How about IBM put this (in a permanent manor) on their PC's and offer a discount for purchasers? Or on the machines they give away for free to charities/schools?
Seems like a transparent way to get their goals accomplished.
And as far as inaccurate information goes, I have a two word response for that: political blogs. Many people are perfectly happy to get their Important Information a blog by somebody who can't name their sources and who has no responsibility to be accurate. The modern measure of accuracy is simply a matter of how many people believe and repeat a statement.
Even if I'm willing to get my Important Information from semiliterate, overimportant anonymous writers, I'm not willing to get my Accurate Information from the same.
The author says there are "no means to resolve" but I beg to differ. There is clearly a means to resolve these inconsistencies in that particular article! Edit it!! If he has found something wrong with the article, he should take a few minutes and correct it. Enough of that, and the article will go into dispute and moderators will resolve it. If this author is interested in Alexander Hamilton, he should watch that thread unfold using the Wikipedia tools to stay on top of it, making changes as he goes.
That begs the question: Does the Wikipedia exist to provide reference information for visitors... or does it exist simply for people to edit it, giving writers some sort of vague satisfaction that their contribution has been accepted?
If I need some reliable information about Alexander Hamilton, I hope it's the former.
The author of the article quotes the apparent goals of the Wikipedia - one of which is to be reliable.
I did it on an XT with a Hercules CGA card on an amber screen using Turbo Pascal when I was 14. After it got through 60% of the screen after waiting for 6 hours, the program crashed. Know what I learned?
When it takes 6 hours for a memory problem to replicate itself, you get a lot more careful about fixing the problem.
Hmm. How about we come up with a simple hole punching machine that voters can use to punch a hole next to the candidate they want/initiative they support. They we come up with another machine that figures out how many votes there are for each candidate based on where the hole has been punched.
I find it hard to believe that our gov't is willing to spend $200 Billion to bomb the living fuck out of a country for no good reason, but can't get their shit together enough to start arresting people for the avalanche of fraud online.
What's so hard to believe? When they spend $200 billion to bomb the living fuck out of a country, they have a reason. It's called croneyism. Halliburton, oil infrastructure companies, and military contractors get a big-ass portion of that $200 billion.
When Halliburton can figure out a way to make an assload of money off of eradicating online fraud, this government will get serious about stamping it out.
Many people I know vote based on what those around them think. One friend in particular agrees with me on every individual issue, but is voting for Bush because it goes against her southern upbringing to vote for a liberal. So which are we discussing here, whether people are voting red or blue, or whether their world view is left or right?
Well, hopefully, one of her ancestors got over his Southern upbringing and stopped treating Blacks like property/animals. If that ancestor can get over generations of racism, she can get over voting for a liberal.
Bush with 76.4% and Kerry with 21.0%? I'm a Bush supporter and I cannot believe that'd he win by such a margin...
But, as expected, Kerry wins the West and East coast states while Bush wins in "flyover" states. I expect a GWB victory this November -- but I think it'll be more along the lines of 57% to 40% in terms of the popular vote with the third parties picking up the rest of the slack.
1. The site is predicting that Bush has a 76.4% chance of winning, not that he'd win with 76.4% of the vote.
2. 57 to 40? Are you on crack? Bush beat Dukakis 53-46 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_el ection,_1988), and that was considered a landslide. Reagan beat Mondale 59-40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_el ection,_1984), which is an even bigger landslide, but George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan, and it's not the 80's.
I do indeed realize that they weren't claiming 19% and that their goal is 10%. I guess I should have been more obvious. That is, just because ZDNet says that 19% of their accesses were made via Mozilla, that has little, if anything, with 1) the goal, 2) whether they're on their way to reaching the goal, or 3) whether the goal is realistic.
Because of the nature of ZDNet's content, one might expect that a larger proportion of its users would use a Mozilla browser on a regular basis. However, if you were to take the stats on heavily accessed domains to see if usage of Mozilla usage is increasing, we might get something interesting.
Is it not expected that ZDNet readers would skew towards Mozilla? How about the percentage of users to the top ten visited websites? Save for google.com, why would we expect that Mozilla access rates to those site would be markedly higher?
Please put some sample movies / pictures online. Specially showing the optical/digital zoom capacity. And maybe some low light movies to see its performance there?
If I Google for 'hidden camera porn', does your site show up?
1. Freedom of speech applies to individuals, not corporations. That *might* be a freedom of the press case. Get you battle cries straight. 2. There are rules governing the use of publicly-owned licensed airwaves. This isn't HBO, it's broadcast TV. There goes you Michael Moore rant. 3. Speaking of F911, there was signifcant outcry to showing it on TV before the election. You don't remember it because it was spearheade by Republicans, or which you obviously are. You didn't see it was outcry, but as common sense. Admit your bias. 4. Even if the 1st Amendment applied here, you can't think of any circumstances free speech is curtailed for the greater good by the government? 5. Maybe the Sinclair Group should make the movie it wants to and release it to theaters.
On "Good Morning America" - admittedly not the home of hard-hitting news - a Sinclair V.P. and a Democratic Senator squared off on this issue. I'm a Kerry supporter, and while the Democratic Senator listed some very good points, the Sinclair VP had some equally good points to the point where I was thinking to myself, why all the bluster from the Democratic Party.
That is, until the Sinclair VP repeated the Republican party line saying that if Kerry can't sit down and face this group of Vietnam veterans, how can he face up to al Quaeda {paraphrase}?
Right there, it became obvious that the Sinclair Group is politically motivated.
That was a long-ass article, wasn't it? I don't blame you for not reading it all before posting. Let me include a snippet, in which he says that this article doesn't mean he's "switched" or even endorses it.
More than anything, I'm glad to be aware and somewhat proficient in dealing with yet another hardware/OS platform, even though it's a very small percentage of the total computing population out there. It's nice to know that I'm not to totally lost if I find myself stuck with nothing else to use but a Mac. But this experiment has clearly gone far beyond just a "trying it out" stage. The G5 is a computer that I use on a daily basis and it's something that I do enjoy using. I find the multi-tasking capabilities, some of the little gems that I talked about throughout this article, and the overall stability of the platform to be great for most of the computer usage that I do on a day-to-day basis. Despite my appeasement with Apple's platform, this is far from a "switch" story.
So many people get so outraged by this and that, they feel like they should should just move to Canada - think outraged Gore supporters in the last election or young males on the onset of the first Gulf Invasion.
Well, you know what? Put your money where your mouth is. America's facing a serious infrastructure problem, anyway. It might not be great here, but if you don't like it, nobody's making you stay.
I carry my drivers license so I can drive. I have no interest in other people knowing "who I am".
Unless you get carded in a bar. Or a store employee insists on verifying your identity while using your credit cards. Or you want to apply for a passport and need two forms of identification. Or you're filling out your employment forms and need two of the following: passport, driver's license, birth certificate.
It depends. There are regulations on cruise ships that are registered in the United States. And because of the associated costs of complying with those regulations, there are very few cruise ships registered with the United States. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any regulations imposed by the United States.
Let Congress come up with their regulations; let the space tourism companies decide if they want to conform to those regulations, or move offshore. Ultimately, if Congress finds that they want these companies operating inside the U.S., they'll change the regulations. If they don't, look forward to the Space Cruise Ship Galactica with a Bahamas registry.
Slashdot Mirror
How about IBM put this (in a permanent manor) on their PC's and offer a discount for purchasers? Or on the machines they give away for free to charities/schools?
Seems like a transparent way to get their goals accomplished.
And as far as inaccurate information goes, I have a two word response for that: political blogs. Many people are perfectly happy to get their Important Information a blog by somebody who can't name their sources and who has no responsibility to be accurate. The modern measure of accuracy is simply a matter of how many people believe and repeat a statement.
Even if I'm willing to get my Important Information from semiliterate, overimportant anonymous writers, I'm not willing to get my Accurate Information from the same.
The author says there are "no means to resolve" but I beg to differ. There is clearly a means to resolve these inconsistencies in that particular article! Edit it!! If he has found something wrong with the article, he should take a few minutes and correct it. Enough of that, and the article will go into dispute and moderators will resolve it. If this author is interested in Alexander Hamilton, he should watch that thread unfold using the Wikipedia tools to stay on top of it, making changes as he goes.
... or does it exist simply for people to edit it, giving writers some sort of vague satisfaction that their contribution has been accepted?
That begs the question: Does the Wikipedia exist to provide reference information for visitors
If I need some reliable information about Alexander Hamilton, I hope it's the former.
The author of the article quotes the apparent goals of the Wikipedia - one of which is to be reliable.
I did it on an XT with a Hercules CGA card on an amber screen using Turbo Pascal when I was 14. After it got through 60% of the screen after waiting for 6 hours, the program crashed. Know what I learned?
When it takes 6 hours for a memory problem to replicate itself, you get a lot more careful about fixing the problem.
Might as well drive around in a "car" with no floorboards so you can accelerate and brake with your bare feet.
What we need is a SIMPLE mechanism for voting
Hmm. How about we come up with a simple hole punching machine that voters can use to punch a hole next to the candidate they want/initiative they support. They we come up with another machine that figures out how many votes there are for each candidate based on where the hole has been punched.
Why buy the company when they could just steal all the companies "sssets", then put them out of business.
Think ruthlessly.
I find it hard to believe that our gov't is willing to spend $200 Billion to bomb the living fuck out of a country for no good reason, but can't get their shit together enough to start arresting people for the avalanche of fraud online.
What's so hard to believe? When they spend $200 billion to bomb the living fuck out of a country, they have a reason. It's called croneyism. Halliburton, oil infrastructure companies, and military contractors get a big-ass portion of that $200 billion.
When Halliburton can figure out a way to make an assload of money off of eradicating online fraud, this government will get serious about stamping it out.
Many people I know vote based on what those around them think. One friend in particular agrees with me on every individual issue, but is voting for Bush because it goes against her southern upbringing to vote for a liberal. So which are we discussing here, whether people are voting red or blue, or whether their world view is left or right?
Well, hopefully, one of her ancestors got over his Southern upbringing and stopped treating Blacks like property/animals. If that ancestor can get over generations of racism, she can get over voting for a liberal.
Twenty percent of all searching was sex-related back in 1997; now it's about 5 percent
They see this and find some sort of shift in the way people are using the Internet.
I see this and think "SLACKERS!!!!"
Sounds like the UN will have to send in independant Elections Inspectors
The U.N. doesn't know shit from shinola. Let's just invade. Don't forget Poland.
All I see is a poorly designed website that's like a run-on sentence with no organization.
For my money, that just proves these people are related to Bush.
Bush with 76.4% and Kerry with 21.0%?
l ection,_1988), and that was considered a landslide. Reagan beat Mondale 59-40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_el ection,_1984), which is an even bigger landslide, but George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan, and it's not the 80's.
I'm a Bush supporter and I cannot believe that'd he win by such a margin...
But, as expected, Kerry wins the West and East coast states while Bush wins in "flyover" states. I expect a GWB victory this November -- but I think it'll be more along the lines of 57% to 40% in terms of the popular vote with the third parties picking up the rest of the slack.
1. The site is predicting that Bush has a 76.4% chance of winning, not that he'd win with 76.4% of the vote.
2. 57 to 40? Are you on crack? Bush beat Dukakis 53-46 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_e
I do indeed realize that they weren't claiming 19% and that their goal is 10%. I guess I should have been more obvious. That is, just because ZDNet says that 19% of their accesses were made via Mozilla, that has little, if anything, with 1) the goal, 2) whether they're on their way to reaching the goal, or 3) whether the goal is realistic.
Because of the nature of ZDNet's content, one might expect that a larger proportion of its users would use a Mozilla browser on a regular basis. However, if you were to take the stats on heavily accessed domains to see if usage of Mozilla usage is increasing, we might get something interesting.
This is not interesting.
Is it not expected that ZDNet readers would skew towards Mozilla? How about the percentage of users to the top ten visited websites? Save for google.com, why would we expect that Mozilla access rates to those site would be markedly higher?
Please put some sample movies / pictures online. Specially showing the optical/digital zoom capacity. And maybe some low light movies to see its performance there?
If I Google for 'hidden camera porn', does your site show up?
Your political bias is showing.
1. Freedom of speech applies to individuals, not corporations. That *might* be a freedom of the press case. Get you battle cries straight.
2. There are rules governing the use of publicly-owned licensed airwaves. This isn't HBO, it's broadcast TV. There goes you Michael Moore rant.
3. Speaking of F911, there was signifcant outcry to showing it on TV before the election. You don't remember it because it was spearheade by Republicans, or which you obviously are. You didn't see it was outcry, but as common sense. Admit your bias.
4. Even if the 1st Amendment applied here, you can't think of any circumstances free speech is curtailed for the greater good by the government?
5. Maybe the Sinclair Group should make the movie it wants to and release it to theaters.
On "Good Morning America" - admittedly not the home of hard-hitting news - a Sinclair V.P. and a Democratic Senator squared off on this issue. I'm a Kerry supporter, and while the Democratic Senator listed some very good points, the Sinclair VP had some equally good points to the point where I was thinking to myself, why all the bluster from the Democratic Party.
That is, until the Sinclair VP repeated the Republican party line saying that if Kerry can't sit down and face this group of Vietnam veterans, how can he face up to al Quaeda {paraphrase}?
Right there, it became obvious that the Sinclair Group is politically motivated.
That was a long-ass article, wasn't it? I don't blame you for not reading it all before posting. Let me include a snippet, in which he says that this article doesn't mean he's "switched" or even endorses it.
More than anything, I'm glad to be aware and somewhat proficient in dealing with yet another hardware/OS platform, even though it's a very small percentage of the total computing population out there. It's nice to know that I'm not to totally lost if I find myself stuck with nothing else to use but a Mac. But this experiment has clearly gone far beyond just a "trying it out" stage. The G5 is a computer that I use on a daily basis and it's something that I do enjoy using. I find the multi-tasking capabilities, some of the little gems that I talked about throughout this article, and the overall stability of the platform to be great for most of the computer usage that I do on a day-to-day basis. Despite my appeasement with Apple's platform, this is far from a "switch" story.
If you don't have an economics degree, don't start spouting crap.
Just curious, but you got your economics degree from which esteemed university?
From a fellow Virginian ... follow through.
So many people get so outraged by this and that, they feel like they should should just move to Canada - think outraged Gore supporters in the last election or young males on the onset of the first Gulf Invasion.
Well, you know what? Put your money where your mouth is. America's facing a serious infrastructure problem, anyway. It might not be great here, but if you don't like it, nobody's making you stay.
I carry my drivers license so I can drive. I have no interest in other people knowing "who I am".
Unless you get carded in a bar.
Or a store employee insists on verifying your identity while using your credit cards.
Or you want to apply for a passport and need two forms of identification.
Or you're filling out your employment forms and need two of the following: passport, driver's license, birth certificate.
I'm sure you could think of a few others.
It depends. There are regulations on cruise ships that are registered in the United States. And because of the associated costs of complying with those regulations, there are very few cruise ships registered with the United States. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any regulations imposed by the United States.
Let Congress come up with their regulations; let the space tourism companies decide if they want to conform to those regulations, or move offshore. Ultimately, if Congress finds that they want these companies operating inside the U.S., they'll change the regulations. If they don't, look forward to the Space Cruise Ship Galactica with a Bahamas registry.
If FAQ is 'frequently asked questions', is FAQs
1. frequently asked questionsses (like bus/busses)
2. frequentlies asked questions (like mother-in-law/mothers-in-law)
3. frequently asked questions (like sheep/sheep)
Sounds like what our buzzword department would call a Meta FAQ.