For yet more variations of this story, see previous comments
Hey, as they say: "variety is the spice of life". That concise list of links to all variations of the same joke is handy. I had such a hard time finding it with the search engines because I could only remember the gist of it at first. Ah well, even if it's redundant, it still appears good for karma points. Looks like a good joke is a good joke no matter how many times it's heard.
Seems quite popular in this Ask Slashdot.
It's true. I think that so many of almost the exact same response implies a real underlying point made by many readers. There is always a bit of truth in any humor.
Not to mention the fact that so many variations of that particular joke do exist and it is so well known... ali_bubba and Cliff really hit a nerve with this article. Good stuff. It's great to see the conversation flowing.
There was an engineer who had an exceptional gift for fixing all things mechanical. After serving his company loyally for over 30 years, he happily retired. Several years later the company contacted him regarding a seemingly impossible problem they were having with one of their multi-million dollar machines.
They had tried everything and everyone else to get the machine fixed, but to no avail. In desperation, they called on the retired engineer who had solved so many of their problems in the past.
The engineer reluctantly took the challenge. He spent a day studying the huge machine. At the end of the day, he marked a small "x" in chalk on a particular component of the machine and proudly stated, "This is where your problem is".
The part was replaced and the machine worked perfectly again. The company received a bill for $50,000 from the engineer for his service.
They demanded an itemised accounting of his charges. The engineer responded briefly
One chalk mark $1
Knowing where to put it $49,999
It was paid in full and the engineer retired again in peace.
Maybe 'NSynch singer Lance Bass should have placed the last domino, since his space trip might not work out. This might have given him the needed publicity (for what?).
Indeed, how the mightly have fallen.
Web sites bearing an address like "www.example.kids.us" would have to certify that they do not contain [snip...]
NeuStar would be expected to police the subdomain to ensure it remains free of inappropriate content.
Policing a kids domain is definitely necessary. It doesn't fall to the side of censorship but rather common sense.
However this may create an opening for the government to define what is appropriate for children beyond the known vices. For example, what about people's religious beliefs. Could the government decide on one over the other, ban all as hate speech for the sake of not having to deal with it, etc.?
If the kids.us domain is too restrictive, parents are going to let their kids look elsewhere for information, which may doom the kids.us domain. Of course kids.us is not supposed to be a success story (so "doomed" may be incorrect); instead it's supposed to protect children. For the kids it does protect I know we are all thankful.
Might the system not work better if there existed different levels of these subdomains like "kids.highprotection.us", "kids.mediumprotection.us", and "kids.lowprotection.us" (no comments about the names please -- they are just examples), then the medium level might include religious beliefs, and the low level might include regular news sites, etc. This way parents could decide on a level that that deemed most appropriate for their kid/s (maybe based on age, etc). This would also provide a good way to wean the kid onto the "real" Interent as they get older. Sooner or later the kid is going to be at a friend's house (whose parents have less restrictions) and will experience the real Interent anyways. Just like when I was a kid I first got to play video games (Atari) at a friend's house because my family didn't own a game system (my parents probably thought it was a bad idea at my young age because I shouldn't have spent a lot of time in front of the TV).
"Another major Windows server release in the Longhorn time frame does not meet the needs of most of our customers," the representative said. The delay "is a response to what our customers are asking for."
However for customers that are purchasing Software Assurance (SA) from Microsoft, this delay between server versions will pose monetary drawbacks because the delay will heighten the total cost of ownership of the server software. The longer you have to wait between releases, the less software you are getting for your constant payment into SA.
It's understandable that customers are overwhelmed by the short timeframes between server releases, and this concern is what Microsoft is refrencing in the aforementioned quote. Money should not be a factor because most customers are already paying for future software releases, no matter when they are released.
One final thought: Do you think Linux has taken enough server market share that it might have actually contributed towards slowing down Microsoft's server timeline? If so then the virtues of competition are evident.
Hey, I just checked the entangled version of the Microsoft.com site, and all the entry and exist links seem to go to Slashdot, Free Software Foundation, or other places that Microsoft stands against. Looks like Slashdot has done its job. Pretty funny.
pop-up adv, or google?
on
Altavista Renewed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Damn, at first I thought this/. post linked to a popup advertisement but THAT IS AltaVista's new look! There appear to be some overarching similarities between the new AltaVista look and domainsforsale.com (warning: watch out for pop-ups).
As for that fancy highlight thingy to the left side of the AltaVista search results, I give it a 2 month survival period, because it's annoying and and doesn't serve a purpose.
I partly apologize for being so critical, but obviously they tried to go for Google's look (unfair). Even though imitation is a form of flatery, AltaVista should stand on its own merits which is the quality of the search results.
And as Scientific American reports this week, this interpretation has now been backed up by computer simulation studies.
You can prove anything in a computer simulation. Whether it will happen or not is a totally different story, but for sure you can get funding if you tweak your variables properly. In geek terms, look at most video games where I can take a rocket blast and still survive, even though my hitpoints are lowered. Sure games are not true simulations, but neither are true simulations perfect, or often even close. It's a focus on one specific item with all the variables included to prove only that point. Believe the simulation worked; don't believe the simulation is correct.
All of a sudden some scientist picks something up, then a few more jump on the bandwagon, and then by the time we see the article, the whole theory is written in stone, even though the article contains very little fact -- for all we (the readers) know it could be pure speculation. The article makes bold statements and doesn't quote any proof. So take it with a huge grain of salt. How do we know that "Gauthier Hulot of the Paris Geophysical Institute" isn't regarded in his field with the same amount of controversy as the Drs. Igor and Grichka Bogdanov who are physicists that supposedly "don't know how to do physics" ?
And then the article mentions Hollywood!?! Yah, that sheds a lot of creditable light on the whole theory. Now are we are either: dealing with a Hollywood film house that picked up the idea from scientists, or scientists who want to ride on the tails of pop culture?
But we all love this dramatic stuff about the world ending, so it's no wonder that everybody -- whether scientist or check-out attendant, mathemetician or word perfect user -- jumps on the bandwagon. Enjoy your drama as we have all done here at slash/dot., but seek proof and fact before believing it will actually affect your real world. There are too many "important" people out there that believe they know what they are talking about or have agendas. It's hardly possible to spend all the needed time (as a reader outside the scientific fields) to gather the facts, proof, and knowledge needed in a world overloaded with information both true and false. Just find a couple articles from scientists that refute one another. That will help to provide a more balanced perspective. For example, read this message board for some real discussion about the theory at hand, instead of discussion about a newspaper article.
For example, you can get some real facts about
Field Intensities During Polarity Transitions and Excursions
linked from Message #15 in the discussion board.
The articles and theories are very important, but they still exist to be proven wrong, especially when they are relatively new.
Seems like you can alter your car's magnetic signature by putting a couple of slabs of sheet metal in the trunk
Or how about something more natural so "they" won't recognize you're beating the system... like putting a lawn chair in your trunk, or a bicycle on your roof, or a bicycle rack on your trunk with 2 bicycles attached, or...
This is a blatant attempt to sully the good name of physics just because of the writer's inability to understand it.
The field of physics is obviously doing a good enough job of sullying itself.
You see, despite whether or not the writer understands what's happening, the article talks about scientists and mathemeticians sullying physics:
Scientists have been debating whether the Bogdanov brothers are really geniuses with a new view of the moment before the universe began or simply earnest scientists who are in over their heads and spouting nonsense
Not to mention these quotes from people in and around the field:
1. "Dr. Roman W. Jackiw, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who read and approved Igor Bogdanov's Ph.D. thesis, said he found it speculative but "intriguing.""
2. "Dr. John Baez, a physicist and quantum gravity theorist at the University of California at Riverside, who has conducted a dialogue with the Bogdanov brothers on the Web site math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov, said, "One thing that seems pretty clear to me is that the Bogdanovs don't know how to do physics.""
3. "Dr. Peter Woit, a mathematician and physicist at Columbia University, said of the brothers' work, "Scientifically, it's clearly more or less complete nonsense, but these days that doesn't much distinguish it from a lot of the rest of the literature.""
Notice that those credentials don't appear to belong to journalists. Then who is defaming the field of physics? Maybe a physics professor, a physicist, and a mathematician!;) Interesting.
The reporting does appear to make some physicists uncomfortable, and on slashdot it appears some are trying to push negative focus away from the physics community and onto the journalists -- a good scapegoat because of the "writer's inability to understand it":-O
However this reaction is not surprising because any of us would do the same to protect our own field. Don't be surprised, but do see it for what it is.
It is used to host approximately 1000 users playing online games
More like "It was used to..."
During the standard slash/dot.ing period, the cluster probably serves about two Quake players at max.
If my provider is giving me 1.5Mb/down, and 256kb up (burstable), then it shouldn't matter if I'm using it all day or not.
Imagine if they gave us a bandwidth that actually suited our monthly transfer volume. Then we would get like 5.3Kb/down, and 3kb up, to allow us to use our full monthly 5GB volume if we were always on. Hey, that's like a dial-up modem!
PenTeleData seems to be taking a very fair approach to a multitude of issues brought about by P2P file sharing.
We may want to complain that they don't have the right to disallow us P2P, but on the other hand they seem to be doing a good job of protecting their users from the legal ramifications of P2P. Obviously they are not seeking out and prosecuting users who share illegal files. A warning followed by an account shutdown is pretty easy compared to the real legalaties that could be brought against the user.
This Big Brother crap is over the top. The ISPs are protecting themselves from legal ramifications. They probably don't really care about the users that much.. the benefits brought about by PenTeleData covering their own butts just filter down to the users which is arguably good. No Big Brother entity is pushing anything here like propaganda. The two ideas don't correlate well at all, except that a few angry users are making over-the-top comments because they'll say anything to garner arguments for getting their precious P2P back.
A world without free flow of P2P access! We've had our cake and ate it too. Expect the world to change. Maybe something better will come about.
Giving bandwidth and taking it away -- that's another meaningless argument. Just as you have to pay for your bandwidth usage, so does your ISP. Do you think they get it for free to give to you? Most purchase bandwidth from other companies.
Maybe the price of gas shouldn't increase either. Maybe the gas station should pay more over time, but never pass those costs onto the drivers. It doesn't take a business mind to see the problem here.
I certainly am willing to pay more to use P2P while it's still here. However there is increasingly more focus on the law surrounding illegal P2P content. How much longer will be *want* to use P2P, even if we can? How many of us are already in future legal battles that we don't know about yet?
The idea about encrypting the content is cool. It's already being done over at the FreeNet Project, but it's so slow! However leave it up to somebody to sooner or later write a P2P app on top of the FreeNet network.
What if ISPs close all unusual ports to prevent against P2P? Well then somebody can write encoders/decoders that work over normal ports like ICQ, HTTP, etc. and format that file parts in that protocol. Wouldn't that be cool.
However what starts to freak me out is no matter how many times P2P succeeds at getting around the barriers, those barriers exist for many reasons -- many are legal reasons -- and soon that may come down on P2P users like a tonne of bricks. And I certainly don't want to be there when it happens. Nobody does. It's seeming like more of a gamble each day.
I say, forget the birds. A bird name and a dinosaur mascot don't make sense together, unless you are commenting on evolution (and that's just a theory).
Also forget the "...zilla" because too many zillas already exist. People will be confused between Mozilla, Ghostzilla, This-zilla, That-zilla, not to mention the term "Mozilla" is included in every browser identity string. However Phoenix is the browser you want to target to the common user if you are competing against IE. So give it a fresh name.
If you are going to keep the dinosaur (mozilla) pictorial reference then at least consider something more sensible like dinosaur names in order to target this browser in a meaningful way toward non-geek users. Or even change the mascot!.. if that's allowed by the License. For those who have pre-conceived negative ideas about Mozilla browsers, this might move them over to Phoenix based completely on its features rather than association.
Over the last couple of months I have switched over to Phoenix from IE! (The exclamation mark indicates that I am very surprised because I never thought it would happen). I think this represents the first time (for myself) that another browser has been comparible enough to the broad functionality and ease-of-use of IE, such that I can finally switch over without feeling I am missing something. Mozilla/Phoenix is a great piece of work. The fast startup time and lack of UI complexity in Phoenix (compared to Nescape 7 or other Mozillas) was just the icing on the cake that I needed to finally go the Mozilla-based way. Microsoft had better get tabbed browsing soon or else I might never use IE again.
Bring this great browser into the mainstream with a unique name that people will remember.
We also have the ability to save changes to that document every couple of minutes (or, perhaps, every paragraph) without any user intervention.
It's called "auto-save". The feature already exists in most word-processors.
We have the technology. So why do we still make people save each of their documents, at least once, manually? Cruft.
Well, maybe we want to allow people the choice of whether or not the the work gets saved. So to make it less crufty for the user, should we auto-save a different document every time, and fill up the user's hard drive? Then the user doesn't have cruft anymore, but does have to look through dozens of similar documents in order to revert changes.
Interesting article. I like it, but the author doesn't appear to have a good concept of what cruft really should be.
Is targetting FreeBSD with the drivers (instead of Linux) a strategic move? My first thought is that Mac OsX is based on FreeBSD so maybe nVidia wants to do something there. However I don't understand the technical details, so if anyone can enlighten me it would be much appreciated.
Thanks.
Bill Gates told a recent trade show crowd, "Within five years, I predict it will be the most popular form of PC sold in America.'
This is a good lesson about how to create a self-fullfilling prophecy. Of course you have to be famous to do it.
Now those terrorists posing as librarians don't stand a chance, unless they can pin the blame on some poor fellow with a library card. I always thought my high-school library was weird, and they often use threatening tactics to get their books back. Now I can no longer chalk it up to an over-developed sense of possessiveness.
Failing that, the more direct approach is to copy and paste the following links into your edonkey or overnet client's console (aka message) window:
dllink ed2k://|file|doom3.e3-demo.README.ShareReactor.txt |302|01c39f4c97aae55beab8f9517aed8740|
(.. for the README instruction file)
and dllink ed2k://|file|doom3.e3-demo.ShareReactor.rar|381781 972|1d67104ded376842d34827573abcdc64|
(.. for the actual EXE demo for PC).
As far as Outlook integration goes, for the time it takes me to drag and drop all my messages to disk, I might as well delete the junk mail manually using a much-less statistical approach.:)
Of course it looks like Outlook is Outnumbered here.
Most likely the voting system is undergoing a lot of scrunity now because the people in our society who have the most-heard voices do not prefer Bush. For example, a lot of the media.
However if the elections had gone another way then most likely we wouldn't hear a lot about he voting system's problems.
I'm not saying the system doesn't have problems. It's just interesting, the amount of scrutiny it might or might not be under, depending on the situation. I mean, how long has it been the same for?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, as they say: "variety is the spice of life". That concise list of links to all variations of the same joke is handy. I had such a hard time finding it with the search engines because I could only remember the gist of it at first. Ah well, even if it's redundant, it still appears good for karma points. Looks like a good joke is a good joke no matter how many times it's heard.
Seems quite popular in this Ask Slashdot. ... ali_bubba and Cliff really hit a nerve with this article. Good stuff. It's great to see the conversation flowing.
It's true. I think that so many of almost the exact same response implies a real underlying point made by many readers. There is always a bit of truth in any humor. Not to mention the fact that so many variations of that particular joke do exist and it is so well known
There was an engineer who had an exceptional gift for fixing all things mechanical. After serving his company loyally for over 30 years, he happily retired. Several years later the company contacted him regarding a seemingly impossible problem they were having with one of their multi-million dollar machines.
They had tried everything and everyone else to get the machine fixed, but to no avail. In desperation, they called on the retired engineer who had solved so many of their problems in the past.
The engineer reluctantly took the challenge. He spent a day studying the huge machine. At the end of the day, he marked a small "x" in chalk on a particular component of the machine and proudly stated, "This is where your problem is".
The part was replaced and the machine worked perfectly again. The company received a bill for $50,000 from the engineer for his service.
They demanded an itemised accounting of his charges. The engineer responded briefly
One chalk mark $1
Knowing where to put it $49,999
It was paid in full and the engineer retired again in peace.
Maybe 'NSynch singer Lance Bass should have placed the last domino, since his space trip might not work out. This might have given him the needed publicity (for what?).
Indeed, how the mightly have fallen.
NeuStar would be expected to police the subdomain to ensure it remains free of inappropriate content.
Policing a kids domain is definitely necessary. It doesn't fall to the side of censorship but rather common sense.
However this may create an opening for the government to define what is appropriate for children beyond the known vices. For example, what about people's religious beliefs. Could the government decide on one over the other, ban all as hate speech for the sake of not having to deal with it, etc.?
If the kids.us domain is too restrictive, parents are going to let their kids look elsewhere for information, which may doom the kids.us domain. Of course kids.us is not supposed to be a success story (so "doomed" may be incorrect); instead it's supposed to protect children. For the kids it does protect I know we are all thankful.
Might the system not work better if there existed different levels of these subdomains like "kids.highprotection.us", "kids.mediumprotection.us", and "kids.lowprotection.us" (no comments about the names please -- they are just examples), then the medium level might include religious beliefs, and the low level might include regular news sites, etc. This way parents could decide on a level that that deemed most appropriate for their kid/s (maybe based on age, etc). This would also provide a good way to wean the kid onto the "real" Interent as they get older. Sooner or later the kid is going to be at a friend's house (whose parents have less restrictions) and will experience the real Interent anyways. Just like when I was a kid I first got to play video games (Atari) at a friend's house because my family didn't own a game system (my parents probably thought it was a bad idea at my young age because I shouldn't have spent a lot of time in front of the TV).
However for customers that are purchasing Software Assurance (SA) from Microsoft, this delay between server versions will pose monetary drawbacks because the delay will heighten the total cost of ownership of the server software. The longer you have to wait between releases, the less software you are getting for your constant payment into SA.
It's understandable that customers are overwhelmed by the short timeframes between server releases, and this concern is what Microsoft is refrencing in the aforementioned quote. Money should not be a factor because most customers are already paying for future software releases, no matter when they are released.
One final thought: Do you think Linux has taken enough server market share that it might have actually contributed towards slowing down Microsoft's server timeline? If so then the virtues of competition are evident.
So the next viable solution from Marvel's perspective would be to knock Stan off.
Hey, I just checked the entangled version of the Microsoft.com site, and all the entry and exist links seem to go to Slashdot, Free Software Foundation, or other places that Microsoft stands against. Looks like Slashdot has done its job. Pretty funny.
I partly apologize for being so critical, but obviously they tried to go for Google's look (unfair). Even though imitation is a form of flatery, AltaVista should stand on its own merits which is the quality of the search results.
You can prove anything in a computer simulation. Whether it will happen or not is a totally different story, but for sure you can get funding if you tweak your variables properly. In geek terms, look at most video games where I can take a rocket blast and still survive, even though my hitpoints are lowered. Sure games are not true simulations, but neither are true simulations perfect, or often even close. It's a focus on one specific item with all the variables included to prove only that point. Believe the simulation worked; don't believe the simulation is correct.
All of a sudden some scientist picks something up, then a few more jump on the bandwagon, and then by the time we see the article, the whole theory is written in stone, even though the article contains very little fact -- for all we (the readers) know it could be pure speculation. The article makes bold statements and doesn't quote any proof. So take it with a huge grain of salt. How do we know that "Gauthier Hulot of the Paris Geophysical Institute" isn't regarded in his field with the same amount of controversy as the Drs. Igor and Grichka Bogdanov who are physicists that supposedly "don't know how to do physics" ?
And then the article mentions Hollywood!?! Yah, that sheds a lot of creditable light on the whole theory. Now are we are either: dealing with a Hollywood film house that picked up the idea from scientists, or scientists who want to ride on the tails of pop culture?
But we all love this dramatic stuff about the world ending, so it's no wonder that everybody -- whether scientist or check-out attendant, mathemetician or word perfect user -- jumps on the bandwagon. Enjoy your drama as we have all done here at slash/dot., but seek proof and fact before believing it will actually affect your real world. There are too many "important" people out there that believe they know what they are talking about or have agendas. It's hardly possible to spend all the needed time (as a reader outside the scientific fields) to gather the facts, proof, and knowledge needed in a world overloaded with information both true and false. Just find a couple articles from scientists that refute one another. That will help to provide a more balanced perspective. For example, read this message board for some real discussion about the theory at hand, instead of discussion about a newspaper article.
For example, you can get some real facts about Field Intensities During Polarity Transitions and Excursions linked from Message #15 in the discussion board.
The articles and theories are very important, but they still exist to be proven wrong, especially when they are relatively new.
Or how about something more natural so "they" won't recognize you're beating the system ... like putting a lawn chair in your trunk, or a bicycle on your roof, or a bicycle rack on your trunk with 2 bicycles attached, or ...
The field of physics is obviously doing a good enough job of sullying itself. You see, despite whether or not the writer understands what's happening, the article talks about scientists and mathemeticians sullying physics:
Scientists have been debating whether the Bogdanov brothers are really geniuses with a new view of the moment before the universe began or simply earnest scientists who are in over their heads and spouting nonsense
Not to mention these quotes from people in and around the field:
1. "Dr. Roman W. Jackiw, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who read and approved Igor Bogdanov's Ph.D. thesis, said he found it speculative but "intriguing.""
2. "Dr. John Baez, a physicist and quantum gravity theorist at the University of California at Riverside, who has conducted a dialogue with the Bogdanov brothers on the Web site math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov, said, "One thing that seems pretty clear to me is that the Bogdanovs don't know how to do physics.""
3. "Dr. Peter Woit, a mathematician and physicist at Columbia University, said of the brothers' work, "Scientifically, it's clearly more or less complete nonsense, but these days that doesn't much distinguish it from a lot of the rest of the literature.""
Notice that those credentials don't appear to belong to journalists. Then who is defaming the field of physics? Maybe a physics professor, a physicist, and a mathematician! ;) Interesting.
The reporting does appear to make some physicists uncomfortable, and on slashdot it appears some are trying to push negative focus away from the physics community and onto the journalists -- a good scapegoat because of the "writer's inability to understand it" :-O
However this reaction is not surprising because any of us would do the same to protect our own field. Don't be surprised, but do see it for what it is.
It is used to host approximately 1000 users playing online games
More like "It was used to..."
During the standard slash/dot.ing period, the cluster probably serves about two Quake players at max.
Imagine if they gave us a bandwidth that actually suited our monthly transfer volume. Then we would get like 5.3Kb/down, and 3kb up, to allow us to use our full monthly 5GB volume if we were always on. Hey, that's like a dial-up modem!
No.
Didn't you see that last court case?
This Big Brother crap is over the top. The ISPs are protecting themselves from legal ramifications. They probably don't really care about the users that much .. the benefits brought about by PenTeleData covering their own butts just filter down to the users which is arguably good. No Big Brother entity is pushing anything here like propaganda. The two ideas don't correlate well at all, except that a few angry users are making over-the-top comments because they'll say anything to garner arguments for getting their precious P2P back.
A world without free flow of P2P access! We've had our cake and ate it too. Expect the world to change. Maybe something better will come about.
Giving bandwidth and taking it away -- that's another meaningless argument. Just as you have to pay for your bandwidth usage, so does your ISP. Do you think they get it for free to give to you? Most purchase bandwidth from other companies.
Maybe the price of gas shouldn't increase either. Maybe the gas station should pay more over time, but never pass those costs onto the drivers. It doesn't take a business mind to see the problem here.
I certainly am willing to pay more to use P2P while it's still here. However there is increasingly more focus on the law surrounding illegal P2P content. How much longer will be *want* to use P2P, even if we can? How many of us are already in future legal battles that we don't know about yet?
The idea about encrypting the content is cool. It's already being done over at the FreeNet Project, but it's so slow! However leave it up to somebody to sooner or later write a P2P app on top of the FreeNet network.
What if ISPs close all unusual ports to prevent against P2P? Well then somebody can write encoders/decoders that work over normal ports like ICQ, HTTP, etc. and format that file parts in that protocol. Wouldn't that be cool.
However what starts to freak me out is no matter how many times P2P succeeds at getting around the barriers, those barriers exist for many reasons -- many are legal reasons -- and soon that may come down on P2P users like a tonne of bricks. And I certainly don't want to be there when it happens. Nobody does. It's seeming like more of a gamble each day.
Also forget the "...zilla" because too many zillas already exist. People will be confused between Mozilla, Ghostzilla, This-zilla, That-zilla, not to mention the term "Mozilla" is included in every browser identity string. However Phoenix is the browser you want to target to the common user if you are competing against IE. So give it a fresh name.
If you are going to keep the dinosaur (mozilla) pictorial reference then at least consider something more sensible like dinosaur names in order to target this browser in a meaningful way toward non-geek users. Or even change the mascot! .. if that's allowed by the License. For those who have pre-conceived negative ideas about Mozilla browsers, this might move them over to Phoenix based completely on its features rather than association.
Over the last couple of months I have switched over to Phoenix from IE! (The exclamation mark indicates that I am very surprised because I never thought it would happen). I think this represents the first time (for myself) that another browser has been comparible enough to the broad functionality and ease-of-use of IE, such that I can finally switch over without feeling I am missing something. Mozilla/Phoenix is a great piece of work. The fast startup time and lack of UI complexity in Phoenix (compared to Nescape 7 or other Mozillas) was just the icing on the cake that I needed to finally go the Mozilla-based way. Microsoft had better get tabbed browsing soon or else I might never use IE again.
Bring this great browser into the mainstream with a unique name that people will remember.
It's called "auto-save". The feature already exists in most word-processors.
We have the technology. So why do we still make people save each of their documents, at least once, manually? Cruft.
Well, maybe we want to allow people the choice of whether or not the the work gets saved. So to make it less crufty for the user, should we auto-save a different document every time, and fill up the user's hard drive? Then the user doesn't have cruft anymore, but does have to look through dozens of similar documents in order to revert changes.
Interesting article. I like it, but the author doesn't appear to have a good concept of what cruft really should be.
You can travel across the water of most metropolitan areas as long as you don't touch it (just for safety). Does this thing come with splash guards?
Is targetting FreeBSD with the drivers (instead of Linux) a strategic move? My first thought is that Mac OsX is based on FreeBSD so maybe nVidia wants to do something there. However I don't understand the technical details, so if anyone can enlighten me it would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Bill Gates told a recent trade show crowd, "Within five years, I predict it will be the most popular form of PC sold in America.'
This is a good lesson about how to create a self-fullfilling prophecy. Of course you have to be famous to do it.
Now those terrorists posing as librarians don't stand a chance, unless they can pin the blame on some poor fellow with a library card. I always thought my high-school library was weird, and they often use threatening tactics to get their books back. Now I can no longer chalk it up to an over-developed sense of possessiveness.
Failing that, the more direct approach is to copy and paste the following links into your edonkey or overnet client's console (aka message) window:t |302|01c39f4c97aae55beab8f9517aed8740| 1 972|1d67104ded376842d34827573abcdc64|
dllink ed2k://|file|doom3.e3-demo.README.ShareReactor.tx
(.. for the README instruction file)
and
dllink ed2k://|file|doom3.e3-demo.ShareReactor.rar|38178
(.. for the actual EXE demo for PC).
The demo file is in RAR format. You will need the WinRAR utility installed to decompress it. The download is a trial version that is time-limited, but it will work for you.
Of course it looks like Outlook is Outnumbered here.
However if the elections had gone another way then most likely we wouldn't hear a lot about he voting system's problems.
I'm not saying the system doesn't have problems. It's just interesting, the amount of scrutiny it might or might not be under, depending on the situation. I mean, how long has it been the same for?
The e-cache problem you referenced interests me, so I went looking for some links. Does this news article and this slashdot item with associated article reference that situation?