Also, analysts get paid to comment on things - mostly things people WANT to hear. Therefore I'm not surprised by the statement.
The only reason I pay attention to analysts is because I know that many other people do. Since most markets are trust-driven (ie. many trust the Yen less than the Dollar, so the Dollar goes up), popular opinion is VERY important. Then again, wrt finance, I seem to also say, "Thus far, laziness has always won out. There are so many better things to do."
Coat the surface of furniture/walls/floor with a computer!
Or better yet: Build an entire window that doubles as a data-recorder. Then you could arrange to retreive the info from the outdoors - eliminating the need to recover from within the building, or snaking a wire through the structure.
According to the article, it blocks UV just like glass - eliminating that method of detection. Given the proposed applications (within windsheilds) it seems that it'll work in direct sunlight, so a window pane isn't far-fetched.
Of course, there's very little info on the properties of the material (hardness, ESD sensitive, etc), which would help narrow the range of applications. Well, you can either be in awe or very afraid. Since this in the Science section, I'll be in awe. Once the topic gets into YRO, then be afraid.
IANAThermodynamics prof, but all energy conversion processes require a heat dump. More heat windes up in the dump when: 1. the incoming energy is larger and; 2. the process is less efficient. Even a perfect process generates heat.
When attending a high school field trip to a nuclear power plant, I recall the plant rep saying that the river water (their heat dump) is 2-3 degrees higher in the surrounding area. However, I didn't know how much to trust any of the info provided because she also said that cigarettes are cancerous due to extremely minute amounts of plutonium found within.
Either way, a heat dump is required. This WILL affect the neighboring environment, but (by extension) so will any other power generator. I guess the real question of generator pollution excludes the issue of heat. In that case, fusion does look more attractive.
One last note: And, of course, most of the world doesn't have a tide to draw on...
But, most of the world is covered by water. Of course, practically speaking, I'm just being stupid here...
A quick technique is to use "File:Work Offline" immediately after ALL email downloads. It seems to do the trick with images and blocking pop-ups from embedded scripts.
There is one problem with this though. When using a phone modem, IE is normally set up to "Dial whenever a network connection is not present". So EVERY occurance of the tag "[IMG...]" within a HTML-email would result in a dialup prompt. That has the work-around of setting the option to "Never dial a connection".
Well, there is one more problem: you also have to remember to do it every time.
Maybe it'll help though since, on some accounts I work with, I've noticed that ALL the spam going to them are definitely American in origin.
Consider this: they normally get an average of 40+ spam per day and there were ZERO the friday after Thanksgiving! It seems that even spammers take THAT day off for holiday.
Jeez, what the hell am I doing on/. on a friday night?
In effect, your employer does lend you money. Many employers issue a credit card to employees. That is a blank check to screw the company.
Time for a couple of analogies:
If I sign a blank check and anyone abuses it, then most people would agree that I'm an idiot.
If I don't want my dad to use my credit card, then I don't give him access to it. He's family, but why allow it when it's not necessary (think network security).
As an employee, you are an agent of the company, and you can call up another company and order some things.
Lax restrictions to company assets is the company's fault. As an alternative, many companies will use a reimbursement procedure, which means that you'd better be certain that the company will pay you back for your expense.
If someone was going to have that authority with your credit card or checking account, wouldn't you want to know about their credit history?
Fine, restrict the credit check to those individuals that will be expected to purchase directly for the company. For the question at hand, everyone has their credit checked.
[cliche]If everyone were to jump off a bridge... [/cliche]
CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (AP) -- Space shuttle Columbia's astronauts joined Mission Control in a moment of silence Tuesday at the exact time 17 years ago that Challenger exploded in the sky.
NASA's work force, in orbit and on Earth, remembered not only the seven astronauts who died on January 28, 1986, but also the three who were killed by a fire in their Apollo spacecraft at the pad on January 27, 1967. At the launch site Tuesday, flags flew at half staff for the second day in a row.
all my life i've associated the 212 area code with new york.
Livery services (cab/limo/etc.) located in Queens and Brooklyn want to look like they're based in Manhattan and so purchase a (212) number, which forwards the call to their proper number. AFAIK, the assumption that the service is from Manhattan helps considerably with business. So, (212) is not just for phones in NY.
However - to get back on topic - I'd say that adding digits and area codes is less confusing than using prefix letters. "Yes operator. Please connect me to PEnnsylvania 6-5000." Some history on phone dialing here.
For those not in-the-know, the parent means New York as in the "County of" (Manhattan Island), not the "City of" or "State of".
I'll give you an example of just the opposite (necessity born out of new ideas): xerography. Who needs an expensive machine to make copies when you have carbon-copy paper? Maybe 10 of the largest office buildings would own one.
...fast-forward a few decades... Now every office cannot be without one (or a variant).
Btw, I do agree that the invention would probably never have been pursued if someone didn't feel a need for it. If not a patent lawyer, then maybe someone with a need to constantly photograph their butt.
From the recommendation page:
Who could exploit the vulnerability?
...
* Web client. A user could exploit the vulnerability against a web client if he or she were able to construct a web page that would send an appropriate HTTP command, and then convince a user to open it. Typically, this would be done by either hosting the page on a web site that the attacker controlled or sending it directly to users as an HTML mail.
Also:
A warning message is generated anytime there's an error associated with a digital signature (e.g., a bad signature or expired certificate) or the signer isn't trusted. But in this case, the digital signature on the old version of the control is still valid, and the signer is Microsoft - which is a trusted publisher in many cases. Because of this, most users would not see a warning message of any kind if the old control was re-introduced.
HTTP commands are the method for exploiting this vulnerability. By default, IE trusts MS. I must use HTTP commands to visit the MS site and thereby learn not to trust MS (as advised). But in doing so, I accepted anything that may be malicious, before I knew exactly how not to.
From this point of view, it seems to be more of a Catch-22. But then, in that scenario, MS would host the malicious server, which would be horrible PR and therefore improbable.
One last thing, AFAIK it's the "Paradox of the Lie" and not the "Liar's Paradox", since the classic example is a statement (Like: "This statement is false" or my sig: "This is not my sig."), and does not refer to a person or liar. I lost points on a philosophy paper for just that reason. Pissed me off enough that I still remember it today.
However, I've heard that popup blockers and tabbed browsing are making their way into IE (and MS employees can already use these features)
IE is the most widely used brower and pop-up advertising has become part of the Internet Experience. If MS decides to incorporate popup blocking in IE, then the pop-up advertising business is RUINED! They'll just be another group victimized by a huge corporation. These people have families to support and will be forced to send their children to public schools. Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?
And all this news about fixing vulnerabilities within Windows is going to affect the virus community as well (both authors and anti-virus). Worrying about vulnerability exploits has also become part of the computer experience.
I ask Congress something they've been asked many times before, and will likely be asked many times again: What part of shall make no law don't you understand?
It's not for Congress to determine whether a proposed law is uncostitutional. Although it should be their responsibility to not waste time/money on lost causes (blatantly unconstitutional laws), it's the function of the Supreme Court's to determine the validity of their laws. I still prefer that distinction wrt the seperation of powers.
Their job is to write laws. It bugs me, but that's how their performance is judged for re-election. If there are no new laws, then that can be easily translated to the voters as inactivity. No politician can afford that.
Back to the topic:
If this attempt gets struck down, then the issue will definitely re-appear. This may be the third try, however even if there is no chance for a future bill to be passed on the subject, the appeal of looking like your fighting the good fight will keep this issue alive in Congress.
Although I have yet to see whether the email in question is part of company policy and really did originate from EMI, you seem to be the only one to touch upon something I commented on recently. While researching the subject of audio format history, I was surprised by the coincidence/correlation.
To begin with, I was criticizing the blanket statement written by the parent post. It gave the impression that it's wrong/stupid to disregard the 3000 mile "rule". I was saying that the frequency depends on your car and the car's condition since oil-changes are meant to remove particles (ie. metal) within the lubrication system. This particle buildup does not occur at a standard rate, even over the life of a vehicle.
You wrote: Do you think we have learned anything about car maintenance in 15 years? You say that it's that old as if that makes it better information, not worse?!
Do you think that cars are worse since 15 years ago? How do you explain higher overall fuel efficiency and cleaner exhaust?
I wrote: What I'm getting at is: before assuming ANY maintainance on your car, READ THE MANUAL.
You wrote: Have fun, then. Preventative maintenance is far cheaper than repairing your vehicle later when the engine needs to be replaced.
I agree, 15 years without replacement. Kinda means something, huh? If you read my comment correctly, you'd understand that the manual will give you a better idea of what parts require more attention more often. I don't need a new car every year, but I'm constantly bombarded with advertisements telling me to the contrary. Why should I listen to another advertisement telling me that I need to replace my oil every 3000 miles? They don't know my car. Why should I listen to them?
You wrote: YMMV... literally.
I actually laughed when I read this. It shows that you agree with me. "Your Mileage My Vary" suggests a direct reference to the manufacturer's claim. You're indicating that everyone should refer to the manufacturer's claim and NOT that of the overall industry. Thank you!
Like I said, READ THE MANUAL. Adjust from that point, depending on the state of your vehicle.
(I bet you don't even change your oil and oil filter every 3000 miles, do you? Then you wonder why your engine breaks down.)
This is yet another MYTH perpetuated by various automotive companies. There was a time when 3000 was appropriate, back in the 70's.
I drive an 1988 Civic (still gets 40 mpg) and I change the oil & filter when necessary, only because it's that old. However, the manual recommends to change the oil every 7,500 miles - two and a half times your number! And this is a recommendation from 15 years ago.
Of course, if you drive a recently bought truck (SUV) then, from what I've seen, the number actually is around 3000 miles. But not everyone is driving these beasts.
What I'm getting at is: before assuming ANY maintainance on your car, READ THE MANUAL.
Another problem area is that some parts warantees become invalidated if you use any additives (detergents, etc) in your car. Most only realize this when the company rejects their warantee claim. Oops - too late.
I'm seeing a pattern (or patterns)...
on
Space Junk Tracked
·
· Score: 1
"Did you know that there's a direct correlation between the decline of Spirograph and the rise in gang activity?
Think about it."
That is honestly the first thing that popped in my head when viewing the animation.
Philips understands the licensing power of patents
on
More on DVD-Audio and SACD
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
From what I understand, US patents expire in 17 years.
CD-audio format introduced in 1982. Philips and Sony are the major companies involved.
1982+17=1999
DVD format introduced in 1995 (Philips/Sony, Toshiba & Warner), with US launch in 1997 and DVD-audio(1.0) by 1999.
Of course, having something new, doesn't make it commercially successful. But add the hype I remember in Nov/Dec 1998, and you have a popular new format.
It seems that if patents expired in 40 years instead of 17, we'd only now be introduced to CD-audio format.
I think Gen-X is a real thing. Your probably pissed that it's become cliche, but there are merits to the sterotype. Of course, by calling it a sterotype, I'm admitting that there are are many exceptions to it.
The term is relative to age, so timing is the main issue. I always felt that Gen-X encompassed those born from around '67-'77 in the US.
If each decade has a fight to be fought, what happens when there is no fight. Look at the previous ones: 40's(WWII), 50's(Korea), late 60's-73(Vietnam/Establishment). Each provides tales of conflict and their contribution to the conflict.
The only bad guys left were the ones that couldn't be fought (China,USSR) and fighting the establishment would be considered an extension of someone else's fight, so disengaging was the only thing that was left. If there is no one to fight, who do you fight? Underacheiving is the art of fighting your potential (or being a bum, as you so eloquently stated).
Since throwing money at a problem seemed to work in the past, parents would throw money at these kids. From this point of view, it makes sense that there exists a sense of privilege, which offends others.
With them all grown up, wondering what to do with themselves, this whole.com thing appears (timed when they are in their 20's so when they're born is essential) promising easy wealth and opportunity. The Gen-X attitude is to complain (but do nothing about it) so when the promises are broken (.com bust), you get an article like this - VERY cynical with little to offer.
So I disagree - for this article timing IS everything.
Enforce it, and enforce it hard!
That way, there's some chance it'll be repealed. How are we to go about fixing this thing if we don't make it painfully obvious that it's a bad law?
My first thought on this matter was that UCSD is not in favor of Patriot. It's a public school (they tend to be more "liberal"), they seem to have a reputation for research (not an environment where they enjoy inhibiting any access to any knowledge), and they even allow "radical" groups to enjoy exposure on their network (they only had to remove links, but they already had a site and subdomain!).
My opinion is that the administration probably does not like the group, but they dislike the act even more. By imposing restriction on a vocal group using the act in question, they do two things: 1. they make news and expose a free-speech issue in the act and 2. they provide an opportunity for the group (or representative) to raise the issue in court and start the act's invalidation.
According to pages 2-3 of the article, the prof is actively "teaching two courses on the psychology of learning". Then I read that the class is limited to multiple choice participation. I mean, that's nice and simple but most of the best courses I took (learned/retained a LOT) involved open discussion.
Seems like that's a tough subject to teach, but to rely on multiple choice slides is to feed the answers and therefore limit the grasp and boundaries of learning. In this case, it seems that the students are learning to expect an answer, in some form.
I would think that the best method to teach a course like this would be to vary the teaching techniques throughout the semester. Learning about learning would have the added benefit from teaching by example. Of course, this is inherently a real pain to administer.
Stevens Institute of Technology has had wireless for three years; all the students have laptops, this year's freshman model has built in wireless (the upperclassmen use pcmcia cards).
Stevens also wired all its dorms back in 1987, and has had a pc requirement since 1983.
I know. The problem with Stevens is that when they have something good for PR, they don't know how to flaunt it in the right places.
Dartmouth probably invited wired.com to show off their involvement with wireless, while everyone else in the campus networking business didn't think it to be news and didn't bother.
Wrt Stevens, I was impressed with their initial planning and efforts into TreeNet on campus but didn't have the opportunity to take advantage of it (graduated prior to implementation). Also, when I first enrolled, none of my high school classmates had ever heard of the school although many professionals I spoke to did. It helps to advertise to the general public/business to build better recognition.
With your description it seems that the problem still exists, although not as unbounded as I had originally suspected (assumptions detailed in "Notes:" found below).
The problem I still see is the following:
you visit site 'X' which has an onload() refering to site 'Y', a customer of WSS. With a non-Moz browser, WSS logs a unique visitor to Site Y and increments the number of visitors using that browser. All requests for that file (the pop-up ad in question) are also logged within the overall traffic to the site. I know that this is done by site stat-gatherers, since I am aware that you can get stats on the depth of visits ('1' means that visitor requested only one file or never used intra-site links).
So, site Y gets many unique visitors via the pop-up technique, none of which will be Mozilla users. Whether they request any other files is irrelevant, (following your description) they have already been logged as a unique visitor.
With many such customers, WSS interprets that overall Net users rely on those browers without pop-up blocking. As a Mozilla user, I only visit sites that I explicitly tell my browser that want to visit (by clicking on a link or entering it in the addressbar) therefore I don't get logged by sites that generate traffic from pop-ups while an IE user will.
That is essentially one vote per site (that attracts traffic with pop-ups) less per Mozilla user, or as I had stated in the original post: all other browsers probably have overinflated stats.
Notes:
I'm not a fan of pop-ups and my knowledge of how they are used in practice is limited, especially since I started using Mozilla. Basically, the following assumptions might be unpopular/wrong and therefore rarely/never encountered and thus may not significantly affect statistics.
I'm assuming that the onload() argument on site X directs the new browser window to the ad located on site Y. It may be the case that the ad is hosted by site X with the link to Y in the ad. If so, then the above comments are operating with that false assumption.
I am also assuming that when WSS came up with the overall Net stats, they were summing total traffic from all customers. I think this one is reasonable.
Lastly, I am assuming that all or most Mozilla users have enabled the pop-up blocking feature.
Slashdot Mirror
But everyone knows that you shouldn't expect a good product until it hits version 3.1, so what's all this fuss about a version 1.4? :>
An analyst's job is to read into statistics. With that, I'd like to mention the following:
Also, analysts get paid to comment on things - mostly things people WANT to hear. Therefore I'm not surprised by the statement.
The only reason I pay attention to analysts is because I know that many other people do. Since most markets are trust-driven (ie. many trust the Yen less than the Dollar, so the Dollar goes up), popular opinion is VERY important. Then again, wrt finance, I seem to also say, "Thus far, laziness has always won out. There are so many better things to do."
Imagine the vast possibilities wrt espionage.
Coat the surface of furniture/walls/floor with a computer!
Or better yet: Build an entire window that doubles as a data-recorder. Then you could arrange to retreive the info from the outdoors - eliminating the need to recover from within the building, or snaking a wire through the structure.
According to the article, it blocks UV just like glass - eliminating that method of detection. Given the proposed applications (within windsheilds) it seems that it'll work in direct sunlight, so a window pane isn't far-fetched.
Of course, there's very little info on the properties of the material (hardness, ESD sensitive, etc), which would help narrow the range of applications. Well, you can either be in awe or very afraid. Since this in the Science section, I'll be in awe. Once the topic gets into YRO, then be afraid.
IANAThermodynamics prof, but all energy conversion processes require a heat dump. More heat windes up in the dump when: 1. the incoming energy is larger and; 2. the process is less efficient. Even a perfect process generates heat.
When attending a high school field trip to a nuclear power plant, I recall the plant rep saying that the river water (their heat dump) is 2-3 degrees higher in the surrounding area. However, I didn't know how much to trust any of the info provided because she also said that cigarettes are cancerous due to extremely minute amounts of plutonium found within.
Either way, a heat dump is required. This WILL affect the neighboring environment, but (by extension) so will any other power generator. I guess the real question of generator pollution excludes the issue of heat. In that case, fusion does look more attractive.
One last note:
And, of course, most of the world doesn't have a tide to draw on...
But, most of the world is covered by water. Of course, practically speaking, I'm just being stupid here...
A quick technique is to use "File:Work Offline" immediately after ALL email downloads. It seems to do the trick with images and blocking pop-ups from embedded scripts.
There is one problem with this though. When using a phone modem, IE is normally set up to "Dial whenever a network connection is not present". So EVERY occurance of the tag "[IMG...]" within a HTML-email would result in a dialup prompt. That has the work-around of setting the option to "Never dial a connection".
Well, there is one more problem: you also have to remember to do it every time.
I'm sure almost everyone has been the victim of unfair moderation (I know I have)
:>
Take the good with the bad. I mean, as "Anonymous Coward" you've been modded up quite a bit so far in this thread.
That'll stop those Korean spammers good.
/. on a friday night?
Maybe it'll help though since, on some accounts I work with, I've noticed that ALL the spam going to them are definitely American in origin.
Consider this: they normally get an average of 40+ spam per day and there were ZERO the friday after Thanksgiving! It seems that even spammers take THAT day off for holiday.
Jeez, what the hell am I doing on
In effect, your employer does lend you money. Many employers issue a credit card to employees. That is a blank check to screw the company.
Time for a couple of analogies:
If I sign a blank check and anyone abuses it, then most people would agree that I'm an idiot.
If I don't want my dad to use my credit card, then I don't give him access to it. He's family, but why allow it when it's not necessary (think network security).
As an employee, you are an agent of the company, and you can call up another company and order some things.
Lax restrictions to company assets is the company's fault. As an alternative, many companies will use a reimbursement procedure, which means that you'd better be certain that the company will pay you back for your expense.
If someone was going to have that authority with your credit card or checking account, wouldn't you want to know about their credit history?
Fine, restrict the credit check to those individuals that will be expected to purchase directly for the company. For the question at hand, everyone has their credit checked.
[cliche]If everyone were to jump off a bridge... [/cliche]
This may be modded redundant, but...
CNN has an article from Jan28th.
The text starts with:
CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (AP) -- Space shuttle Columbia's astronauts joined Mission Control in a moment of silence Tuesday at the exact time 17 years ago that Challenger exploded in the sky.
NASA's work force, in orbit and on Earth, remembered not only the seven astronauts who died on January 28, 1986, but also the three who were killed by a fire in their Apollo spacecraft at the pad on January 27, 1967. At the launch site Tuesday, flags flew at half staff for the second day in a row.
all my life i've associated the 212 area code with new york.
Livery services (cab/limo/etc.) located in Queens and Brooklyn want to look like they're based in Manhattan and so purchase a (212) number, which forwards the call to their proper number. AFAIK, the assumption that the service is from Manhattan helps considerably with business. So, (212) is not just for phones in NY.
However - to get back on topic - I'd say that adding digits and area codes is less confusing than using prefix letters. "Yes operator. Please connect me to PEnnsylvania 6-5000." Some history on phone dialing here.
For those not in-the-know, the parent means New York as in the "County of" (Manhattan Island), not the "City of" or "State of".
New ideas are born out of necessity.
...fast-forward a few decades... Now every office cannot be without one (or a variant).
I'll give you an example of just the opposite (necessity born out of new ideas): xerography. Who needs an expensive machine to make copies when you have carbon-copy paper? Maybe 10 of the largest office buildings would own one.
Btw, I do agree that the invention would probably never have been pursued if someone didn't feel a need for it. If not a patent lawyer, then maybe someone with a need to constantly photograph their butt.
From the recommendation page:
...
Who could exploit the vulnerability?
* Web client. A user could exploit the vulnerability against a web client if he or she were able to construct a web page that would send an appropriate HTTP command, and then convince a user to open it. Typically, this would be done by either hosting the page on a web site that the attacker controlled or sending it directly to users as an HTML mail.
Also:
A warning message is generated anytime there's an error associated with a digital signature (e.g., a bad signature or expired certificate) or the signer isn't trusted. But in this case, the digital signature on the old version of the control is still valid, and the signer is Microsoft - which is a trusted publisher in many cases. Because of this, most users would not see a warning message of any kind if the old control was re-introduced.
HTTP commands are the method for exploiting this vulnerability. By default, IE trusts MS. I must use HTTP commands to visit the MS site and thereby learn not to trust MS (as advised). But in doing so, I accepted anything that may be malicious, before I knew exactly how not to.
From this point of view, it seems to be more of a Catch-22. But then, in that scenario, MS would host the malicious server, which would be horrible PR and therefore improbable.
One last thing, AFAIK it's the "Paradox of the Lie" and not the "Liar's Paradox", since the classic example is a statement (Like: "This statement is false" or my sig: "This is not my sig."), and does not refer to a person or liar. I lost points on a philosophy paper for just that reason. Pissed me off enough that I still remember it today.
However, I've heard that popup blockers and tabbed browsing are making their way into IE (and MS employees can already use these features)
IE is the most widely used brower and pop-up advertising has become part of the Internet Experience. If MS decides to incorporate popup blocking in IE, then the pop-up advertising business is RUINED! They'll just be another group victimized by a huge corporation. These people have families to support and will be forced to send their children to public schools. Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?
And all this news about fixing vulnerabilities within Windows is going to affect the virus community as well (both authors and anti-virus). Worrying about vulnerability exploits has also become part of the computer experience.
Won't someone PLEASE think of the virus writers?
I ask Congress something they've been asked many times before, and will likely be asked many times again: What part of shall make no law don't you understand?
It's not for Congress to determine whether a proposed law is uncostitutional. Although it should be their responsibility to not waste time/money on lost causes (blatantly unconstitutional laws), it's the function of the Supreme Court's to determine the validity of their laws. I still prefer that distinction wrt the seperation of powers.
Their job is to write laws. It bugs me, but that's how their performance is judged for re-election. If there are no new laws, then that can be easily translated to the voters as inactivity. No politician can afford that.
Back to the topic:
If this attempt gets struck down, then the issue will definitely re-appear. This may be the third try, however even if there is no chance for a future bill to be passed on the subject, the appeal of looking like your fighting the good fight will keep this issue alive in Congress.
Although I have yet to see whether the email in question is part of company policy and really did originate from EMI, you seem to be the only one to touch upon something I commented on recently. While researching the subject of audio format history, I was surprised by the coincidence/correlation.
I love how he plays on their rules:
You obviously misread most of what I wrote.
To begin with, I was criticizing the blanket statement written by the parent post. It gave the impression that it's wrong/stupid to disregard the 3000 mile "rule". I was saying that the frequency depends on your car and the car's condition since oil-changes are meant to remove particles (ie. metal) within the lubrication system. This particle buildup does not occur at a standard rate, even over the life of a vehicle.
You wrote: Do you think we have learned anything about car maintenance in 15 years? You say that it's that old as if that makes it better information, not worse?!
Do you think that cars are worse since 15 years ago? How do you explain higher overall fuel efficiency and cleaner exhaust?
I wrote: What I'm getting at is: before assuming ANY maintainance on your car, READ THE MANUAL.
You wrote: Have fun, then. Preventative maintenance is far cheaper than repairing your vehicle later when the engine needs to be replaced.
I agree, 15 years without replacement. Kinda means something, huh? If you read my comment correctly, you'd understand that the manual will give you a better idea of what parts require more attention more often. I don't need a new car every year, but I'm constantly bombarded with advertisements telling me to the contrary. Why should I listen to another advertisement telling me that I need to replace my oil every 3000 miles? They don't know my car. Why should I listen to them?
You wrote: YMMV... literally.
I actually laughed when I read this. It shows that you agree with me. "Your Mileage My Vary" suggests a direct reference to the manufacturer's claim. You're indicating that everyone should refer to the manufacturer's claim and NOT that of the overall industry. Thank you!
Like I said, READ THE MANUAL. Adjust from that point, depending on the state of your vehicle.
(I bet you don't even change your oil and oil filter every 3000 miles, do you? Then you wonder why your engine breaks down.)
This is yet another MYTH perpetuated by various automotive companies. There was a time when 3000 was appropriate, back in the 70's.
I drive an 1988 Civic (still gets 40 mpg) and I change the oil & filter when necessary, only because it's that old. However, the manual recommends to change the oil every 7,500 miles - two and a half times your number! And this is a recommendation from 15 years ago.
Of course, if you drive a recently bought truck (SUV) then, from what I've seen, the number actually is around 3000 miles. But not everyone is driving these beasts.
What I'm getting at is: before assuming ANY maintainance on your car, READ THE MANUAL.
Another problem area is that some parts warantees become invalidated if you use any additives (detergents, etc) in your car. Most only realize this when the company rejects their warantee claim. Oops - too late.
"Did you know that there's a direct correlation between the decline of Spirograph and the rise in gang activity?
Think about it."
That is honestly the first thing that popped in my head when viewing the animation.
Let's see:
- Philips introduces the audio cassette in 1963.
- 1963+17=1980.
- CD-audio format introduced in 1982. Philips and Sony are the major companies involved.
- 1982+17=1999
- DVD format introduced in 1995 (Philips/Sony, Toshiba & Warner), with US launch in 1997 and DVD-audio(1.0) by 1999.
Of course, having something new, doesn't make it commercially successful. But add the hype I remember in Nov/Dec 1998, and you have a popular new format.It seems that if patents expired in 40 years instead of 17, we'd only now be introduced to CD-audio format.
I think Gen-X is a real thing. Your probably pissed that it's become cliche, but there are merits to the sterotype. Of course, by calling it a sterotype, I'm admitting that there are are many exceptions to it.
.com thing appears (timed when they are in their 20's so when they're born is essential) promising easy wealth and opportunity. The Gen-X attitude is to complain (but do nothing about it) so when the promises are broken (.com bust), you get an article like this - VERY cynical with little to offer.
The term is relative to age, so timing is the main issue. I always felt that Gen-X encompassed those born from around '67-'77 in the US.
If each decade has a fight to be fought, what happens when there is no fight. Look at the previous ones: 40's(WWII), 50's(Korea), late 60's-73(Vietnam/Establishment). Each provides tales of conflict and their contribution to the conflict.
The only bad guys left were the ones that couldn't be fought (China,USSR) and fighting the establishment would be considered an extension of someone else's fight, so disengaging was the only thing that was left. If there is no one to fight, who do you fight? Underacheiving is the art of fighting your potential (or being a bum, as you so eloquently stated).
Since throwing money at a problem seemed to work in the past, parents would throw money at these kids. From this point of view, it makes sense that there exists a sense of privilege, which offends others.
With them all grown up, wondering what to do with themselves, this whole
So I disagree - for this article timing IS everything.
Enforce it, and enforce it hard!
That way, there's some chance it'll be repealed. How are we to go about fixing this thing if we don't make it painfully obvious that it's a bad law?
My first thought on this matter was that UCSD is not in favor of Patriot. It's a public school (they tend to be more "liberal"), they seem to have a reputation for research (not an environment where they enjoy inhibiting any access to any knowledge), and they even allow "radical" groups to enjoy exposure on their network (they only had to remove links, but they already had a site and subdomain!).
My opinion is that the administration probably does not like the group, but they dislike the act even more. By imposing restriction on a vocal group using the act in question, they do two things: 1. they make news and expose a free-speech issue in the act and 2. they provide an opportunity for the group (or representative) to raise the issue in court and start the act's invalidation.
And of course, the obligatory "IANAL".
According to pages 2-3 of the article, the prof is actively "teaching two courses on the psychology of learning". Then I read that the class is limited to multiple choice participation. I mean, that's nice and simple but most of the best courses I took (learned/retained a LOT) involved open discussion.
Seems like that's a tough subject to teach, but to rely on multiple choice slides is to feed the answers and therefore limit the grasp and boundaries of learning. In this case, it seems that the students are learning to expect an answer, in some form.
I would think that the best method to teach a course like this would be to vary the teaching techniques throughout the semester. Learning about learning would have the added benefit from teaching by example. Of course, this is inherently a real pain to administer.
Stevens Institute of Technology has had wireless for three years; all the students have laptops, this year's freshman model has built in wireless (the upperclassmen use pcmcia cards).
Stevens also wired all its dorms back in 1987, and has had a pc requirement since 1983.
I know. The problem with Stevens is that when they have something good for PR, they don't know how to flaunt it in the right places.
Dartmouth probably invited wired.com to show off their involvement with wireless, while everyone else in the campus networking business didn't think it to be news and didn't bother.
Wrt Stevens, I was impressed with their initial planning and efforts into TreeNet on campus but didn't have the opportunity to take advantage of it (graduated prior to implementation). Also, when I first enrolled, none of my high school classmates had ever heard of the school although many professionals I spoke to did. It helps to advertise to the general public/business to build better recognition.
With your description it seems that the problem still exists, although not as unbounded as I had originally suspected (assumptions detailed in "Notes:" found below).
The problem I still see is the following:
you visit site 'X' which has an onload() refering to site 'Y', a customer of WSS. With a non-Moz browser, WSS logs a unique visitor to Site Y and increments the number of visitors using that browser. All requests for that file (the pop-up ad in question) are also logged within the overall traffic to the site. I know that this is done by site stat-gatherers, since I am aware that you can get stats on the depth of visits ('1' means that visitor requested only one file or never used intra-site links).
So, site Y gets many unique visitors via the pop-up technique, none of which will be Mozilla users. Whether they request any other files is irrelevant, (following your description) they have already been logged as a unique visitor.
With many such customers, WSS interprets that overall Net users rely on those browers without pop-up blocking. As a Mozilla user, I only visit sites that I explicitly tell my browser that want to visit (by clicking on a link or entering it in the addressbar) therefore I don't get logged by sites that generate traffic from pop-ups while an IE user will.
That is essentially one vote per site (that attracts traffic with pop-ups) less per Mozilla user, or as I had stated in the original post: all other browsers probably have overinflated stats.
Notes:
I'm not a fan of pop-ups and my knowledge of how they are used in practice is limited, especially since I started using Mozilla. Basically, the following assumptions might be unpopular/wrong and therefore rarely/never encountered and thus may not significantly affect statistics.
I'm assuming that the onload() argument on site X directs the new browser window to the ad located on site Y. It may be the case that the ad is hosted by site X with the link to Y in the ad. If so, then the above comments are operating with that false assumption.
I am also assuming that when WSS came up with the overall Net stats, they were summing total traffic from all customers. I think this one is reasonable.
Lastly, I am assuming that all or most Mozilla users have enabled the pop-up blocking feature.