Similiar experience here. We've had a trademark violator sucking off our trademark for a few years now. Google pegs him at #1 and returns 17,000 results... Yahoo! puts him at #8 and returns 44,000 results.
I know which engine I'm using from now on. Especially since they have the minimalist interface which doesn't suck.
Palms are not generally inherently unstable. Where they get the instability is from after-market code doing things it shouldn't.
Disclosure: I used to be one of the perpetrators. Now that I know what I'm doing, my applications don't destabilize everyone else's. Palm is only to blame for not properly identifying the correct application and disabling it.
I agree with you on Grafitti. I'm slowly getting used to the new one, but I'll always miss the original.
Society is the gestalt of individuals, corporations and the environment. Everything is connected to everything else.
You'ge got a point for a corporation with no employees, pays no taxes and produces/distributes no goods or services. Such corporations do not exist, however (well, Telus aside).
For your specific question: Paper, ink and postage all cost money. If a company can reduce its expenses without impacting the effectiveness of its campaign, why wouldn't it do so?
I think that's an oversimplification. Society is the people that make it up and the world around them. There's a lot of information about you and I that we don't want everyone to know, but would help companies better target us and be beneficial to parts of society (their workers, plus the environment).
For instance, if the local grocery store was capable of printing customized flyers (it'll happen) and knows you just bought a 24 pack of toilet paper, it could exclude that from the items offered to you. If it knows you buy milk every week and haven't yet this week, it could make sure that milk is front and center on the first page. Maybe you buy a lot of red meat, so you don't need the special coupon for that.
Now, you probably don't want your buying habits to be public information. I know I want mine guarded! But clearly, having the information public is both beneficial (in the example above we've saved ink, paper, postage and your time in browsing our flyer) and harmful (because your insurance company might raise your premiums because you eat too much meat).
I don't think there's any information out there that isn't beneficial to some and harmful ot others. "Information wants to be free!" *is* hypocrisy. It's just an adult way of getting to use other toys without sharing your own. (Not that I think there's anything really bad with that, but we should be more honest about it.)
Unfortunately, the sections only work so well. I would love to drop various categories and promote others, but this doesn't impact the RSS feed. Every time I've tried it, I end up getting confused about why an article is in one and not in another...
Take no offense, but you haven't convinced me of the difference.
Let's pretend I'm some sort of marketing company. There's little doubt in my mind that knowing exactly what you buy puts me in a better position to predict what you're interested in. There's also little doubt in my mind that this would allow me to target you more succesfully with the right brochures and product information and avoid sending you stuff you're not interested in. If we assume I'm sending you stuff through the mail, we've just saved a lot of postage and flyers.
On the other hand, you probably don't want me knowing everything about you.
I've concluded that information has no wishes one way or the other about whether or not its free. For any particular piece of information, some people want it to be free and some don't. The only question is which camp you fall in for a particular item.
From Telus' perspective, they had a site that was risking their employees and equipment. They probably went first to the host and tried to do something about it, but when that failed they blocked it. They were willing to compromise and settled the issue out of court once the site's owner agreed to self-censor.
Keep in mind that, contrary the spin in the summary, the site is not the union's site. (It is pro-union, but not the union's web site -- see the settlement document: "Voices for change is my personal website. It is not endorsed by, supported in any way, nor funded by the Telecomunications Workers' Union".)
As I said, I hate Telus. But if the site really was risking Telus' personnel or equipment AND they contacted the webhost first to try to negotiate a resolution first without success, I think the temporary blocking of the site was probably justified.
Yes, there were some bad years. They're far enough behind us now that my selective memory is already blocking them. It isn't that Telus was better, it was just that Shaw used to be that much worse. (Rogers was even worse. Things started to turn around in my area the moment Shaw moved in, it just took a while.)
Just to clarify: While Shaw allows access to its POP/SMTP servers only over their own network, you can access outside POP/SMTP servers from their network without any problem. I do this all the time -- the @home thing years ago taught me not to trust my ISP's email.
Their POP server not being available off-network is not so bad as you can set it to forward to another address via the web interface.
The settlement, available as part of the settlement on the now-unblocked website, paints this as a little less one-sided that the slashdot article.
Don't get me wrong, Telus is clearly stark raving mad with nuts on top, but maybe with not quite as nuts as the summary indicates. The settlement includes reference to voices for change removing threatening and revealing information (which we can't judge the merit of, since the information's been removed). Telus clearly has at least/some/ obligation to protect its infastructure and managers.
For the record, I hate Telus. And unlike most posters here, this labour action has had a direct impact on my pocketbook -- with Telus managers being even more incompetent than Telus union workers (I don't blame the union or its workers for usually being incompetent -- it seems to be Telus coompany policy that the workers were following), our fax machine has not been reachable at our phone number for a few weeks. We had to get a VoIP line through Vonage. Some of our would-be customers and affiliates have figured it out and sent us purchase orders anyway, but there's no real way to measure exactly how much money we've lost.
Well, that's often the case, but I'm betting you could encapsulate two words in a way that could be transported back to Word (with formatting intact) a lot more efficiently.
A lot of the bulk seems to be Word saving unused style sheets, which arguably doesn't need to be done to keep the document true.
I agree that easier-to-use tools are making it easier for poor programmers to both sneak in and through their careers without being caught for the frauds they are. But at the same time, at least some of the easy-to-use tools are... easier to use. For experts, too.
I actually have a thought on this: Requiring applicants to write something in a pseudo-language. The language is defined on a handful of pages given to him, and he has to solve a couple simple problems in that language. I think it would be a great barrier to block idiots from getting in.
No, not every good programmer has a degree. I'm not even sure it helps, to be honest. Most of the really good programmers I know have degrees in entirely unrelated fields, or none at all. Breadth is more important than depth once the ability to logically reason has been established.
Yes, you can improve a poor programmer. However, their ability to improve is based more on their ability to learn as your ability to teach.
In short, people are not created equal in terms of programming talent, just like they're not created equal in guitar playing, ice skating or writing.
As mostly an aside, you don't have to listen to Apple; the WebKit source code can be downloaded and rebuilt by Mac OS X 10.4 users with Xcode 2.1. I've run it myself -- it definitely passes the test.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still trying to figure out what my parents warbed me about. ;-)
Similiar experience here. We've had a trademark violator sucking off our trademark for a few years now. Google pegs him at #1 and returns 17,000 results... Yahoo! puts him at #8 and returns 44,000 results.
I know which engine I'm using from now on. Especially since they have the minimalist interface which doesn't suck.
There's still a levy on blank CDs, isn't there?
Palms are not generally inherently unstable. Where they get the instability is from after-market code doing things it shouldn't.
Disclosure: I used to be one of the perpetrators. Now that I know what I'm doing, my applications don't destabilize everyone else's. Palm is only to blame for not properly identifying the correct application and disabling it.
I agree with you on Grafitti. I'm slowly getting used to the new one, but I'll always miss the original.
I'd strongly suggest you not let it lapse. The squatters circle invalid domains like vultures.
Sending off an email to the @home.com guys might be worth a try, though. They'll probably have someone available who can read and write English...
Society is the gestalt of individuals, corporations and the environment. Everything is connected to everything else.
You'ge got a point for a corporation with no employees, pays no taxes and produces/distributes no goods or services. Such corporations do not exist, however (well, Telus aside).
For your specific question:
Paper, ink and postage all cost money. If a company can reduce its expenses without impacting the effectiveness of its campaign, why wouldn't it do so?
I think that's an oversimplification. Society is the people that make it up and the world around them. There's a lot of information about you and I that we don't want everyone to know, but would help companies better target us and be beneficial to parts of society (their workers, plus the environment).
For instance, if the local grocery store was capable of printing customized flyers (it'll happen) and knows you just bought a 24 pack of toilet paper, it could exclude that from the items offered to you. If it knows you buy milk every week and haven't yet this week, it could make sure that milk is front and center on the first page. Maybe you buy a lot of red meat, so you don't need the special coupon for that.
Now, you probably don't want your buying habits to be public information. I know I want mine guarded! But clearly, having the information public is both beneficial (in the example above we've saved ink, paper, postage and your time in browsing our flyer) and harmful (because your insurance company might raise your premiums because you eat too much meat).
I don't think there's any information out there that isn't beneficial to some and harmful ot others. "Information wants to be free!" *is* hypocrisy. It's just an adult way of getting to use other toys without sharing your own. (Not that I think there's anything really bad with that, but we should be more honest about it.)
Unfortunately, the sections only work so well. I would love to drop various categories and promote others, but this doesn't impact the RSS feed. Every time I've tried it, I end up getting confused about why an article is in one and not in another...
Take no offense, but you haven't convinced me of the difference.
Let's pretend I'm some sort of marketing company. There's little doubt in my mind that knowing exactly what you buy puts me in a better position to predict what you're interested in. There's also little doubt in my mind that this would allow me to target you more succesfully with the right brochures and product information and avoid sending you stuff you're not interested in. If we assume I'm sending you stuff through the mail, we've just saved a lot of postage and flyers.
On the other hand, you probably don't want me knowing everything about you.
I've concluded that information has no wishes one way or the other about whether or not its free. For any particular piece of information, some people want it to be free and some don't. The only question is which camp you fall in for a particular item.
From Telus' perspective, they had a site that was risking their employees and equipment. They probably went first to the host and tried to do something about it, but when that failed they blocked it. They were willing to compromise and settled the issue out of court once the site's owner agreed to self-censor.
Keep in mind that, contrary the spin in the summary, the site is not the union's site. (It is pro-union, but not the union's web site -- see the settlement document: "Voices for change is my personal website. It is not endorsed by, supported in any way, nor funded by the Telecomunications Workers' Union".)
As I said, I hate Telus. But if the site really was risking Telus' personnel or equipment AND they contacted the webhost first to try to negotiate a resolution first without success, I think the temporary blocking of the site was probably justified.
Yes, there were some bad years. They're far enough behind us now that my selective memory is already blocking them. It isn't that Telus was better, it was just that Shaw used to be that much worse. (Rogers was even worse. Things started to turn around in my area the moment Shaw moved in, it just took a while.)
Whatever you do, don't calm down and change your mind. Shaw is much better on a day-to-day basis.
Just to clarify: While Shaw allows access to its POP/SMTP servers only over their own network, you can access outside POP/SMTP servers from their network without any problem. I do this all the time -- the @home thing years ago taught me not to trust my ISP's email. Their POP server not being available off-network is not so bad as you can set it to forward to another address via the web interface.
The settlement mentions that it is not actually the union's website.
My policy would be to stop hiring managers -- there's a high enough percentage of idiots among them that there's no point. :)
The settlement, available as part of the settlement on the now-unblocked website, paints this as a little less one-sided that the slashdot article.
/some/ obligation to protect its infastructure and managers.
Don't get me wrong, Telus is clearly stark raving mad with nuts on top, but maybe with not quite as nuts as the summary indicates. The settlement includes reference to voices for change removing threatening and revealing information (which we can't judge the merit of, since the information's been removed). Telus clearly has at least
For the record, I hate Telus. And unlike most posters here, this labour action has had a direct impact on my pocketbook -- with Telus managers being even more incompetent than Telus union workers (I don't blame the union or its workers for usually being incompetent -- it seems to be Telus coompany policy that the workers were following), our fax machine has not been reachable at our phone number for a few weeks. We had to get a VoIP line through Vonage. Some of our would-be customers and affiliates have figured it out and sent us purchase orders anyway, but there's no real way to measure exactly how much money we've lost.
Eek! Every time someone links to INTERCAL I read it again, hoping it will make sense. :)
I suppose what I need to do is sit down and actually try it, but I'm afraid to get that much weird on my hands.
What did you think of it? Did it feel like an unreasonable test?
Well, that's often the case, but I'm betting you could encapsulate two words in a way that could be transported back to Word (with formatting intact) a lot more efficiently.
A lot of the bulk seems to be Word saving unused style sheets, which arguably doesn't need to be done to keep the document true.
I thought he was demonstrating different exports from Word. Word 2004 (Mac) makes it 2,167 bytes. Granted, that's horrible HTML...
I agree that easier-to-use tools are making it easier for poor programmers to both sneak in and through their careers without being caught for the frauds they are. But at the same time, at least some of the easy-to-use tools are... easier to use. For experts, too.
I actually have a thought on this: Requiring applicants to write something in a pseudo-language. The language is defined on a handful of pages given to him, and he has to solve a couple simple problems in that language. I think it would be a great barrier to block idiots from getting in.
No, not every good programmer has a degree. I'm not even sure it helps, to be honest. Most of the really good programmers I know have degrees in entirely unrelated fields, or none at all. Breadth is more important than depth once the ability to logically reason has been established.
Yes, you can improve a poor programmer. However, their ability to improve is based more on their ability to learn as your ability to teach.
In short, people are not created equal in terms of programming talent, just like they're not created equal in guitar playing, ice skating or writing.
Aw, you flubbed it. It should have been "In Korea only old people let their dogs have sex."
I did RTFA. There are enough CSS problems in IE that a boycott isn't that bad an idea. Also, Safari does pass Acid2 and Firefox is working on it.
I do agree with the author that not even trying for Acid2 compliance is a telling point.
As mostly an aside, you don't have to listen to Apple; the WebKit source code can be downloaded and rebuilt by Mac OS X 10.4 users with Xcode 2.1. I've run it myself -- it definitely passes the test.