Good distinction. I used the term when I ought to have picked something more significant; I suppose one of the side effects of living in a society where, thank god, my life itself is never at stake due to my beliefs or actions (short of murder).
Sometimes, though, talking about civil liberties can have just as much of an effect as risking death for them. The riskiness doesn't necessarily mean effectiveness.
That being said, those who are effective at the cost of risking their own livelihood, who have no better options, should be commended.
This check is an early installment on Fairchild Semiconductor's first sale: 100 transistors sold to IBM for $150 apiece. Equivalent transistors today cost less than a hundred-thousandth of a penny. Photo courtesy of Special Collections, Stanford University Libraries
If you saw two guys named Hambone and Flippy, which one would you think liked dolphins the most? I'd say Flippy, wouldn't you? You'd be wrong, though. It's Hambone.
Google believes Microsoft is trying to make it difficult for users to choose any other search engine except Microsoft's on the browser by making its own product the default search window on the toolbar.
Sorry, no. They're not making it "hard" to do anything, in fact, they've made it very easy to add search engines (Just as easy as Firefox, nearly identical in fact). They're simply making it easier to search using their own search engine. As he states himself, Google pays for the right to have their search engine default on Firefox. Is that what he is really suggesting Microsoft do, pay another company for use of their search engine?
Microsoft owns a search engine. They own a browser. Modern browsers typically have built in search engine capability. It only makes sense that they would use their own search engine in their own browser.
Contrary to what many people like to beleive, Microsoft isn't forcing this on anyone. Maybe a few years ago, when they bullied Netscape out of the market by giving their browser away, and people didn't have many options about browsers, let alone the network speed to download alternatives easily, Microsoft was people's only choice. Now it seems hard to make that argument.
If I were an investor in Microsoft and the managers of IE7 were stupid enough to give Google free advertising revenue isntead of MS Live Search, I'd be pissed. If Google wants to be the default on IE so badly, let them strike a deal with MS for it and PAY for it. Stop asking for handouts, your company is worth ~100 billion dollars. You're not the underdog anymore.
Not trolling at all. My numbers are for total military funerals per year that are performed. These are for regular service members, retired service members etc that have earned the right to a military funeral. Nothing to do with Iraq or politics.
Why is this moderated as a troll? No one is forcibly coerced into signing with a major recording label. They are providing a service: recording, distributing, marketing, providing legal services, etc. The end product is the music, and in many cases the label had just as much to do with the end product (and its distribution) as the artist did. Are the artists entitled to all of the profits derived from this product? If so, why?
To put it another way: are programmers for EA entitled to all of the profits from Madden '06? They created the entire product, right? They didn't distribute it, get the contracts with the NFL, put down capital for the overhead, organize themselves and create this product with no guarantee of financial success... but... they created it, so they should get all the profits, right?
It's silly to say that the artists deserve all of the money earned from their work, just because they are the most visible person on the scene. You think that the other people who have worked on, say, Britney Spears's albums as technicians, mixers, musicians, and backup singers put in just as much effort or more than Britney herself? Yet she earns more money (presumably) than the vast majority of them. Because she's the artist? She's getting the raw deal because the person who is in charge of the entire operation, the CEO, makes more money than her (which may or may not be true)? Give me a break.
The total number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq through Tuesday, March 21 since the start of U.S. operations to topple Saddam Hussein on March 19, 2003, was 2,319, according to official figures issued by the Department of Defense, a rise of 49 in the past 39 days or an average of just over 1.3 killed per day. source
Most of these military funerals have absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. There's a lot of people in the military. Like civilians, they have the unfortunately tendency to get old and die. Not really much you can do to stop that...
And that's where your argument breaks down. What if I don't think that it's a good deal? Apparently, I cannot opt out of this "investment". If you, and enough others do think this is a good deal, theres no reason the private sector cannot step in and make it happen. If there was enough of a push for this, and the cost per person was that low, why not set up a WIFI service for a low, low cost of $15/year, per person? Give people a login key who sign up and pay for it.
Well? Not enough demand for this? Then perhaps the general public does not think it is a good enough deal. I'm sure there's a price point where it could work - and that's what private competition would find out. ISP's would be doing this already if there was enough public demand (read: if it were profitable). The Government almost never knows better than the Market does what services people want.
Aside from being unable to avoid commercials, watching the programs will be similar to watching timeshifted content in that viewers will be able to pause, fast forward, and rewind.
So, it looks like you WILL be able to fast forward and rewind. Although, I'm sure they'll use a proprietary player that disables this function during commercials.
Yes, there is some inherent danger in giving away personal information. But there's always risk, in everything. Most of the trouble with putting personal info on the web, at the moment, is that they use it for marketing purposes. Most people don't mind too much about that. They'll happily sign up for Club Savings cards at supermarkets, take surveys without second thought, and generally don't mind if their name is in some huge database with millions of others. They know it won't personally affect them to any large degree.
With the vast userbase of MySpace and Facebook, how often do you hear of malicious use of the users' information? You can don your tin foil hat if you must, but for the most part, society isn't out to get YOU. You're just not that important.
Of course, Identity theft is a whole different matter. Handing out Account Information, Passwords, and SS #'s is dangerous, and people should be educated on those matters, but for the average Joe, having their address published online, along with their interests and job details, isn't that big of a deal.
It seems reasonable to assume that useful sites will get lots of hits. Sites such as Mapquest and Wikipedia get hits, because they're very useful to quickly get information that used to require a lot of time and effort. They're simple examples of how amazingly useful the internet can be. The article then tries to give examples of how some "popular" brands are now not doing as well as new "trendy" sites:
Yahoo retains the largest audience in the United States, though its visitor growth slowed to about 5 percent last year.
Is this something else that is supposed to be news? Huge "super-sites", the website equivalents of multi-national corporations (Yahoo, Aol, MSN) have slower growth rates than new sites with much smaller userbases. 5% Growth in usage of Yahoo.com is still HUGE, when you look at the numbers. That's nearly 6 million more users, which is about 1/5 of Myspace's entire userbase!
This whole article seems to be stating the obvious. Trendy sites are growing quickly. Huge sites are growing not so quickly. Useful sites continue to grow at a steady (fast) rate. Is there something shocking, or newsworthy, mentioned here?
Multiple ideas can be thought of as a "standard", they just aren't necessarily compatible. PAL vs NTSC, 120 volts vs 220 volts, AC/DC, DVD-R vs DVD+R, Letter size vs Legal vs Postcard. They're all standards, all used for various purposes, and sometimes (DVD-R vs DVD+R) interchangable. As long as a lot of people conform to using it (not necessarily ALL people), it can be deemed a standard. Multiple standards can be a good thing. Of course, multiple standards can also be a bad thing, as it leads to unneccessary incompatabilities.
You obviously did not RTFA. The donor cannot be dead for this transplant to be successful. The donor would supposedly be someone close to death on life support. The surviving relatives of the "near deceased" would have to give the go-ahead to rip off the face of their beloved, assuming they will no longer need it. This could presumably lead to problems if a miraculous recovery of the donor happened or could adversly affect the donor's family if they see the face of their relative on someoene else's head. Those are the ethical concerns.
Of course stimulation makes you smarter. Then again, passive stimulation makes you... well... passive. People are made so content going home every day, watching a few hours of TV, playing a few hours of games, surfing the web a bit, that many never do anything productive, ever. Who cares if they're a few IQ points smarter from it? If they're not going to apply it to anything worthwhile, whats the point?
Granted, people haven't always had the time to sit around. Back in the day, the upperclass who had time to sit around would spend it reading, writing, talking, socializing, creating plans for the future of the world, etc. Nowadays, the upperclass is doing the same, but the LOWERCLASS now has tons and tons of free time. Some use this free time to be creative, learn things, travel. Many, many, many, waste away their lives sitting on their couch/computer chair/barcalounger "stimulating" themselves with the "boob toob".
"If the KFTC enters an order requiring Microsoft to remove code or redesign Windows uniquely for the Korean market, it might be necessary to withdraw Windows from the Korean market or delay offering new versions in Korea,"
So, if I'm reading it right, Microsoft is saying that they will either not release a "special" version of windows for S. Korea, or that releases will be delayed (presumably to create the modifications required by their Anti-Trust regulations).
This seems perfectly reasonable. They're not even saying they will necessarily pull windows from the market, it might just take them longer to develop the "MS Vista - S. Korea Version" than it would to release the standard. Nothing to see here... more Microsoft non-news.
Plus, if S. Korea is saying "play nice" and they say "no" outright, this is still well within their rights, there is no mandate that they must release software for the masses (In fact, SlashThink directly opposes this). More power to S. Korea if they think they can actually pull that off...
Ok, this situation is hilarious. In Australia I suppose its not only ok but ENCOURAGED by the media to be a crazy redneck shooting random wild animals? I guess they have a history of roughing it and theres dangerous animals a-plenty, but still that culture seems a little bit whacked out. Just look how happy that crazy redneck in the picture is.
I guess that at least its extremely funny, if a bit strange and creepy.
Is better emoticon control and more loud ringtones. I'm always trying to text friend all my peeps with cool news, but its just too hard for me to type:D and:-) using the normal interface.
Then, when I REALLY want to jam out to the tunes, I'm always interupted by annoying people who tell me to turn off or down my phone. I mean, I paid for the movie too, its not like phones are illegal. Anyhow, why would they make phones light up if they weren't meant to be lit up?
I think Nokia rocks. But I think Jay-Z is under-represented on the ring tone list. If they could do something about that I would much appreciate it. Anywayz, its time for me to peace out. Later guyz! TTYL! BBL! IWTFUSHITH!:D:-D
Why all this talk of merger scares? A joint venture is one thing, but these companies will simply not merge. You think Billy has any intention of giving up ownership or control of Microsoft? Ted might have got into bed with Steve Case, but I think a Ménage à trois is pushing things a bit too far.
Plus, who who would be on top? I don't think Bill would enjoy biting the pillow.
One would assume that companies with as much know how (They must know something) as these two would realize that revenue from dial-up is going to continue to shrink and eventually die. There's no long term benefit to focusing on a dial-up service.
It just boggles my mind that a service that has been made obsolete (except in rural areas, but that will happen eventually too) is still focused on by such large companies. You'd think at least AOL would have learned from their mistakes and switched their focus entirely by now.
Slashdot Mirror
Good distinction. I used the term when I ought to have picked something more significant; I suppose one of the side effects of living in a society where, thank god, my life itself is never at stake due to my beliefs or actions (short of murder).
Sometimes, though, talking about civil liberties can have just as much of an effect as risking death for them. The riskiness doesn't necessarily mean effectiveness. That being said, those who are effective at the cost of risking their own livelihood, who have no better options, should be commended.
This check is an early installment on Fairchild Semiconductor's first sale: 100 transistors sold to IBM for $150 apiece. Equivalent transistors today cost less than a hundred-thousandth of a penny. Photo courtesy of Special Collections, Stanford University Libraries
If you saw two guys named Hambone and Flippy, which one would you
think liked dolphins the most? I'd say Flippy, wouldn't you? You'd be
wrong, though. It's Hambone.
-Jack Handy
Well, as someone apparently finds this "interesting", I thought I'd throw in a few other prior art devices that fall under that category:
Cell Phone Rings
Unavoidable Tunnels
and of course, the ubiquitous crying baby.
Microsoft owns a search engine. They own a browser. Modern browsers typically have built in search engine capability. It only makes sense that they would use their own search engine in their own browser.
Contrary to what many people like to beleive, Microsoft isn't forcing this on anyone. Maybe a few years ago, when they bullied Netscape out of the market by giving their browser away, and people didn't have many options about browsers, let alone the network speed to download alternatives easily, Microsoft was people's only choice. Now it seems hard to make that argument.
If I were an investor in Microsoft and the managers of IE7 were stupid enough to give Google free advertising revenue isntead of MS Live Search, I'd be pissed. If Google wants to be the default on IE so badly, let them strike a deal with MS for it and PAY for it. Stop asking for handouts, your company is worth ~100 billion dollars. You're not the underdog anymore.
Ok.
Why is this moderated as a troll? No one is forcibly coerced into signing with a major recording label. They are providing a service: recording, distributing, marketing, providing legal services, etc. The end product is the music, and in many cases the label had just as much to do with the end product (and its distribution) as the artist did. Are the artists entitled to all of the profits derived from this product? If so, why?
To put it another way: are programmers for EA entitled to all of the profits from Madden '06? They created the entire product, right? They didn't distribute it, get the contracts with the NFL, put down capital for the overhead, organize themselves and create this product with no guarantee of financial success... but... they created it, so they should get all the profits, right?
It's silly to say that the artists deserve all of the money earned from their work, just because they are the most visible person on the scene. You think that the other people who have worked on, say, Britney Spears's albums as technicians, mixers, musicians, and backup singers put in just as much effort or more than Britney herself? Yet she earns more money (presumably) than the vast majority of them. Because she's the artist? She's getting the raw deal because the person who is in charge of the entire operation, the CEO, makes more money than her (which may or may not be true)? Give me a break.
And that's where your argument breaks down. What if I don't think that it's a good deal? Apparently, I cannot opt out of this "investment". If you, and enough others do think this is a good deal, theres no reason the private sector cannot step in and make it happen. If there was enough of a push for this, and the cost per person was that low, why not set up a WIFI service for a low, low cost of $15/year, per person? Give people a login key who sign up and pay for it.
Well? Not enough demand for this? Then perhaps the general public does not think it is a good enough deal. I'm sure there's a price point where it could work - and that's what private competition would find out. ISP's would be doing this already if there was enough public demand (read: if it were profitable). The Government almost never knows better than the Market does what services people want.
So, it looks like you WILL be able to fast forward and rewind. Although, I'm sure they'll use a proprietary player that disables this function during commercials.
Yes, there is some inherent danger in giving away personal information. But there's always risk, in everything. Most of the trouble with putting personal info on the web, at the moment, is that they use it for marketing purposes. Most people don't mind too much about that. They'll happily sign up for Club Savings cards at supermarkets, take surveys without second thought, and generally don't mind if their name is in some huge database with millions of others. They know it won't personally affect them to any large degree.
With the vast userbase of MySpace and Facebook, how often do you hear of malicious use of the users' information? You can don your tin foil hat if you must, but for the most part, society isn't out to get YOU . You're just not that important.
Of course, Identity theft is a whole different matter. Handing out Account Information, Passwords, and SS #'s is dangerous, and people should be educated on those matters, but for the average Joe, having their address published online, along with their interests and job details, isn't that big of a deal.
Is this something else that is supposed to be news? Huge "super-sites", the website equivalents of multi-national corporations (Yahoo, Aol, MSN) have slower growth rates than new sites with much smaller userbases. 5% Growth in usage of Yahoo.com is still HUGE, when you look at the numbers. That's nearly 6 million more users, which is about 1/5 of Myspace's entire userbase!
This whole article seems to be stating the obvious. Trendy sites are growing quickly. Huge sites are growing not so quickly. Useful sites continue to grow at a steady (fast) rate. Is there something shocking, or newsworthy, mentioned here?
Nope.
Multiple ideas can be thought of as a "standard", they just aren't necessarily compatible. PAL vs NTSC, 120 volts vs 220 volts, AC/DC, DVD-R vs DVD+R, Letter size vs Legal vs Postcard. They're all standards, all used for various purposes, and sometimes (DVD-R vs DVD+R) interchangable. As long as a lot of people conform to using it (not necessarily ALL people), it can be deemed a standard. Multiple standards can be a good thing. Of course, multiple standards can also be a bad thing, as it leads to unneccessary incompatabilities.
You obviously did not RTFA. The donor cannot be dead for this transplant to be successful. The donor would supposedly be someone close to death on life support. The surviving relatives of the "near deceased" would have to give the go-ahead to rip off the face of their beloved, assuming they will no longer need it. This could presumably lead to problems if a miraculous recovery of the donor happened or could adversly affect the donor's family if they see the face of their relative on someoene else's head. Those are the ethical concerns.
Of course stimulation makes you smarter. Then again, passive stimulation makes you... well... passive. People are made so content going home every day, watching a few hours of TV, playing a few hours of games, surfing the web a bit, that many never do anything productive, ever. Who cares if they're a few IQ points smarter from it? If they're not going to apply it to anything worthwhile, whats the point?
Granted, people haven't always had the time to sit around. Back in the day, the upperclass who had time to sit around would spend it reading, writing, talking, socializing, creating plans for the future of the world, etc. Nowadays, the upperclass is doing the same, but the LOWERCLASS now has tons and tons of free time. Some use this free time to be creative, learn things, travel. Many, many, many, waste away their lives sitting on their couch/computer chair/barcalounger "stimulating" themselves with the "boob toob".
So, if I'm reading it right, Microsoft is saying that they will either not release a "special" version of windows for S. Korea, or that releases will be delayed (presumably to create the modifications required by their Anti-Trust regulations).
This seems perfectly reasonable. They're not even saying they will necessarily pull windows from the market, it might just take them longer to develop the "MS Vista - S. Korea Version" than it would to release the standard. Nothing to see here... more Microsoft non-news.
Plus, if S. Korea is saying "play nice" and they say "no" outright, this is still well within their rights, there is no mandate that they must release software for the masses (In fact, SlashThink directly opposes this). More power to S. Korea if they think they can actually pull that off...
You've been able to get most any audio book in compressed electronic form for some time now. It's actually pretty cheap.
Audible
You can get a subscription for cheap, which allows you to download a couple books a month for a price far below the traditional cost of audio books.
Ok, this situation is hilarious. In Australia I suppose its not only ok but ENCOURAGED by the media to be a crazy redneck shooting random wild animals? I guess they have a history of roughing it and theres dangerous animals a-plenty, but still that culture seems a little bit whacked out. Just look how happy that crazy redneck in the picture is.
I guess that at least its extremely funny, if a bit strange and creepy.
E = [(p2c2) + m2c4]1/2
Is better emoticon control and more loud ringtones. I'm always trying to text friend all my peeps with cool news, but its just too hard for me to type :D and :-) using the normal interface.
:D :-D
Then, when I REALLY want to jam out to the tunes, I'm always interupted by annoying people who tell me to turn off or down my phone. I mean, I paid for the movie too, its not like phones are illegal. Anyhow, why would they make phones light up if they weren't meant to be lit up?
I think Nokia rocks. But I think Jay-Z is under-represented on the ring tone list. If they could do something about that I would much appreciate it. Anywayz, its time for me to peace out. Later guyz! TTYL! BBL! IWTFUSHITH!
Why all this talk of merger scares? A joint venture is one thing, but these companies will simply not merge. You think Billy has any intention of giving up ownership or control of Microsoft? Ted might have got into bed with Steve Case, but I think a Ménage à trois is pushing things a bit too far.
Plus, who who would be on top? I don't think Bill would enjoy biting the pillow.
One would assume that companies with as much know how (They must know something) as these two would realize that revenue from dial-up is going to continue to shrink and eventually die. There's no long term benefit to focusing on a dial-up service.
It just boggles my mind that a service that has been made obsolete (except in rural areas, but that will happen eventually too) is still focused on by such large companies. You'd think at least AOL would have learned from their mistakes and switched their focus entirely by now.
Look at all the things they HAVE created:
DOS
The GUI
the Web Browser
Word Processing
Media Compression
Solitaire
The future seems to hold limitless possibilities if we look at their past innovations. Long live Microsoft!
Microsoft not getting credit on Slashdot?!
:)
Never