I can't take all the credit, I just Googled and copied the quote from somewhere else, and I couldn't remember the exact wording myself. I agree that the extra "look at those morons" is needed, especially when you take it out of the context of what's going on in the show. It also works really well for this situation, with all those morons filing on the last minute.
I don't have a problem paying for software. However, I do have a problem paying too much for software. What is too much? Well, that's really a hard question, but it's basically defined by what I'm willing to pay. Take MS Office for example. It costs $CDN 180 for the "Home and Student" version and $CDN 497 for the "Standard" version. However, for my home needs, OpenOffice fulfills all my needs for $0. So why wouldn't I choose it? I really don't think that an office suite is worth $180, or even worse $500, when I can get a free version that does just as well. Even if OpenOffice wasn't free, and they charged $20-$80 a copy then I would still pay for it. Once OpenOffice gets closer to the cost of MS Office, it starts to look more attractive, but the price difference is so huge now that MS Office just isn't worth it. If MS Office was brought down to around $50, then it might be worth it, just to have real compatibility with everyone else using office. One program I bought lately was SageTV. MythTV was extremely difficult for me to set up. Sorry, I don't see why I should have to configure MySQL to get a PVR program running. SageTV was amazingly easy to set up, and it works flawlessly. It was also available at a price that I found to be worth it. I don't think that most Linux users have a problem with buying software. It's just that when presented with the option of paying extremely high prices for the commercial software, and nothing for the open source stuff, they choose the free stuff more often than not.
No, it gives whiners another reason to say, Linux can't do X, so I'm not switching. It can be added to the list with Photoshop,Games, and a thousand other things. There will be some funny cartoon, or some video website that uses this, so they can say that it's a deficiency in Linux, not an advantage.
As someone who's buying ads, ask them how them came up with their numbers, and be your own judge of how accurate they are. If you aren't asking how their numbers are being generated, then they could just be making it all up. Granted, they could be making up the numbers anyway, but at least you've done some due-diligence. Besides, what you should really be doing is checking your own site statistics that the ads are linking to, to determine how many people the ad is drawing. If you believe everything the other company is telling you, without actually verifying it, then you deserve to get screwed.
Oh how true. I also suspect that it will be the same not only for Mac, but also the Firefox version that will fall behind. With the increasing number of people on Firefox, how many people will want to use Microsoft's solution. However, I don't think that a lot of people using flash realize that not everyone is seeing their content. I've heard estimates that as many as 1/3 of users don't have flash installed. Once MS comes out with it's release, I can see them putting it out as a critical update, ensuring that all windows/IE users have it installed. So, what would you rather have? 2/3 of all users, or 100% of windows/IE users? Kind of a tough call. Myself, I use FlashBlock, because 99% of the time I don't need to see flash. For the times I do need it, it's not that much trouble to hit the play button. I hope a similar extension gets made for MS's offering.
It depends on the site. Take Google, or any other search engine. If each user does 1 search a day, and there are 1000 users, then over the year there are 365,000 hits. If there are 1% of users who delete cookies, then the 10 users doing 1 page hit a day, end up looking like 3650 users. So, instead of having 1000 users, you now have 990(users with cookies) + 3650 (users without cookies) = 4640 users, when in reality you only have 1000 users. So it doesn't even require 1% of users disabling cookies, or for them to visit every day to increase your traffic figures by 150%
Wouldn't putting thousands of users behind a single IP address via NAT create some problems? From my understanding, when you connect through a NAT, it gives you a port, and anything coming back over that port goes back to your computer. So if you have 5000 users, and there's 65000 ports, that's only 13 ports per user. I guess that not everyone would be connecting all the time, but what is the effective limit of number of people you can have behind a single IP address?
Web statistics is something that's extremely hard to track once you start talking about unique visitors. Ideally, you want to get this down to exactly how many actual people are using the site, but usually it comes down to the number of computers accessing the site, with people who delete cookies being counted as a new user. Some systems count each IP as a different user, but that doesn't account for users behind a NAT, or those with changing IP addresses. The idea is however, that those two groups cancel each other out to some degree. There's also a lot of users who may access the site from many different computers, including Home, Laptop, Work, Cell Phone, Web Cafe, Wii, and others. You can inflate the numbers a lot if you're looking to impress people, or you can try to get accurate statistics that are actually meaningful if you want to actually analyze the data.
It's funny how in sports, nobody complains when you hire the person who is the best a what they do, based on their skills alone. In every other career path, it seems that they are trying to even things out, so that it looks like things are fair. Even in fields like DayCare (where my wife works) it's very easy for a qualified man to get a job, because there's people trying to even out the demographics. It seems like sports is the only honest profession, where people are hired on skill alone, and where they ignore all other things.
Upon entering my Software Engineering program, I had almost 0 programming experience. Some HTML and some QBasic. That was it. I don't think I was any worse off than most of the other students. I know students who had a lot more programming experience than I did, and who were much worse programmers in the end, or even after the first semester.
Nobody seems to be answering my question of what do people who can't operate a firearm do in this "vigilante-everyone-is-packing-heat" world? What about children? What about the disabled? What about the elderly? When you look into this story, and many of the other public shootings that happen, the "bad guy" ends up dying in the end. I don't think they really care if they die, and most of the time it ends when they take their own life. If you don't care if you're going to die, then you're going to take people out anyway, it doesn't matter if the other guys have weapons. Sure he may have killed less people, if someone else had a gun, but he still would have taken a few people with him. I'm not going to debate whether it's possible to get illegal firearms, or drugs, or alcohol. We all know it is. But the government, and our society, shouldn't condone and promote these actions just because it's possible to do it. I also don't really think it's easier to get illegal stuff than it is to get legalized stuff, and it certainly isn't cheaper. How much does a pack of cigarettes cost? it's $10 canadian, and that's with major taxes. The equivalent amount of marijuana would cost much more than $10, probably more than $100, i'm not up to date on pricing. Also, not having everyone brandishing a weapon stops situations of rage from happening. If someone goes through the trouble to go out and get an illegal firearm, then that's one thing, it's hard to stop that. But if someone has a gun on their hip, and don't have to go through any trouble to obtain weapons, then we'd see a lot more people than this getting killed every day by people who couldn't control their anger.
Could we also blame the laws which make it so easy to obtain guns which make crimes like this possible? I don't really think people should feel like they have to carry around firearms to feel safe. What about those that are unable to operate firearms? Should we just let them be killed off? I shouldn't have to become a master marksman to feel safe at a place like a university. It seems like very bad reasoning to just let everyone carry around guns just in case someone goes on a rampage. I'm unsure about this incident and which weapons were used, but at columbine, some pretty powerful weapons were used. Weapons that no high-school kid (or most citizens outside of military and law enforcement) should ever have in their possession. I've seen lots of people in bars get mad at another person and start a fight. If they both had guns, I would be that in many instances, somebody would be killed. Instead, since they don't have guns, it usually just ends with a bloody nose and a black eye. There's also almost no chance of any bystanders getting injured. With guns, things are different, and people are likely to die.
I like the way MS implemented their Geneics. Too bad they tie the.Net framework to specific versions of VS.Net. So those of us stuck using VS.Net 2002 don't get to use.Net 2.0. And no, Generics aren't worth the cost of the upgrade.
Am I the only one who tries to do away with arrays whenever possible? Sure I use them in some cases, but their limited ability to resize is something I find to be a real issue. With Lists and Generics, I find I'm using Arrays less and less, even in cases where an Array would probably work, just because lists offer so much more functionality.
Who the f*** decided that sentences on the Internet shall no longer be formatted with two spaces after a period?!
Since somebody else decided that extra whitespace in HTML documents should be ignored. So, even if you type two spaces, it shows up as 1 in the web browser. I personally think they should fix that.
Also, there's a lot of people that want Wiis, but can't find them. On the other hand, if you want a PS3, it's quite easy to find one. And still, nobody is buying them.
Movie web sites? Does anybody actually go to those? Just about everybody I know goes to apple.com and watches the trailers there. There's no reason to go to 30 different movie sites every month when you can go to 1 and watch previews for all 30 movies.
What's an acceptable lease rate though? At $20 a year what should they charge for 5 days? The bigger problem is that they let you test out names at all. Either you want the name or you don't. There's no reason other than typosquatting/domain stealing that it would be a good idea to let people try out a domain name for 5 days.
Nope, iTunes has no problem using that same port which is USB 2.0. Neither does Amarok. It's real USB 2.0. I'm pretty sure it's a floola specific problem.
Which is why I don't think Nintendo was a loser with the GC. Sure they sold the least number of unit, but they made a whole lot more money out of the GameCube than MS made on the XBox. Not sure how well they did compared to Sony, but Sony sold lots more units, so I think they ended up OK in the end. To make a car analogy, it doesn't matter that Porsche sells less cars than Ford, as long as their making money doing what their doing. The big 3 US automakers seem to be the ones in financial trouble, even though they sell quite a few cars.
Slashdot Mirror
People have been wanting this for years. The phone companies won't let it happen. Not for a long while anyway.
I can't take all the credit, I just Googled and copied the quote from somewhere else, and I couldn't remember the exact wording myself. I agree that the extra "look at those morons" is needed, especially when you take it out of the context of what's going on in the show. It also works really well for this situation, with all those morons filing on the last minute.
Wow, that's expensive. I'm using uFile in Canada, and it's $16 to fill in your return, and submit it electronically. All inclusive.
Would you look at those morons... I paid my taxes over a year ago!
I don't have a problem paying for software. However, I do have a problem paying too much for software. What is too much? Well, that's really a hard question, but it's basically defined by what I'm willing to pay. Take MS Office for example. It costs $CDN 180 for the "Home and Student" version and $CDN 497 for the "Standard" version. However, for my home needs, OpenOffice fulfills all my needs for $0. So why wouldn't I choose it? I really don't think that an office suite is worth $180, or even worse $500, when I can get a free version that does just as well. Even if OpenOffice wasn't free, and they charged $20-$80 a copy then I would still pay for it. Once OpenOffice gets closer to the cost of MS Office, it starts to look more attractive, but the price difference is so huge now that MS Office just isn't worth it. If MS Office was brought down to around $50, then it might be worth it, just to have real compatibility with everyone else using office. One program I bought lately was SageTV. MythTV was extremely difficult for me to set up. Sorry, I don't see why I should have to configure MySQL to get a PVR program running. SageTV was amazingly easy to set up, and it works flawlessly. It was also available at a price that I found to be worth it. I don't think that most Linux users have a problem with buying software. It's just that when presented with the option of paying extremely high prices for the commercial software, and nothing for the open source stuff, they choose the free stuff more often than not.
No, it gives whiners another reason to say, Linux can't do X, so I'm not switching. It can be added to the list with Photoshop,Games, and a thousand other things. There will be some funny cartoon, or some video website that uses this, so they can say that it's a deficiency in Linux, not an advantage.
As someone who's buying ads, ask them how them came up with their numbers, and be your own judge of how accurate they are. If you aren't asking how their numbers are being generated, then they could just be making it all up. Granted, they could be making up the numbers anyway, but at least you've done some due-diligence. Besides, what you should really be doing is checking your own site statistics that the ads are linking to, to determine how many people the ad is drawing. If you believe everything the other company is telling you, without actually verifying it, then you deserve to get screwed.
Oh how true. I also suspect that it will be the same not only for Mac, but also the Firefox version that will fall behind. With the increasing number of people on Firefox, how many people will want to use Microsoft's solution. However, I don't think that a lot of people using flash realize that not everyone is seeing their content. I've heard estimates that as many as 1/3 of users don't have flash installed. Once MS comes out with it's release, I can see them putting it out as a critical update, ensuring that all windows/IE users have it installed. So, what would you rather have? 2/3 of all users, or 100% of windows/IE users? Kind of a tough call. Myself, I use FlashBlock, because 99% of the time I don't need to see flash. For the times I do need it, it's not that much trouble to hit the play button. I hope a similar extension gets made for MS's offering.
It depends on the site. Take Google, or any other search engine. If each user does 1 search a day, and there are 1000 users, then over the year there are 365,000 hits. If there are 1% of users who delete cookies, then the 10 users doing 1 page hit a day, end up looking like 3650 users. So, instead of having 1000 users, you now have 990(users with cookies) + 3650 (users without cookies) = 4640 users, when in reality you only have 1000 users. So it doesn't even require 1% of users disabling cookies, or for them to visit every day to increase your traffic figures by 150%
Wouldn't putting thousands of users behind a single IP address via NAT create some problems? From my understanding, when you connect through a NAT, it gives you a port, and anything coming back over that port goes back to your computer. So if you have 5000 users, and there's 65000 ports, that's only 13 ports per user. I guess that not everyone would be connecting all the time, but what is the effective limit of number of people you can have behind a single IP address?
Web statistics is something that's extremely hard to track once you start talking about unique visitors. Ideally, you want to get this down to exactly how many actual people are using the site, but usually it comes down to the number of computers accessing the site, with people who delete cookies being counted as a new user. Some systems count each IP as a different user, but that doesn't account for users behind a NAT, or those with changing IP addresses. The idea is however, that those two groups cancel each other out to some degree. There's also a lot of users who may access the site from many different computers, including Home, Laptop, Work, Cell Phone, Web Cafe, Wii, and others. You can inflate the numbers a lot if you're looking to impress people, or you can try to get accurate statistics that are actually meaningful if you want to actually analyze the data.
It's funny how in sports, nobody complains when you hire the person who is the best a what they do, based on their skills alone. In every other career path, it seems that they are trying to even things out, so that it looks like things are fair. Even in fields like DayCare (where my wife works) it's very easy for a qualified man to get a job, because there's people trying to even out the demographics. It seems like sports is the only honest profession, where people are hired on skill alone, and where they ignore all other things.
What the patent that they are violating, and what does it cover? If it's not something that can be worked around, then what about other VOIP systems.
Upon entering my Software Engineering program, I had almost 0 programming experience. Some HTML and some QBasic. That was it. I don't think I was any worse off than most of the other students. I know students who had a lot more programming experience than I did, and who were much worse programmers in the end, or even after the first semester.
Nobody seems to be answering my question of what do people who can't operate a firearm do in this "vigilante-everyone-is-packing-heat" world? What about children? What about the disabled? What about the elderly? When you look into this story, and many of the other public shootings that happen, the "bad guy" ends up dying in the end. I don't think they really care if they die, and most of the time it ends when they take their own life. If you don't care if you're going to die, then you're going to take people out anyway, it doesn't matter if the other guys have weapons. Sure he may have killed less people, if someone else had a gun, but he still would have taken a few people with him. I'm not going to debate whether it's possible to get illegal firearms, or drugs, or alcohol. We all know it is. But the government, and our society, shouldn't condone and promote these actions just because it's possible to do it. I also don't really think it's easier to get illegal stuff than it is to get legalized stuff, and it certainly isn't cheaper. How much does a pack of cigarettes cost? it's $10 canadian, and that's with major taxes. The equivalent amount of marijuana would cost much more than $10, probably more than $100, i'm not up to date on pricing. Also, not having everyone brandishing a weapon stops situations of rage from happening. If someone goes through the trouble to go out and get an illegal firearm, then that's one thing, it's hard to stop that. But if someone has a gun on their hip, and don't have to go through any trouble to obtain weapons, then we'd see a lot more people than this getting killed every day by people who couldn't control their anger.
Could we also blame the laws which make it so easy to obtain guns which make crimes like this possible? I don't really think people should feel like they have to carry around firearms to feel safe. What about those that are unable to operate firearms? Should we just let them be killed off? I shouldn't have to become a master marksman to feel safe at a place like a university. It seems like very bad reasoning to just let everyone carry around guns just in case someone goes on a rampage. I'm unsure about this incident and which weapons were used, but at columbine, some pretty powerful weapons were used. Weapons that no high-school kid (or most citizens outside of military and law enforcement) should ever have in their possession. I've seen lots of people in bars get mad at another person and start a fight. If they both had guns, I would be that in many instances, somebody would be killed. Instead, since they don't have guns, it usually just ends with a bloody nose and a black eye. There's also almost no chance of any bystanders getting injured. With guns, things are different, and people are likely to die.
Because nobody has ever broken a captcha....
I like the way MS implemented their Geneics. Too bad they tie the .Net framework to specific versions of VS.Net. So those of us stuck using VS.Net 2002 don't get to use .Net 2.0. And no, Generics aren't worth the cost of the upgrade.
Am I the only one who tries to do away with arrays whenever possible? Sure I use them in some cases, but their limited ability to resize is something I find to be a real issue. With Lists and Generics, I find I'm using Arrays less and less, even in cases where an Array would probably work, just because lists offer so much more functionality.
Also, there's a lot of people that want Wiis, but can't find them. On the other hand, if you want a PS3, it's quite easy to find one. And still, nobody is buying them.
Movie web sites? Does anybody actually go to those? Just about everybody I know goes to apple.com and watches the trailers there. There's no reason to go to 30 different movie sites every month when you can go to 1 and watch previews for all 30 movies.
What's an acceptable lease rate though? At $20 a year what should they charge for 5 days? The bigger problem is that they let you test out names at all. Either you want the name or you don't. There's no reason other than typosquatting/domain stealing that it would be a good idea to let people try out a domain name for 5 days.
Nope, iTunes has no problem using that same port which is USB 2.0. Neither does Amarok. It's real USB 2.0. I'm pretty sure it's a floola specific problem.
Which is why I don't think Nintendo was a loser with the GC. Sure they sold the least number of unit, but they made a whole lot more money out of the GameCube than MS made on the XBox. Not sure how well they did compared to Sony, but Sony sold lots more units, so I think they ended up OK in the end. To make a car analogy, it doesn't matter that Porsche sells less cars than Ford, as long as their making money doing what their doing. The big 3 US automakers seem to be the ones in financial trouble, even though they sell quite a few cars.