I've never understood the problem with top posting.
>Thanks.
>>
>>Yes. Theoden and Denethor die too.
>>>
>>>My friend told me Gollum dies in ROTK. Is
>>>this true?
The humor aside, I ask again, if you've read the posts leading up to the hypothetical end-response in that chain, why would you want to have to scroll past them on every reply to them? Assume that they're actual sentences, or perhaps even paragraphs. I just don't see the point. And if you haven't read the others, why on earth don't you start at the beginning of the thread?
I hadn't even realized they did this crap, because I use Hotmail Popper. I check my Hotmail account via POP, and have it transfer to main account in Mozilla Mail. Rather than repeat it, I'll just throw in the link to my comment about Hotmail Popper and Yahoo! POPs.
I've never understood the problem with top posting. Even back when I used Usenet a ton (early to mid 90's), I always top posted. The way I see it, most people reading a reply post have read the rest of the thread, either by following it as each message is posted, or by stumbling across the thread at a later point and reading the messages that came before my reply. If they've not read the other posts, why on earth would they start with my mid-stream reply?
So, given that, I always felt it benefitted a greater number of people to be able to immediately see my response, rather than to have to scroll down the message and go past stuff they've already read. I guess it's "to each his own", but damn, I've just never understood why those who are against top-posting are so much more vehement than those who are against bottom-posting.
As another reply mentioned, the dominant language on the Internet is English because that's the way it developed, not because of some conspiracy that should "rub people the wrong way." People are free to do whatever they want. English is the language of choice among air-traffic controllers and pilots around the world, also. Should English-speaking nations apologize for that, too?
I never understood the point of having the signature on the back of the card. By signing it, you're giving the thief an example of your signature, and it takes a person about 2 minutes to learn to forge a reasonable enough copy of your signature to pass a Best Buy clerk's eyeball test. Then it becomes harder to contest, because the signature is somewhat close to yours. I'd rather have them not know what my signature looks like and be able to point to it and say "That's not even close."
Funny, I was just telling someone this story today. I was watching Jurassic Park III (I was high, all right?), and there is a rather lengthy scene in the movie where the protagonists are being chased around by some manner of dinosaur who has apparently swallowed their satellite phone, which someone is calling. So, they run around for a while, and then they hear the ringing from inside the dinosaur, and then they run until he's gone again. But the baffling thing was that sometimes, the phone would ring, but they wouldn't act scared, or even act like they noticed it was ringing while they hid quietly. Only after about a minute did I, and my friend, realize simultaneously that someone's phone in the theatre was ringing in a similar tone to the one in the movie, and that we were hearing that sometimes, and not the one in the dinosaur (Don't smoke weed, kids.) Just as we realized this, an enormous, giant of a man stood up, looked at the kid with the phone a few rows away, and yelled "If you don't shut that fscking phone off, I'll shut you off!" I have never applauded more genuinely in my life.
Re:already been done, long ago, in other news:
on
AOL's $299 PC
·
· Score: 1
I have no idea whether or not PeoplePC does it, but the towers that eMachines sends (sent?) out have all unused slots covered by a strip of metal that has been welded onto the case. When I needed a POS PC to throw into the conference room for presentations at my old company, they offered up an eMachine that was sitting on a shelf somewhere. When I went to put in a network card, I realized that this was going to require some honest-to-goodness labor. But by god, I went and borrowed some needle-nose pliers from a service tech and pried that fscker right off in front of the owner of the company, all the while telling him that there's a reason that they sell those things so cheap. Being someone that was afraid of computers, the look on his face as I snapped that strip off with a maniacal scream of triumph was priceless.
"installing any program that includes a component that our system maintenance wizard removes, is in violation of the terms of service for this machine"
So, the customer violates the terms of service by installing something which has a component that will be removed by the spyware removal tool, which they will not know until the spyware removal tool removes it. But, since the terms of servce are violated the moment it's installed, the customer is now screwed. Yes, yes, let's move immediately to this new-and-improved EULA.
I posted this upthread, but I think it's important for everyone to realize that baseball does not have an exemption (nor should they, or any other business, especially the **AA's, those bastards.) It's a commonly held misconception that baseball alone has an antitrust exemption. In fact, this is not true. There is nothing in antitrust law, be it the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, or the Taft-Hartley, that grants Major League Baseball an exemption from anti-trust laws and their penalties. The "exemption" is purely judicial.
The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.
Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.
If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.
It's a commonly held misconception that baseball alone has an antitrust exemption. In fact, this is not true. There is nothing in antitrust law, be it the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, or the Taft-Hartley, that grants Major League Baseball an exemption from anti-trust laws and their penalties. The "exemption" is purely judicial.
The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.
Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.
If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.
If you want POP access to Yahoo! mail, you could always use Yahoo! POPs. It allows you POP access to download your mail directly to whichever client you use (with some exceptions, of course), and to send outbound mail from the same account. I don't use Yahoo! mail, but I do use Hotmail, and Hotmail Popper works wonders for me. I just set up an additional account in Mozilla Mail, set the server address to 127.0.0.1 (obviously, the address is completely user-configurable), and have it, once it downloads the mail from the server, move it into my main account, using the Moz's bayesian filtering along the way. The only downside to these is that you can't run them through your local SpamAssassin, though maybe you can, since I haven't really tried hard enough, and besides, you're still getting your messages straight off the server and opening up space on your account, something you couldn't do before.
I heartily recommend both of these, Hotmail Popper from personal experience, and Yahoo POPs from others'.
For some insane reason it was ruled that the FCC can effectively censor broadcast television.
I guess I'll take the bait on what I'd call a 50 percent chance of flamebait. The "insane reason" that the FCC is allowed to censor broadcast television is that the frequencies are ours. NBC doesn't own the rights to their frequency. We gave it to them.
In return for giving it to them, we require some things. We require that they follow "common decency", which, as you'll note, changes. Lucy and Ricky, Rob and Laura, and countless other couples weren't allowed to share a bed because a plurality of people thought that was improper. You couldn't see Al Bundy on the toilet, and for that matter, the toilet flushing on "All In the Family" was controversial. When things become mainstream, usually through the efforts of some or another groundbreaking show getting away with it, everybody is allowed to do it.
We also require that stations slot a certain amount of time to public service announcements (PSAs). We require time for news, and we require time for matters of national interest, like the State of the Union. We require programs that are suitable for children to watch to be aired when children might be watching.
If you think requirements like these are "insane", then I'll call you what you are: an idiot. Sure, we all disagree with some of the FCC's rulings. Many of us think that the "7 Dirty Words" that George Carlin referenced are words that every child above the age of 10 has heard. But as bad as primetime TV is, imagine a world with no FCC regulations on what can and can't be aired over public airwaves. The FCC has a very good reason for what they do, even if they're misguided at times.
Of course, if being honor students, gifted muscicians, eagle scouts, and a 4 of the damn nicest people I've ever had the joy of knowing is "messed up" I'm also damn glad I don't take this view.
That explains it. If they're Eagle Scouts, then they already see enough porn when the scoutmaster asks them to "stay after".
That's funny. Mozilla 1.4 opens it just fine. And personally, I don't think it's that bad. I've seen much, much worse from commercial websites. Though with your witty "winblows" statement, I'm probably wasting my time.
Maybe if you stopped gleaning all of your "information" from one-sided sources that simply fuel your biased, but obviously uninformed, opinion, you'd actually be capable of arguing your position instead of coming off as some fringe lunatic pushing a looney tunes agenda.
You don't ALWAYS have the best solution, sure. But what the parent was saying is that "a little knowledge is a bad thing." If your boss is technically astute enough to be able to be a sounding board for some ideas, of course that's all fine and dandy. But if your boss thinks he's knowledgeable enough to be a sounding board, but isn't, that's neither fine nor dandy. That means that those little discussions you have in his office aren't you telling him what you plan on doing and either getting approval or disapproval, they're "brainstorming sessions" in which you have to explain yourself multiple times, try different analogies, and finally resort to blatant technical one-upmanship, whereby you start using terms that you know he doesn't know, just to get where you should have been a half-hour earlier. There's nothing with brainstorming and having someone play devil's advocate, but a bad advocate is just a nuisance. If these PHB's are actually getting a good, well-rounded insight into how the technical mind works, and actually thinking about it outside of their tutoring, then I say fantastic. But what's most likely to appear out of this is a bunch of bosses getting a "certification" and thinking that they know things they don't. And nobody wants that.
Is your life not already complicated enough by the numerous tiny, shiny digital things to keep track of that you need to have one more for every piece of software you own? I like tiny, shiny digital things, too, but man, you're hard-core.
The following is purely from isolated personal experience. No study has been done, and none is forthcoming. From me, anyway. -Ed.
Goldmine is a piece of shit. It's buggy, it is absolutely atrocious at handling multiple users retrieving files from a central database server (not really what Goldmine is intended for, but what the poster would have to do to solve his problem), and Goldmine's "support team" might be the worst I've dealt with, and I've dealt with Lexmark. Weeks on end with no answer to a simple question, and then they moved to "web only" support that doesn't even offer a live chat feature so you can talk to, you know, someone. I don't care how good your technical writers are, nothing replaces the power of instant personal communication when you really need it. I digress. From my experiences, Goldmine is an absolutely horrid program, and those involved with it should indeed be sacked.
Those responsible for sacking those who should be sacked have, thesmelves, been sacked. -New Ed.
once you buy something tied to Microsoft's DRM, they now lock you into a cycle of upgrading your OS
I assume you're referring to WM9 being a necessity when you say this. Just a note, though, you don't have to upgrade the OS to run WM9. I'm running WM9 (I'm really not all that pleased with WinAmp) on Windows 98, and I haven't had any problems. Now, that doesn't mean that WM10 won't require you to run XP or Longhorn, and the moment WM10 comes out, that you won't be forced to upgrade it to keep playing your music, but for now, you're not locked in.
Did Yahoo buy Overture to acquire the product that Overture put out in response to Adsense? No. So my point still stands. This isn't about search engines. It's about revenue.
With regard given to the poster above who noted that Overture owns Altavista (which means Y! now owns Altavista), this isn't about search engines, or Yahoo! competing with Google. This is about revenue. Overture doesn't compete in a single marketspace with Google. All they do is provide their particular brand of PPC advertising. The question that needs to be asked (or usually gets asked when a buyout is announced on/.) is "How does this affect the consumer"?
Answer: It depends on who you're talking about. Overture is a wonderful thing to hand to a PHB to make him feel good. It has everything that PHBs love. Gambling, bluffing, seemingly high stakes, and best of all, it counts as "work". I'll never forget the look on my boss' face when I was leaving the company and told him that he would have to (read: get to) control the Overture listings. At that time, Overture had recently gone to a flexible pricing structure, meaning that if you bid $1.00 for a keyword, and your nearest competitor bid 75 cents, and the next bid 50 cents, you would pay 76 cents (1 penny more than the next highest bid), your competitor would pay 51 cents, et al. I was able to devise (at least, that's what I told him I did, after vast amounts of "research"; in reality, I think most dummies could figure this out) a plan. Storm into keywords with bids of upwards of $1.50, where the next highest bid would be in the 20 cent range. The companies bidding 20 cents aren't going to jump you up to $1.51, and you end up only actually paying 21 cents, while scaring off any serious bids to overtake you. Then, and here's where the gamesmanship and paying attention come in, if someone pulls the same thing on you, you bid $1.49 to their $1.50. Now every click costs your competitor $1.50, and only costs you 21 cents, even though you're in second. Bleed them dry. But watch out that they don't drop to $1.48 and turn the tables. My PHB loved this crap. He would sit and click refresh on the bid page just to make sure that Hated Company X wasn't pulling a fast one. Kept him off my back the last week I was there, and I'm sure he's still at it.
All that said, I found Overture to be a gigantic money suck, apparently a good enough one that Yahoo! would like it for themselves. Any industry with decent penetration has enough competition that bidding will get ridiculously out of hand. And I had a pretty good idea that our paid-for-listings on the likes of Yahoo were just cannibalizing the clicks from our actual search listing on Yahoo, and costing us 50 cents a click. Overture may be pretty much idiot-proof, but there are any number of free and relatively easy ways to increase traffic, if you've just got a little time and energy to put into it. So, if Overture changes, or dies, or melds into Yahoo, the PHBs (and those who deal with them) may be disappointed, but those with the ability to do a little actual work shouldn't actually care.
Yes it's voluntary [the MPAA movie ratings] but if a minor tries to see a rated 'r' movie they won't let him. And the theater has the force of the state to back them up when they kick the minor out.
You, sir, are what some refer to as a "fool". Whether you're a misguided one or a malicious one remains to be decided.
The theater can use the force of the state to back them up when they "kick the minor out". That's because of those pesky little things called trespassing laws. A private business can ask you to leave the premises for any number of reasons, and violating their rules of entry would place high on the list of available ones. A sports team or playhouse might ask you to leave if you try to sneak into seats that are more expensive than the one you paid for. Not that I disapprove of doing this, because, as they say, "It ain't cheating if you don't get caught." Regardless, the reason you're being removed is because they have the right to ask you to leave.
This, though, does not mean that the movie ratings have "the force of the state" behind them. There is no state or federal statute to deal with minor entry into an R-rated movie. So, as I said, you're a fool. (Note: X or, in web parlance, XXX!!!! movies, on the other hand, prohibit minors by force of law.)
Sarcasm aside, it does solve the "I wanna bitch" problem, though. You don't use RMX? Then you don't get to bitch about people spoofing your domain on Slashdot. And if you do, rest assured, the/.'ers will gently remind* you of RMX.
*=scream at you about it, post links to the RFC, and mod you into oblivion.
Slashdot Mirror
>Thanks.
>>
>>Yes. Theoden and Denethor die too.
>>>
>>>My friend told me Gollum dies in ROTK. Is
>>>this true?
The humor aside, I ask again, if you've read the posts leading up to the hypothetical end-response in that chain, why would you want to have to scroll past them on every reply to them? Assume that they're actual sentences, or perhaps even paragraphs. I just don't see the point. And if you haven't read the others, why on earth don't you start at the beginning of the thread?
I hadn't even realized they did this crap, because I use Hotmail Popper. I check my Hotmail account via POP, and have it transfer to main account in Mozilla Mail. Rather than repeat it, I'll just throw in the link to my comment about Hotmail Popper and Yahoo! POPs.
So, given that, I always felt it benefitted a greater number of people to be able to immediately see my response, rather than to have to scroll down the message and go past stuff they've already read. I guess it's "to each his own", but damn, I've just never understood why those who are against top-posting are so much more vehement than those who are against bottom-posting.
As another reply mentioned, the dominant language on the Internet is English because that's the way it developed, not because of some conspiracy that should "rub people the wrong way." People are free to do whatever they want. English is the language of choice among air-traffic controllers and pilots around the world, also. Should English-speaking nations apologize for that, too?
I never understood the point of having the signature on the back of the card. By signing it, you're giving the thief an example of your signature, and it takes a person about 2 minutes to learn to forge a reasonable enough copy of your signature to pass a Best Buy clerk's eyeball test. Then it becomes harder to contest, because the signature is somewhat close to yours. I'd rather have them not know what my signature looks like and be able to point to it and say "That's not even close."
Funny, I was just telling someone this story today. I was watching Jurassic Park III (I was high, all right?), and there is a rather lengthy scene in the movie where the protagonists are being chased around by some manner of dinosaur who has apparently swallowed their satellite phone, which someone is calling. So, they run around for a while, and then they hear the ringing from inside the dinosaur, and then they run until he's gone again. But the baffling thing was that sometimes, the phone would ring, but they wouldn't act scared, or even act like they noticed it was ringing while they hid quietly. Only after about a minute did I, and my friend, realize simultaneously that someone's phone in the theatre was ringing in a similar tone to the one in the movie, and that we were hearing that sometimes, and not the one in the dinosaur (Don't smoke weed, kids.) Just as we realized this, an enormous, giant of a man stood up, looked at the kid with the phone a few rows away, and yelled "If you don't shut that fscking phone off, I'll shut you off!" I have never applauded more genuinely in my life.
I have no idea whether or not PeoplePC does it, but the towers that eMachines sends (sent?) out have all unused slots covered by a strip of metal that has been welded onto the case. When I needed a POS PC to throw into the conference room for presentations at my old company, they offered up an eMachine that was sitting on a shelf somewhere. When I went to put in a network card, I realized that this was going to require some honest-to-goodness labor. But by god, I went and borrowed some needle-nose pliers from a service tech and pried that fscker right off in front of the owner of the company, all the while telling him that there's a reason that they sell those things so cheap. Being someone that was afraid of computers, the look on his face as I snapped that strip off with a maniacal scream of triumph was priceless.
So, the customer violates the terms of service by installing something which has a component that will be removed by the spyware removal tool, which they will not know until the spyware removal tool removes it. But, since the terms of servce are violated the moment it's installed, the customer is now screwed. Yes, yes, let's move immediately to this new-and-improved EULA.
Congressmen.
The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.
Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.
If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.
The original judicial review of baseball's anti-competitive actions came in the Federal Baseball case, where, and this is very important, the Court decided that Major League Baseball was not covered by anti-trust laws because it was a game, not a business. In 1953, George Toolson sued MLB, and the Court followed stare decisis, upholding the previous Court's ruling without considering the merits of the case at hand, and of course, in 1972, Flood v. Kuhn, et al. hit the Court, and again, the Court upheld the prior ruling, noting (as they did in the Toolson case), that Congress was responsible for legislation to either uphold or deny baseball its exemption. In other words, the Court recognizes these days that the earlier decision was wrong, but it's Congress' job to fix the problem, not the Court's.
Obviously, baseball is a business. It is an industry with billions in revenues, and it is rapidly becoming a worldwide concern. Ironically, horse racing, boxing, and football have all been specifically deemed subject to anti-trust laws by the same Court(s) that granted baseball its "exemption." (One notable exception: Congress passed legislation specifically exemption of the 1971 NFL-AFL football merger from anti-trust legislation.) That's why Congress is always having legislation introduced to revoke baseball's exemption. It's a major hammer for Congress to wield to affect change in MLB. If they ever actually get around to using it, MLB will be under the same constraints as the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, and scores of other professional leagues, and many of their (still) abhorrent practices can be done away with.
If you've made it this far in this comment, I would highly, highly suggest you pick up a copy of A Whole Different Ball Game, by Marvin Miller, the man who basically created the Major League Baseball Player's Association and single-handedly dealt the owners blow after blow at the bargaining table. You might not like the MLBPA now, what with their $10 million a year contracts and their foot-dragging on steroids, but when you actually read how players were treated before they had a union, you'll be on their side for life.
I heartily recommend both of these, Hotmail Popper from personal experience, and Yahoo POPs from others'.
I guess I'll take the bait on what I'd call a 50 percent chance of flamebait. The "insane reason" that the FCC is allowed to censor broadcast television is that the frequencies are ours. NBC doesn't own the rights to their frequency. We gave it to them.
In return for giving it to them, we require some things. We require that they follow "common decency", which, as you'll note, changes. Lucy and Ricky, Rob and Laura, and countless other couples weren't allowed to share a bed because a plurality of people thought that was improper. You couldn't see Al Bundy on the toilet, and for that matter, the toilet flushing on "All In the Family" was controversial. When things become mainstream, usually through the efforts of some or another groundbreaking show getting away with it, everybody is allowed to do it.
We also require that stations slot a certain amount of time to public service announcements (PSAs). We require time for news, and we require time for matters of national interest, like the State of the Union. We require programs that are suitable for children to watch to be aired when children might be watching.
If you think requirements like these are "insane", then I'll call you what you are: an idiot. Sure, we all disagree with some of the FCC's rulings. Many of us think that the "7 Dirty Words" that George Carlin referenced are words that every child above the age of 10 has heard. But as bad as primetime TV is, imagine a world with no FCC regulations on what can and can't be aired over public airwaves. The FCC has a very good reason for what they do, even if they're misguided at times.
That explains it. If they're Eagle Scouts, then they already see enough porn when the scoutmaster asks them to "stay after".
That's funny. Mozilla 1.4 opens it just fine. And personally, I don't think it's that bad. I've seen much, much worse from commercial websites. Though with your witty "winblows" statement, I'm probably wasting my time.
So I'm supposed to feel sorry for you because, by your own numbers, you only make 40 bucks to 60 bucks an hour? Sorry, the sympathy pot is all full.
But I like reading Slashdot.
You don't ALWAYS have the best solution, sure. But what the parent was saying is that "a little knowledge is a bad thing." If your boss is technically astute enough to be able to be a sounding board for some ideas, of course that's all fine and dandy. But if your boss thinks he's knowledgeable enough to be a sounding board, but isn't, that's neither fine nor dandy. That means that those little discussions you have in his office aren't you telling him what you plan on doing and either getting approval or disapproval, they're "brainstorming sessions" in which you have to explain yourself multiple times, try different analogies, and finally resort to blatant technical one-upmanship, whereby you start using terms that you know he doesn't know, just to get where you should have been a half-hour earlier. There's nothing with brainstorming and having someone play devil's advocate, but a bad advocate is just a nuisance. If these PHB's are actually getting a good, well-rounded insight into how the technical mind works, and actually thinking about it outside of their tutoring, then I say fantastic. But what's most likely to appear out of this is a bunch of bosses getting a "certification" and thinking that they know things they don't. And nobody wants that.
Is your life not already complicated enough by the numerous tiny, shiny digital things to keep track of that you need to have one more for every piece of software you own? I like tiny, shiny digital things, too, but man, you're hard-core.
Goldmine is a piece of shit. It's buggy, it is absolutely atrocious at handling multiple users retrieving files from a central database server (not really what Goldmine is intended for, but what the poster would have to do to solve his problem), and Goldmine's "support team" might be the worst I've dealt with, and I've dealt with Lexmark. Weeks on end with no answer to a simple question, and then they moved to "web only" support that doesn't even offer a live chat feature so you can talk to, you know, someone. I don't care how good your technical writers are, nothing replaces the power of instant personal communication when you really need it. I digress. From my experiences, Goldmine is an absolutely horrid program, and those involved with it should indeed be sacked.
Those responsible for sacking those who should be sacked have, thesmelves, been sacked. -New Ed.
I assume you're referring to WM9 being a necessity when you say this. Just a note, though, you don't have to upgrade the OS to run WM9. I'm running WM9 (I'm really not all that pleased with WinAmp) on Windows 98, and I haven't had any problems. Now, that doesn't mean that WM10 won't require you to run XP or Longhorn, and the moment WM10 comes out, that you won't be forced to upgrade it to keep playing your music, but for now, you're not locked in.
Did Yahoo buy Overture to acquire the product that Overture put out in response to Adsense? No. So my point still stands. This isn't about search engines. It's about revenue.
Answer: It depends on who you're talking about. Overture is a wonderful thing to hand to a PHB to make him feel good. It has everything that PHBs love. Gambling, bluffing, seemingly high stakes, and best of all, it counts as "work". I'll never forget the look on my boss' face when I was leaving the company and told him that he would have to (read: get to) control the Overture listings. At that time, Overture had recently gone to a flexible pricing structure, meaning that if you bid $1.00 for a keyword, and your nearest competitor bid 75 cents, and the next bid 50 cents, you would pay 76 cents (1 penny more than the next highest bid), your competitor would pay 51 cents, et al. I was able to devise (at least, that's what I told him I did, after vast amounts of "research"; in reality, I think most dummies could figure this out) a plan. Storm into keywords with bids of upwards of $1.50, where the next highest bid would be in the 20 cent range. The companies bidding 20 cents aren't going to jump you up to $1.51, and you end up only actually paying 21 cents, while scaring off any serious bids to overtake you. Then, and here's where the gamesmanship and paying attention come in, if someone pulls the same thing on you, you bid $1.49 to their $1.50. Now every click costs your competitor $1.50, and only costs you 21 cents, even though you're in second. Bleed them dry. But watch out that they don't drop to $1.48 and turn the tables. My PHB loved this crap. He would sit and click refresh on the bid page just to make sure that Hated Company X wasn't pulling a fast one. Kept him off my back the last week I was there, and I'm sure he's still at it.
All that said, I found Overture to be a gigantic money suck, apparently a good enough one that Yahoo! would like it for themselves. Any industry with decent penetration has enough competition that bidding will get ridiculously out of hand. And I had a pretty good idea that our paid-for-listings on the likes of Yahoo were just cannibalizing the clicks from our actual search listing on Yahoo, and costing us 50 cents a click. Overture may be pretty much idiot-proof, but there are any number of free and relatively easy ways to increase traffic, if you've just got a little time and energy to put into it. So, if Overture changes, or dies, or melds into Yahoo, the PHBs (and those who deal with them) may be disappointed, but those with the ability to do a little actual work shouldn't actually care.
You, sir, are what some refer to as a "fool". Whether you're a misguided one or a malicious one remains to be decided.
The theater can use the force of the state to back them up when they "kick the minor out". That's because of those pesky little things called trespassing laws. A private business can ask you to leave the premises for any number of reasons, and violating their rules of entry would place high on the list of available ones. A sports team or playhouse might ask you to leave if you try to sneak into seats that are more expensive than the one you paid for. Not that I disapprove of doing this, because, as they say, "It ain't cheating if you don't get caught." Regardless, the reason you're being removed is because they have the right to ask you to leave.
This, though, does not mean that the movie ratings have "the force of the state" behind them. There is no state or federal statute to deal with minor entry into an R-rated movie. So, as I said, you're a fool. (Note: X or, in web parlance, XXX!!!! movies, on the other hand, prohibit minors by force of law.)
*=scream at you about it, post links to the RFC, and mod you into oblivion.