsons (except latley).
Macromedia would like that, wouldn't they. Instead of people using notepad to create open source webpages, they want people to create closed source pages with a $199 product (all profits to Macromedia, BTW). And this would be the "Web" standard? Please!
I don't see this happening. Flash websites are not only annoying, but you have to learn a whole new medium to be able to create flash pages. Almost always, the usability of the website sucks based on the navigation "programmed" by the webmaster. They aren't dynamic, don't use databases, and requires the user to download a plug-in for their browser (lets hope they never add spyware into that thing).
I think if we will ever have to evolve into a different type of medium for websites, it would be W3C's SVG format. Parts of websites in flash is good, websites ALL in flash is bad.
"News for Nerds" Web site Slashdot.org has joined the dark side, lining up with leagues of other Net publishers to start selling larger, more imposing advertisements and placing a premium on commercial-free pages.
Actually, that was on PRT (Public Rapid Transit) and it was about it being developed in the UK. This is about ULTRa, being developed in the US. So they are completely different stories, just similar genres.
I suppose we'll be seeing more about alternative transportation motives in the near future.
Greed, lust, territoriality, warlike tendency, aggresssion etc. are traits of early civilizations, yes, but theoretically are not those of later evolved civilizations. (Afghanastan vs. United States).
For society to continue, for it to evolve and grow it has to live in a somewhat peaceful manner. I would expect surperior races from ours to be bound by laws. Surperior people don't need barbaric mannerisms to survive, they can use technology to provide proper security.
The European nation failed to stay on top because it had archaic way of living. No fair laws, no personal freedom etc. etc. Ofcorse, it now has those things.. but it is already behind the United States because it didn't implimate them sooner. That's the problem now with the United States.. yes, it's advancing in technology, has a stable Governemnt etc. but transportation and the overall make-up of the society is bad.
You always see all those advanced civilizations on TV like Starwars and Startrek with Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) and organized roads, buildings, and cities etc. How is the US suppost to get that? The only way is to tear down everything and start over. You can't just build around the old buildings. You have to start from scratch, like how the US was made.
I mean, if someone extremely rich went to say Africa and bought alot of land and started building a new nation from the ground up, with PRT networking everywhere, standard houses built off a template, etc. then I'm sure it could become the most advanced nation in the world. Boom, Africa #1, US #2.
I think the world is destined to have people who think their current civilization is too ratical, and attempt to start a new one. If the Europeans didn't travel to North America, I'm sure someone else would of. Current Civilizations like England at that time are impossible to change. The Kings and Queens are too arrogant to implimiate any fair laws. It's only natural for people to go out and form their own.
Colonizing other planets may be a new way of doing what England did. The new world would be built from current/future technology using the best of the Earth. It's impossible for it NOT to become more advanced than Earth.
Greed, lust, territoriality, warlike tendency, aggresssion etc. are traits of early civilizations, yes, but theoretically are not those of later evolved civilizations. (Afghanastan vs. United States). For society to continue, for it to evolve and grow it has to live in a somewhat peaceful manner.
I would expect surperior races from ours to be bound by laws. Surperior people don't need barbaric mannerisms to survive, they can use technology to provide proper security.
The European nation failed to stay on top because it had archaic way of living. No fair laws, no personal freedom etc. etc. Ofcorse, it now has those things.. but it is already behind the United States because it didn't implimate them sooner. That's the problem now with the United States.. yes, it's advancing in technology, has a stable Governemnt etc. but transportation and the overall make-up of the society is bad.
You always see all those advanced civilizations on TV like Starwars and Startrek with Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) and organized roads, buildings, and cities etc. How is the US suppost to get that? The only way is to tear down everything and start over. You can't just build around the old buildings. You have to start from scratch, like how the US was made.
I mean, if someone extremely rich went to say Africa and bought alot of land and started building a new nation from the ground up, with PRT networking everywhere, standard houses built off a template, etc. then I'm sure it could become the most advanced nation in the world. Boom, Africa #1, US #2.
I think the world is destined to have people who think their current civilization is too ratical, and attempt to start a new one. If the Europeans didn't travel to North America, I'm sure someone else would of. Current Civilizations like England at that time are impossible to change. The Kings and Queens are too arrogant to implimiate any fair laws. It's only natural for people to go out and form their own. Colonizing other planets may be a new way of doing what England did. The new world would be built from current/future technology using the best of the Earth. It's impossible for it NOT to become more advanced than Earth.
A multimeter reading of the batteries' voltage before the device started up showed a total of 48.9 volts. When it was switched off, a second reading showed 51.2 volts, indicating that, somehow, they had been reimbursed.
Did it ever occur to them to check for batteries?
Alot of the other information, too, is incorrect.
In a demonstration for Reuters, a prototype -- roughly the size of a dish-washer -- was run for around 10 minutes using four 12-volt car batteries as an initial power source.
Emitting a steady motorised hum, the machine powered three 100-watt light bulbs for the duration.
Well, uh, three 100-WATT bulbs is 300 WATTS.. totalling to 0.3 Killowats?
"The draw on the batteries was estimated at more than 4.5 kilowatts. With any existing technology the batteries would have been drained flat in one and a half minutes," the inventor said.
A Car Battery is around 1.2 Killowatts each, roughly around 4.8 Killowatts of juice. Thus, a 4.5 Killowatt drain on them would leave them empty in around an hour, not a minute in a half.
Shouldn't he know this, being an Electrical Engineer?
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad the people in 13th Century Europe didn't have this technology. Could of actually been useful back then.
Get good ol' Jakob Nielson on your defense, he says Deep Linking is Good Linking. And I totally agree.
Seriously though, who is actually losing in this situation? Not having direct (deep) linking on your site confuses the users.
I mean, it would be highly impractical if I posted a link to a week old article on Slashdot on my website, and merely linked to slashdot.com. How exactly is the end user suppost to find that article? Sure, he/she could search Slashdot.. but why should they. It only wastes bandwidth and [more importantly] time for the person trying to find information. Why make it harder for them? It's a person asking "Where is the closest supermarket?" "Oh, it's in San Francisco!"
Not only is it bad for users, but it's bad for the other website - where they may never return because information is so hard to find.
In the auditorium, Skinner speaks to the children.
Skinner: Children, the times they are a-becoming quite different. Test
scores are at an all-time low, so I've come up with these
academic alerts. [hold stack of cards] You will receive one as
soon as your grades start to slip in any subject. This way
your parents won't have to wait until report card time to
punish you.
Martin: How innovative. I like it!
Kearney: Hey Dolph, take a memo on your Newton: beat up Martin.
[Dolph writes "Beat up Martin" which the Newton translates as
"Eat up Martha"]
Bah! [throws Newton]
Martin: [being bonked on the head] Ow!
-- Good ol' Apple Computer, "Lisa on Ice"
(Thanks to SNPP)
Since some guy on Regis and Kelly predicted that a major UFO sighting will happen sometime between May and June!
What companies need to start doing is ditching phone tech support. Not entirly, but just using phones is hard. It's so intangable. You can't see anything that's going on on the other side. What I propose is using Terminal Services. If they're using Windows XP or Windows NT you can connect to their computer, and be able to control their computer on the other side. This can solve almost any software problems. (Maybe even some hardware). Of course, this would be useless if it's an "Internet is down" related problem. Another thing to consider is a strong Online Tech Support. Where the company posts up all questions they are asked with their answers on the website, to create a knoledge base. Or, you can go as far as installing an ALICE Bot and configure it to answer common problems the customer may have. They may never know they're talking to an AI instead of a human :)
It should be nessassary for the websites that have e-mail address's to give the option of "[ ] Join Newsletter". Most of the places where I download software have this option. If they don't have an option to get your name off their mailling lists, then they aren't a reputable organization from the start.
Whatever happened to e-mail filters? Who cares if you get a few e-mails of spam from the company, just ban it all together if it becomes abusive.
They may be annoying, but if your software is good enough then I'm sure they'll comply. And in the end, you get all working e-mail addresses.
The problem I hate with wireless devices is having to replace batteries every two weeks or so. It's expensive and annoying.
Supposibly this monitor comes with a Rechargeable 1800 mAh Lithium Ion Battery Pack. I don't know much about batteries, but I suppose all you do is just plug this in and it recharges?
They were just sitting like little gentlemen together having laughs and sharing logic only a week ago in the Silcon Valley Summit III.
Boys will be Boys.
Warcraft is nothing like Starcraft. I've been addicted to starcraft for about 1 year now, and have become an avid player/opponent.
A week ago I went over a friends house, who had Warcraft III beta, and played it. I was dissapointed. It was nothing like Starcraft. The buildings are too huge, your too close to the units, and it looks just like Age of Empires.. which is a horriably boring game, in my opinion. (About 20 minutes for a group of 10 units to destroy one building? Cumon' now!)
The good thing about Starcraft is it's the low HP of everything. In Warcraft, it takes way too long to destroy a unit. Why is this bad? Well, in Starcraft you can easily sneak into an opponents base and do some heavy damange before an ally comes to help, or counter. In Warcraft, once your attacking you'll be there for ages, easily allowing their allies to come and rescue them or counter you and destroy you while your away.
People say there isn't strategy in Starcraft [Broodwar]. That's not true. Okay, strategy may not entirly how you build your units and which spells you use (not that many spells), but it's how you build your base. You build supply depos in front of bunkers and nest Seige tanks behind the bunkers for choke defense. In Warcraft [III], that isn't really that possible. Especially in the early game. Ofcorse, there are defensive structures (for Night Elf, all structures can attack.. though poorly). Yes you can do it, but it isn't as good as it is in Starcraft. Another point is that in Starcraft Strategy is replenishing your dying/dead units. To hotkey your hatcheries and build constant hydras to send up to your opponents base. In Warcraft, you don't really have that. It's more build unit and preserve unit. It's more tech then micro, and that's dissapointing. In Starcraft, you can either tech or micro. In Warcraft, if you micro it's foolish, so basically there is just tech. (Also noting that the more diverse group *easily* will win over the less diverse)
Well, what I would like to see, is faster build times, and lower the HP of everything (buildings and units). A fast game is a better game. Also, it would be nice to drop into enemies bases. Having your tree of life eat through an enemies barrier defense isn't fun.
In another way, I can see their intentions. It's Warcraft, not Starcraft. But I swear, if they screw up Starcraft II (if they even make it) then I'll never buy a Blizzard product again, and advise all those I know to fall suit as well.
... but then regret it after they first see CSI and Alias only years after.
Other than the various rumors at TheForce.net, I found this on AintItCoolNews a few days ago. And it seems that this movie is alot better than Episode I. With Yoda Fight scenes, Amazing scenery of an underground "gotham-like" Coruscant's underworld.
I'm really excited about this, and can't wait to see it. Finally something else to be excited to see on Fox other than the Simpsons (except latley).
Macromedia would like that, wouldn't they. Instead of people using notepad to create open source webpages, they want people to create closed source pages with a $199 product (all profits to Macromedia, BTW). And this would be the "Web" standard? Please!
I don't see this happening. Flash websites are not only annoying, but you have to learn a whole new medium to be able to create flash pages. Almost always, the usability of the website sucks based on the navigation "programmed" by the webmaster. They aren't dynamic, don't use databases, and requires the user to download a plug-in for their browser (lets hope they never add spyware into that thing).
I think if we will ever have to evolve into a different type of medium for websites, it would be W3C's SVG format. Parts of websites in flash is good, websites ALL in flash is bad.
CNET has posted an article here.
They still need to come back and put the screws back into my chasis that they took out.
Give me their e-mail so I can send a thank you note.
Actually, that was on PRT (Public Rapid Transit) and it was about it being developed in the UK. This is about ULTRa, being developed in the US. So they are completely different stories, just similar genres. I suppose we'll be seeing more about alternative transportation motives in the near future.
Sure, I'm going to ride the segway my 46-mile one way trip to work, in Minnesota, in any month besides July or August.
Sounds like you need to move.
He means that people put what he is saying in contrast to hollywood.
"Wasen't that AI movie suppost to be in like year 2050? And he says AI happens in 2006? This guy is a whacko!"
Oh, the irony.
What "Politicall correctness creates new dark age" means? And give an example?
(Sorry, my other post wasn't formated right :P)
Greed, lust, territoriality, warlike tendency, aggresssion etc. are traits of early civilizations, yes, but theoretically are not those of later evolved civilizations. (Afghanastan vs. United States).
For society to continue, for it to evolve and grow it has to live in a somewhat peaceful manner. I would expect surperior races from ours to be bound by laws. Surperior people don't need barbaric mannerisms to survive, they can use technology to provide proper security.
The European nation failed to stay on top because it had archaic way of living. No fair laws, no personal freedom etc. etc. Ofcorse, it now has those things.. but it is already behind the United States because it didn't implimate them sooner. That's the problem now with the United States.. yes, it's advancing in technology, has a stable Governemnt etc. but transportation and the overall make-up of the society is bad.
You always see all those advanced civilizations on TV like Starwars and Startrek with Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) and organized roads, buildings, and cities etc. How is the US suppost to get that? The only way is to tear down everything and start over. You can't just build around the old buildings. You have to start from scratch, like how the US was made.
I mean, if someone extremely rich went to say Africa and bought alot of land and started building a new nation from the ground up, with PRT networking everywhere, standard houses built off a template, etc. then I'm sure it could become the most advanced nation in the world. Boom, Africa #1, US #2.
I think the world is destined to have people who think their current civilization is too ratical, and attempt to start a new one. If the Europeans didn't travel to North America, I'm sure someone else would of. Current Civilizations like England at that time are impossible to change. The Kings and Queens are too arrogant to implimiate any fair laws. It's only natural for people to go out and form their own.
Colonizing other planets may be a new way of doing what England did. The new world would be built from current/future technology using the best of the Earth. It's impossible for it NOT to become more advanced than Earth.
Greed, lust, territoriality, warlike tendency, aggresssion etc. are traits of early civilizations, yes, but theoretically are not those of later evolved civilizations. (Afghanastan vs. United States). For society to continue, for it to evolve and grow it has to live in a somewhat peaceful manner. I would expect surperior races from ours to be bound by laws. Surperior people don't need barbaric mannerisms to survive, they can use technology to provide proper security. The European nation failed to stay on top because it had archaic way of living. No fair laws, no personal freedom etc. etc. Ofcorse, it now has those things.. but it is already behind the United States because it didn't implimate them sooner. That's the problem now with the United States.. yes, it's advancing in technology, has a stable Governemnt etc. but transportation and the overall make-up of the society is bad. You always see all those advanced civilizations on TV like Starwars and Startrek with Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) and organized roads, buildings, and cities etc. How is the US suppost to get that? The only way is to tear down everything and start over. You can't just build around the old buildings. You have to start from scratch, like how the US was made. I mean, if someone extremely rich went to say Africa and bought alot of land and started building a new nation from the ground up, with PRT networking everywhere, standard houses built off a template, etc. then I'm sure it could become the most advanced nation in the world. Boom, Africa #1, US #2. I think the world is destined to have people who think their current civilization is too ratical, and attempt to start a new one. If the Europeans didn't travel to North America, I'm sure someone else would of. Current Civilizations like England at that time are impossible to change. The Kings and Queens are too arrogant to implimiate any fair laws. It's only natural for people to go out and form their own. Colonizing other planets may be a new way of doing what England did. The new world would be built from current/future technology using the best of the Earth. It's impossible for it NOT to become more advanced than Earth.