I also was looking forward to a headless desktop that was less expensive than the Mac Pro. I've looked at pricing on a single CPU with 3-year Apple care. But once I add a few upgrades - even when I do it myself - its well over $3000: I need a monitor, an extra HDD, bluetooth. As I only have an iMac G5, I don't have a monitor from an existing system. I was budgeting around $1800 - which would be iMac range, but I'm not going to put up with the disadvantages of the iMac or a Mini. I'm thinking with the lack of desktop choices from Apple, my first Apple system will also be my last sadly. I wonder if I'm not the only one thinking the same thing. Hello Apple?!
I think if ZFS becomes a new native FS to OS X (e.g. disk can be formatted to ZFS) we might not see it released until 10.6. Apple probably won't release a 10.5.x boot disk for users to reinstall the OS with ZFS as their boot drive. I think the changeover would be too "drastic" to not be part of 10.6. And it gives opportunity to have users buy an upgrade.
I'm excited to see ZFS get adopted into OS X. I've read some info about it and am really eager to take advantage of it. It would be really cool of Microsoft to run it native on Windows!
When I first "tried" adopting Linux back in mid-90's (more on that later), I posted some comments in newsgroups and if I vaguely remember some popular web-forums. It took days to get a proper response, and much of it was RTFM you noob. They didn't know or understand from my post that I had read everything and still didn't understand it and I'm a very computer literate user. Using Linux at that time needed being computer literate but there are levels of interpretation. Now the documentation is better for some programs but the stumbling blocks continue to be: 1) the GUI 2) OS configuration 3) too many apps with non-descriptive names 4) documentation. But, when casually looking on web forums, I still see rude or snide RTFM comments in 'Nix groups in general and less so in Windows.
Those 4 areas still need a lot of work. But more than anything, making things simpler for different *types* of users would be the best thing to do. For example, people often complain that MS Office is too hard to learn. Too many buttons/features and I don't use them all. OO has a comparable number of menu choices in Writer, Calc etc. So why not make an interface: Granny mode, Office user mode, Geek mode. Granny might just want to type one letter a year. File, Save, Print. That's her menu. Office user would want options to change fonts and so on. Geek... all the options.
Ditto compiling the kernel - but no granny mode there. I've been using computers a long time. I know most of the techie lingo and hardware and can program a bit. But there are simply too many *confusing* choices in compiling the kernel. Some are *needed* or the system won't boot but its never made clear which those are.
How does this relate to topic? Well you can't promote if it looks too complicate or with the 4 other ideas I mentioned that I found lacking. I'd happily use OO but the interface looks silly and the menus are confusing. I have a hard time thinking management or most employees would start using OO for those same reasons despite some companies already taking it up. Improve those two areas and it'll be hard to resist. If anything, I really want use OO for OOXML. I care about that, and I'm sure it won't take much to convince others that its really important too. The FOSS principles aren't as important as being able to access documents 5-10 years from now.
Re:The best tools stay out of the way...
on
Goodbye Cruel Word
·
· Score: 1
I'm a Mac and PC user. I've toyed with different word processors. I'm not a writer by profession but am taking it up as a hobby right now and am looking at pursuing more seriously later. In this way, I've been looking at various programs on both Mac and PC to use as a word processor.
Pages is good but there are some layout quirks. Word has some serious problems with formatting which eventually causes one to layout the document all over again. These bugs have existed since Word '97. Writeroom and a few specialized apps on the Mac are nice ways of doing things but they're kind of distracting. I purchased and used CopyWrite (http://www.bartastechnologies.com/products/copywrite/) but there haven't been many updates and there were a few features I'd like to see added. Nevertheless, its the best program I've found so far. I've tried to learn Vi or Emacs but I don't want to lose my hair... I'm still young! In all honesty, I'd love a program crossing interface with Nano/Pico and Wordperfect. There's quirks in each that could be fixed. That would be perfect for writing environment to me. IMO, a word processor shouldn't make the user care about which font is being used, etc.
Once finished with the writing portion, I've been looking into some DTP programs to make a nice PDF document. I'm working on my portfolio at the moment and am unsure which program I should use as I will need to have it professionally printed. Any suggestions? Please no TeX/LaTex suggestions.... I had a supposedly great book on learning the markup and completely lost patience its way too complicated to learn.
I'd like a news update: are the Columbia House and those Mail Order catalog companies still sending truckload of junk-mail catalogues to his house? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/06/1554227 (I have to admit this linked post had to have been the most rewarding news items I'd read in many years).
I don't think its great to hear that another person is being locked behind bars. But Ralsky knew the law and continued to cost companies millions of dollars and many people to lose their hair, I'm sure, after being inundated with SPAM. I don't work in IT, but I worked in "tech support" some years ago. I can't say the customers I dealt with weren't careful with e-mail addresses or getting a virus on their computer. But people shouldn't have to put up with getting a mailbox full of 10,000 messages for all kinds of crap when they just want to get e-mail for business purposes or check on a family member. Often people just "deleted" everything. I honestly wanted to help most people out with filters and such but seeing some of the subject lines of those e-mails, I was explained on the phone, made customers delete everything in 2 seconds.
One doc type to rule them all
on
RTF Vs. OOXML
·
· Score: 1
Food for thought: I was hoping someone would come out with one document type to rule them all. It would be kind of nice if web pages could run from 'integrated' document like a PDF which, would adjust itself based on screen res. You still have your master document, and have your app do all the background code (but there could be add-ons for the language like Latex so you can add technical fonts for math).
If this were to become standard, we could have simpler web-pages, a standard document type with WYSIWYG compatibility, embedded fonts and changeable style sheets (especially for the visually impaired). It would also be nice since *one* language could help create portable, always "readable" documents and would code for any type of document and webpage. And it would probably be a lot easier for web-developers (one file to deal with) and web-browser programmers (one standard format and not a mingling of them all).
I don't know, but it seems with all the complaints that there's too many competing standards, now would be a great time to come up with *one*.
Personally and professionally speaking, with the amount of documents I've amassed in WPD, Word and god-know-what other formats and not many good "translation" scripts to one standard document format, it would be ideal to get this one standard format. Otherwise, it does make it hard to choose which to use.
I was about to ask something about ECC myself for a system with 4 GB RAM. I've seen the prices and shuddered as its being considered for SOHO use. Would ECC help prevent bit-flipping errors or would my money be better spent elsewhere when building a new system (e.g. better power supply)? I would think that higher or over-clocked memory could cause more 'errors' then would be accounted for from bit-flipping.
As a SOHO user, my understanding is that random bit flips while writing data can cause major problems down the road like when restoring from a backup if the original or backup file were bit-flipped at some time. I can't recall ever having a problem with a file I've restored or helped others restore so I know this to still be a rare instance in a SOHO environment. But my computer is quite an important tool (as I'm sure it is for most people) and holds many important files. Does it make sense to get ECC to help prevent bit-flipping in backups? I usually RAR and PAR my important files and copy using rsync (with error checking). And, similar to original parent's question, I also use large data sets with math programs at home (more for learning and nothing serious).
I'm with you on that all the way and I have the same iMac. Personally, I hate that the LCD is permanently "locked in" to the system most. If it dies or I want to use it in another system, I can't. Also, video card upgrade can't happen (although there aren't any Mac games for PPC that could use one but the Intels have the same problem). Lastly, having no upgradable internal HDD is the second biggest problem. Ohhh, its nice and sleek for a system. The internal DVD reader is crap and spits out some CDs/DVDs, won't eject bad ones unless you restart the computer, and doesn't like many brands of blanks. I now have two external HDD and one DVD enclosure. It would be a heck of alot easier to manage my desk space were these inside a bloody tower. The glossy screens on the new iMacs are definitely not an option for me and I won't be buying one.
So all things being equal, I'd get neither the XPS One or a new iMac, as both suffer all the same problems above. And yes, I'd also like to see a Mac Medium tower system similar to the Mac Pro but at a lower ($1500) cost without all the problems (as above) of the iMac or Mini.
It is heartening to read just before the Christmas holidays that employees that were pink-slipped this year were being offered to come back to work at Circuit City. Nothing is ever better than coming back to work for a company where you loved to work for many years when suddenly, as in this case, you may have been let-go for actions that were not yours in the making.
But wait! Did I read that they were being offered entry-level positions for the same jobs they held before for even less money?
If I were one of the pink-slipped employees, I would send my resume and cover letter direct to corporate HQ and apply for an Executive entry-level position. After all, many "entry level" positions advertised rarely specify what salary or role in the company is being offered. Perhaps then, these employees were being offered entry-level executive positions, but a misguidance from HR never indicated this to them. Executives have to start somewhere and these million dollar bonuses sound entry level to me. Many executives command significantly higher bonuses.
Dictionary - Encyclopedia - Textbook: sums up Wikipedia quite well. I see no problem with putting up proofs. I would only ask authors to add mode text that doesn't require specialized knowledge to understand. Many of the science and math entries require a degree to understand. Many Wikipedia surely have though "Hmmm.... this is a cool concept but I want to learn more, I'll look it up on Wikipedia". Only, that when they do look it up, its such a complex, arcane answer, they vow not to look up science or math related material on Wikipedia anymore.
Its happened to me more than a few times. Science and math are getting to be extremely specific fields. I'm sure there's a few articles only a handful of people really understand. This doesn't happen with an Encyclopedia Britannia. Only that people are expecting content just like that.
The people entering Wikipedia articles are doing a wonderful job. I'd just like to see that more content for the 'science and math lay person' is considered as well.
I happen to think this is perfectly reasonable. Lawyers create huge paper trails to create a chain of evidence to win their case. They're always confident they will win. And many make more money per hour than does a surgeon. When you combine these two factors together, we should always expect a lawyer to win. Otherwise, why pay them that much money? Truly, I would like to see more people sue their lawyers after winning a case. Its just the kick in the arse many lawyers need.
I think the other problem on affordability, is that many software packages are not affordable for those of us who want to learn at home for career development purposes. This not only applies to mathematical software but also much of business software and creative software (video, document layout, etc), CAD, etc. . It would be nice to pay $100 for a yearly license or have a limited non-expiring demo that can only be used for non-commercial purposes or watermarking in someway the end results so that if used in a non-commercial purpose it would be evident an unlicensed copy was used.
I don't want to be unfair to the companies I've enquired about this problem by naming them, but I'm often quoted that I would qualify for an academic license which expires within the software after 1 year with no upgrade options for $1000. After a work day I don't have much "time" to learn the software at home and $1000 is steep for the amount of time I would use it. The problem, simply, is that my program at college did not teach me adequately how to use a given software package or I was not taught it but know it is used in the field. If I'm to have several years experience with software to qualify for a job, I'd at least like to say that I know how to use it, but not in the workplace. Is there no solution in this case? I know I am not alone as my friends and colleagues would love to take on some computer software learning time.
This is a scenario that plagues the entire service industry - wether its sales, customer service or retail. I've worked in the first two sectors for close to a decade. I'm one of the few who actually follows up with people and gets them the right information. I'm quite aghast when I hear a colleague or when I call a company and they say "I'll follow up with you" when I know, in fact, that they will not.
I've encountered this even more so in retail. I guess this could be explained because salaries tend to be lower, employees tend to be less qualified, and with 'incentives' of commissions on their low pay - the likelihood of BS answers to get the sale are all the more likely.
Rest assured, the problem is them not you. Most probably these managers already know that but they want to follow the company policy to a "T". I'm sure company policies are strictly followed at retail especially at CompUSAs and similar stores. Whatever unethical practices they have, they have to make sure all stores follow it equally. After all, they have a reputation to uphold.;)
The Internet is intended to be a medium to communicate ideas widely. I respect that the Mozilla, Opera, IE developers don't have an easy job. But page layout on web pages is absolutely horrendous - imagining a site in a certain way almost never pans out as you'd expect. Especially when it comes to casual web developers. Its a bit of a fine art and a battle of which computer OS you have access to. Don't have Windows, well then you'll never be able to test or fix your site for IE.
This, I think is a big problem, because HTML and other web languages are all based in English (fine syntax isn't really that hard) *and* many developing nations are using Linux computers like the OLPC to access the Internet. And there's accessibility concerns, XHTML compliance, mobile devices.
I know what I'm bringing up isn't new. I'm suggesting that if coding a webpage becomes any more difficult with new browsers, standards or devices in use that it might turn away the casual users (responsible for the billions of pages) to just stop. Even if a free program made everything automated, it would have to as simple or simpler than it had been in the late 90's when the web exploded to have nice looking pages Joe-user can code.
I have a PPC system on Leopard and compared to Tiger its relatively the same with few if any crashes. If anything crashed on me it was Safari beta and Safari 2 but Safari 3 is much improved. I'd also say the Finder is much better in Leopard but it still sucks with copying and moving files. I use the command line for that (not that I mind). But this is the OS X experience for most users and should be able to rely on Finder.
Spotlight seems to take longer, but I also recall disabling it on the command line as it would hang for days at first install. Tried to re-index it and then turned it off. At least, I thought I did, but it is still turned on.
I have written to my MP on several occasions on relatively simple issues or hot-button topics and have found the answers sum up to basically: interesting point of view glad you wrote, issue is too too complicated to deal with, will take too long to address or you're pissing up the wrong tree. After trying several other trees or having my letters passed around, I found the whole thing discouraging and don't intend to write to them again.
I was watching a speech on a Rogers community channel recently where Ted Rogers was giving a speech in Ottawa. He outlined that the open spectrum bidding wasn't necessarily a bad thing but in essence Rogers has built its network using borrowed money, incurred debts which it is repaying now. As a result he says it wouldn't be fair for a new upstart to just come in and start without having to pay for lines while it bought access at a reduced rate for 5 years while it accumulates cash and builts its cash reserves and builds its network.
On the one hand, I don't disagree with him. On the other, Canadian cell pricing as compared to the US is much more expensive especially on Data plans. Yes, vast country small population we have. But until the cell rates come down - with or without competition, I can't see that I'd agree with Ted Rogers on this. I'd like to at leat get unlimited evennings after 7 pm on my phone instead of 9 pm rather than having to pay an extra $10 a month for it. I don't see my self getting a land-line anytime soon. I've chosen to get a cell, yes. And I'm incurring higher fees. But any LD calls I make are on VOIP. I don't have cable and only get hi-speed internet. I don't want to get more services from Bell, Telus or Rogers, unless price comes down.
That was an awesome plan! I signed up under Fido when they were Rogers. I found the service quite alright. I have a Blackberry on Telus right now though as I found rates to be more competitive than Bell or Rogers cell or otherwise. I'm not a heavy data user, but I find the data rates are absurd. I'm not a cell phone techie, but when you are making a call on a digital network and transfering bits and bytes across different cell networks how is that any different than downloading data off the Net? Why the huge discrepancy in billing rates?
For the DSL access, I'd suggest looking into TekSavvy. They are setting up an ISP service in BC this Winter. I'm an Ontario resident and will be moving to BC in the spring (yes, another one!). The service with TekSavvy is fantastic and I'm signing up with them when I'm out-West. They say it will still be true unlimited high-speed DSL depending on the peering package you choose. Or Netscape.com, I hear also services BC and is unlimited DSL for $29.99 (not the dry line rate though).
To expand a bit, and what I meant to get at is in your 2nd para. Hits the nail on the head. The problem is MS has virtually limitless resources. Takes Xbox 360 - it makes DirectX, makes accessories for the system, has a game studio that used to develop but now markets the games (yes Nintendo and Sony do the same thing), has pre-existing relationships with suppliers like ATI, Nvidia. This also helps MS corner the Windows game market.
It would certainly be very difficult for any newcomer to make a competing game system. I don't think there will be now as its a multi-billion dollar, long-term investment.
And I didn't mean to imply, kick MS out of the game market now. No. But, I am saying as a government, I think the role should be to stop them from going into new markets especially where it involves a combination of hardware and software as they can really use their market influence. I'm not Pro-gov't regulation of much of anything and certainly don't want/like to see them interfere in the free market much.
The Windows CE devices aren't so bad because MS doesn't make the hardware. The HW developers bundle and sell their products and give MS a cut for the SW design. The SW design is good to some degree for this market since standardizes software and lets developers do the rest - the old "Windows" model. If this were ever to occur it obviously needs to be a case-by-case basis. If its a question of whether MS would be profitable long term, let them do it. Too many jobs and money is at stake and MS is a good company.
Slashdot Mirror
I also was looking forward to a headless desktop that was less expensive than the Mac Pro. I've looked at pricing on a single CPU with 3-year Apple care. But once I add a few upgrades - even when I do it myself - its well over $3000: I need a monitor, an extra HDD, bluetooth. As I only have an iMac G5, I don't have a monitor from an existing system. I was budgeting around $1800 - which would be iMac range, but I'm not going to put up with the disadvantages of the iMac or a Mini. I'm thinking with the lack of desktop choices from Apple, my first Apple system will also be my last sadly. I wonder if I'm not the only one thinking the same thing. Hello Apple?!
I think if ZFS becomes a new native FS to OS X (e.g. disk can be formatted to ZFS) we might not see it released until 10.6. Apple probably won't release a 10.5.x boot disk for users to reinstall the OS with ZFS as their boot drive. I think the changeover would be too "drastic" to not be part of 10.6. And it gives opportunity to have users buy an upgrade.
I'm excited to see ZFS get adopted into OS X. I've read some info about it and am really eager to take advantage of it. It would be really cool of Microsoft to run it native on Windows!
When I first "tried" adopting Linux back in mid-90's (more on that later), I posted some comments in newsgroups and if I vaguely remember some popular web-forums. It took days to get a proper response, and much of it was RTFM you noob. They didn't know or understand from my post that I had read everything and still didn't understand it and I'm a very computer literate user. Using Linux at that time needed being computer literate but there are levels of interpretation. Now the documentation is better for some programs but the stumbling blocks continue to be: 1) the GUI 2) OS configuration 3) too many apps with non-descriptive names 4) documentation. But, when casually looking on web forums, I still see rude or snide RTFM comments in 'Nix groups in general and less so in Windows.
... all the options.
Those 4 areas still need a lot of work. But more than anything, making things simpler for different *types* of users would be the best thing to do. For example, people often complain that MS Office is too hard to learn. Too many buttons/features and I don't use them all. OO has a comparable number of menu choices in Writer, Calc etc. So why not make an interface: Granny mode, Office user mode, Geek mode. Granny might just want to type one letter a year. File, Save, Print. That's her menu. Office user would want options to change fonts and so on. Geek
Ditto compiling the kernel - but no granny mode there. I've been using computers a long time. I know most of the techie lingo and hardware and can program a bit. But there are simply too many *confusing* choices in compiling the kernel. Some are *needed* or the system won't boot but its never made clear which those are.
How does this relate to topic? Well you can't promote if it looks too complicate or with the 4 other ideas I mentioned that I found lacking. I'd happily use OO but the interface looks silly and the menus are confusing. I have a hard time thinking management or most employees would start using OO for those same reasons despite some companies already taking it up. Improve those two areas and it'll be hard to resist. If anything, I really want use OO for OOXML. I care about that, and I'm sure it won't take much to convince others that its really important too. The FOSS principles aren't as important as being able to access documents 5-10 years from now.
I'm a Mac and PC user. I've toyed with different word processors. I'm not a writer by profession but am taking it up as a hobby right now and am looking at pursuing more seriously later. In this way, I've been looking at various programs on both Mac and PC to use as a word processor.
.... I had a supposedly great book on learning the markup and completely lost patience its way too complicated to learn.
Pages is good but there are some layout quirks. Word has some serious problems with formatting which eventually causes one to layout the document all over again. These bugs have existed since Word '97. Writeroom and a few specialized apps on the Mac are nice ways of doing things but they're kind of distracting. I purchased and used CopyWrite (http://www.bartastechnologies.com/products/copywrite/) but there haven't been many updates and there were a few features I'd like to see added. Nevertheless, its the best program I've found so far. I've tried to learn Vi or Emacs but I don't want to lose my hair... I'm still young! In all honesty, I'd love a program crossing interface with Nano/Pico and Wordperfect. There's quirks in each that could be fixed. That would be perfect for writing environment to me. IMO, a word processor shouldn't make the user care about which font is being used, etc.
Once finished with the writing portion, I've been looking into some DTP programs to make a nice PDF document. I'm working on my portfolio at the moment and am unsure which program I should use as I will need to have it professionally printed. Any suggestions? Please no TeX/LaTex suggestions
I'd like a news update: are the Columbia House and those Mail Order catalog companies still sending truckload of junk-mail catalogues to his house? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/06/1554227 (I have to admit this linked post had to have been the most rewarding news items I'd read in many years).
I don't think its great to hear that another person is being locked behind bars. But Ralsky knew the law and continued to cost companies millions of dollars and many people to lose their hair, I'm sure, after being inundated with SPAM. I don't work in IT, but I worked in "tech support" some years ago. I can't say the customers I dealt with weren't careful with e-mail addresses or getting a virus on their computer. But people shouldn't have to put up with getting a mailbox full of 10,000 messages for all kinds of crap when they just want to get e-mail for business purposes or check on a family member. Often people just "deleted" everything. I honestly wanted to help most people out with filters and such but seeing some of the subject lines of those e-mails, I was explained on the phone, made customers delete everything in 2 seconds.
Food for thought: I was hoping someone would come out with one document type to rule them all. It would be kind of nice if web pages could run from 'integrated' document like a PDF which, would adjust itself based on screen res. You still have your master document, and have your app do all the background code (but there could be add-ons for the language like Latex so you can add technical fonts for math).
If this were to become standard, we could have simpler web-pages, a standard document type with WYSIWYG compatibility, embedded fonts and changeable style sheets (especially for the visually impaired). It would also be nice since *one* language could help create portable, always "readable" documents and would code for any type of document and webpage. And it would probably be a lot easier for web-developers (one file to deal with) and web-browser programmers (one standard format and not a mingling of them all).
I don't know, but it seems with all the complaints that there's too many competing standards, now would be a great time to come up with *one*.
Personally and professionally speaking, with the amount of documents I've amassed in WPD, Word and god-know-what other formats and not many good "translation" scripts to one standard document format, it would be ideal to get this one standard format. Otherwise, it does make it hard to choose which to use.
I don't ever plan on having children now that I can donate all day long to science!
I've read reports that journalists have a million billion* words in their vocabularies. Exabyte seems to be one of the few missing.
;)
*Sorry, had to.
Thanks for the kind reply! :)
I was about to ask something about ECC myself for a system with 4 GB RAM. I've seen the prices and shuddered as its being considered for SOHO use. Would ECC help prevent bit-flipping errors or would my money be better spent elsewhere when building a new system (e.g. better power supply)? I would think that higher or over-clocked memory could cause more 'errors' then would be accounted for from bit-flipping.
As a SOHO user, my understanding is that random bit flips while writing data can cause major problems down the road like when restoring from a backup if the original or backup file were bit-flipped at some time. I can't recall ever having a problem with a file I've restored or helped others restore so I know this to still be a rare instance in a SOHO environment. But my computer is quite an important tool (as I'm sure it is for most people) and holds many important files. Does it make sense to get ECC to help prevent bit-flipping in backups? I usually RAR and PAR my important files and copy using rsync (with error checking). And, similar to original parent's question, I also use large data sets with math programs at home (more for learning and nothing serious).
I'm with you on that all the way and I have the same iMac. Personally, I hate that the LCD is permanently "locked in" to the system most. If it dies or I want to use it in another system, I can't. Also, video card upgrade can't happen (although there aren't any Mac games for PPC that could use one but the Intels have the same problem). Lastly, having no upgradable internal HDD is the second biggest problem. Ohhh, its nice and sleek for a system. The internal DVD reader is crap and spits out some CDs/DVDs, won't eject bad ones unless you restart the computer, and doesn't like many brands of blanks. I now have two external HDD and one DVD enclosure. It would be a heck of alot easier to manage my desk space were these inside a bloody tower. The glossy screens on the new iMacs are definitely not an option for me and I won't be buying one.
So all things being equal, I'd get neither the XPS One or a new iMac, as both suffer all the same problems above. And yes, I'd also like to see a Mac Medium tower system similar to the Mac Pro but at a lower ($1500) cost without all the problems (as above) of the iMac or Mini.
Which came first ... This sense of programming/API logic from Microsoft or my Slashdot username?
It is heartening to read just before the Christmas holidays that employees that were pink-slipped this year were being offered to come back to work at Circuit City. Nothing is ever better than coming back to work for a company where you loved to work for many years when suddenly, as in this case, you may have been let-go for actions that were not yours in the making.
But wait! Did I read that they were being offered entry-level positions for the same jobs they held before for even less money?
If I were one of the pink-slipped employees, I would send my resume and cover letter direct to corporate HQ and apply for an Executive entry-level position. After all, many "entry level" positions advertised rarely specify what salary or role in the company is being offered. Perhaps then, these employees were being offered entry-level executive positions, but a misguidance from HR never indicated this to them. Executives have to start somewhere and these million dollar bonuses sound entry level to me. Many executives command significantly higher bonuses.
If most people never saw the thread, did it exist in the first place?
Dictionary - Encyclopedia - Textbook: sums up Wikipedia quite well. I see no problem with putting up proofs. I would only ask authors to add mode text that doesn't require specialized knowledge to understand. Many of the science and math entries require a degree to understand. Many Wikipedia surely have though "Hmmm.... this is a cool concept but I want to learn more, I'll look it up on Wikipedia". Only, that when they do look it up, its such a complex, arcane answer, they vow not to look up science or math related material on Wikipedia anymore.
Its happened to me more than a few times. Science and math are getting to be extremely specific fields. I'm sure there's a few articles only a handful of people really understand. This doesn't happen with an Encyclopedia Britannia. Only that people are expecting content just like that.
The people entering Wikipedia articles are doing a wonderful job. I'd just like to see that more content for the 'science and math lay person' is considered as well.
I happen to think this is perfectly reasonable. Lawyers create huge paper trails to create a chain of evidence to win their case. They're always confident they will win. And many make more money per hour than does a surgeon. When you combine these two factors together, we should always expect a lawyer to win. Otherwise, why pay them that much money? Truly, I would like to see more people sue their lawyers after winning a case. Its just the kick in the arse many lawyers need.
I think the other problem on affordability, is that many software packages are not affordable for those of us who want to learn at home for career development purposes. This not only applies to mathematical software but also much of business software and creative software (video, document layout, etc), CAD, etc. . It would be nice to pay $100 for a yearly license or have a limited non-expiring demo that can only be used for non-commercial purposes or watermarking in someway the end results so that if used in a non-commercial purpose it would be evident an unlicensed copy was used.
I don't want to be unfair to the companies I've enquired about this problem by naming them, but I'm often quoted that I would qualify for an academic license which expires within the software after 1 year with no upgrade options for $1000. After a work day I don't have much "time" to learn the software at home and $1000 is steep for the amount of time I would use it. The problem, simply, is that my program at college did not teach me adequately how to use a given software package or I was not taught it but know it is used in the field. If I'm to have several years experience with software to qualify for a job, I'd at least like to say that I know how to use it, but not in the workplace. Is there no solution in this case? I know I am not alone as my friends and colleagues would love to take on some computer software learning time.
This is a scenario that plagues the entire service industry - wether its sales, customer service or retail. I've worked in the first two sectors for close to a decade. I'm one of the few who actually follows up with people and gets them the right information. I'm quite aghast when I hear a colleague or when I call a company and they say "I'll follow up with you" when I know, in fact, that they will not.
;)
I've encountered this even more so in retail. I guess this could be explained because salaries tend to be lower, employees tend to be less qualified, and with 'incentives' of commissions on their low pay - the likelihood of BS answers to get the sale are all the more likely.
Rest assured, the problem is them not you. Most probably these managers already know that but they want to follow the company policy to a "T". I'm sure company policies are strictly followed at retail especially at CompUSAs and similar stores. Whatever unethical practices they have, they have to make sure all stores follow it equally. After all, they have a reputation to uphold.
The Internet is intended to be a medium to communicate ideas widely. I respect that the Mozilla, Opera, IE developers don't have an easy job. But page layout on web pages is absolutely horrendous - imagining a site in a certain way almost never pans out as you'd expect. Especially when it comes to casual web developers. Its a bit of a fine art and a battle of which computer OS you have access to. Don't have Windows, well then you'll never be able to test or fix your site for IE.
This, I think is a big problem, because HTML and other web languages are all based in English (fine syntax isn't really that hard) *and* many developing nations are using Linux computers like the OLPC to access the Internet. And there's accessibility concerns, XHTML compliance, mobile devices.
I know what I'm bringing up isn't new. I'm suggesting that if coding a webpage becomes any more difficult with new browsers, standards or devices in use that it might turn away the casual users (responsible for the billions of pages) to just stop. Even if a free program made everything automated, it would have to as simple or simpler than it had been in the late 90's when the web exploded to have nice looking pages Joe-user can code.
No. It will make it 20% faster.
No further comment.
I have a PPC system on Leopard and compared to Tiger its relatively the same with few if any crashes. If anything crashed on me it was Safari beta and Safari 2 but Safari 3 is much improved. I'd also say the Finder is much better in Leopard but it still sucks with copying and moving files. I use the command line for that (not that I mind). But this is the OS X experience for most users and should be able to rely on Finder.
Spotlight seems to take longer, but I also recall disabling it on the command line as it would hang for days at first install. Tried to re-index it and then turned it off. At least, I thought I did, but it is still turned on.
I have written to my MP on several occasions on relatively simple issues or hot-button topics and have found the answers sum up to basically: interesting point of view glad you wrote, issue is too too complicated to deal with, will take too long to address or you're pissing up the wrong tree. After trying several other trees or having my letters passed around, I found the whole thing discouraging and don't intend to write to them again.
I was watching a speech on a Rogers community channel recently where Ted Rogers was giving a speech in Ottawa. He outlined that the open spectrum bidding wasn't necessarily a bad thing but in essence Rogers has built its network using borrowed money, incurred debts which it is repaying now. As a result he says it wouldn't be fair for a new upstart to just come in and start without having to pay for lines while it bought access at a reduced rate for 5 years while it accumulates cash and builts its cash reserves and builds its network.
On the one hand, I don't disagree with him. On the other, Canadian cell pricing as compared to the US is much more expensive especially on Data plans. Yes, vast country small population we have. But until the cell rates come down - with or without competition, I can't see that I'd agree with Ted Rogers on this. I'd like to at leat get unlimited evennings after 7 pm on my phone instead of 9 pm rather than having to pay an extra $10 a month for it. I don't see my self getting a land-line anytime soon. I've chosen to get a cell, yes. And I'm incurring higher fees. But any LD calls I make are on VOIP. I don't have cable and only get hi-speed internet. I don't want to get more services from Bell, Telus or Rogers, unless price comes down.
That was an awesome plan! I signed up under Fido when they were Rogers. I found the service quite alright. I have a Blackberry on Telus right now though as I found rates to be more competitive than Bell or Rogers cell or otherwise. I'm not a heavy data user, but I find the data rates are absurd. I'm not a cell phone techie, but when you are making a call on a digital network and transfering bits and bytes across different cell networks how is that any different than downloading data off the Net? Why the huge discrepancy in billing rates?
For the DSL access, I'd suggest looking into TekSavvy. They are setting up an ISP service in BC this Winter. I'm an Ontario resident and will be moving to BC in the spring (yes, another one!). The service with TekSavvy is fantastic and I'm signing up with them when I'm out-West. They say it will still be true unlimited high-speed DSL depending on the peering package you choose. Or Netscape.com, I hear also services BC and is unlimited DSL for $29.99 (not the dry line rate though).
To expand a bit, and what I meant to get at is in your 2nd para. Hits the nail on the head. The problem is MS has virtually limitless resources. Takes Xbox 360 - it makes DirectX, makes accessories for the system, has a game studio that used to develop but now markets the games (yes Nintendo and Sony do the same thing), has pre-existing relationships with suppliers like ATI, Nvidia. This also helps MS corner the Windows game market.
It would certainly be very difficult for any newcomer to make a competing game system. I don't think there will be now as its a multi-billion dollar, long-term investment.
And I didn't mean to imply, kick MS out of the game market now. No. But, I am saying as a government, I think the role should be to stop them from going into new markets especially where it involves a combination of hardware and software as they can really use their market influence. I'm not Pro-gov't regulation of much of anything and certainly don't want/like to see them interfere in the free market much.
The Windows CE devices aren't so bad because MS doesn't make the hardware. The HW developers bundle and sell their products and give MS a cut for the SW design. The SW design is good to some degree for this market since standardizes software and lets developers do the rest - the old "Windows" model. If this were ever to occur it obviously needs to be a case-by-case basis. If its a question of whether MS would be profitable long term, let them do it. Too many jobs and money is at stake and MS is a good company.