Lexmark should team up with Gilette, they could package a printer and a Mach-3 razor together, and have them both last approximately as long.
Of course, I'd need to agree to the TOS for using my razor, and only use it in the approved "downward motion" manner.
When was the last time you ran 2, 3, 5, or 100 separate O/Ss on your intel box, sectioned each of them a chunk of memory, etc? Mainframes are still cost-efficient--they don't have many commericals (other than IBM), but what was done on mainframes 15 years ago is stuff that PCs just got-- Mainframes are still being improved, and aren't going anywhere soon-- at least, IMHO.
True, mine didn't either, but the IS or IT "degrees" were all about it. And yeah, grades were inflated terribly. Of course, I wasn't complaining when I was there--maybe I should have been.
Don't most modern web browsers support gzipping the webpage before transit? I would think that would be 90% of the compression this "new" technology would give... I've hardly ever seen it used though... Any ideas why not?
The problem is lack of specialized talent. In neither undergraduate nor graduate school (graduated last year) was a single mainframe course offered. The "old timers" who work on mainframes here are their own special group-- very few people are brought in, and certainly it would be a good idea to change this, since mainframes are years ahead of PCs in terms of hardcore OS technology. If colleges didn't focus so strongly on learning VB and Office, maybe CS degrees would mean as much as they used to...
I think once they get a car to drive from LA to Vegas, they should put it up against a woman in an SUV with a cell phone and see if she can drive as well as the machine.
Megamania was the greatest game ever. I still play it. I think my high score was around 360,000. Of course, most atari games are superior to the crap they hock in stores now.
Anyone here ever owned an Aquarius? They had a D&D game on it--probably the best game I've ever played, I wish I could get a PC version of it. Oh well, back to reality.
I thought this was already well known and accepted. Light == electromagnetic waves == radio waves == cosmic waves. Fiber optics have an enormous bandwidth because it's using light instead of photons, they could similarly use microwaves instead of light.
Of course, separating the separate broadcasts are the issue, but the more sensitive the equipment, the less of a problem this seems. I have a radio that has a "fine-tune" dial, so that I can probably go down to 92.305 FM if I wanted to, and it would be almost identical to 92.3 FM, This is sloppiness on the transmitter, if they were 92.3 then you would have a very small window, and then you can pack more stations in the same window, without opening up the demodulator can of worms.
I'd be happy to see this put into practice, but I don't see many big-name companies backing something to lower their market share, even if it's totally unfair.
Hmm, It seems I'm beaten, I agree totally with you. I tried installing RH 8, but the installation didn't take, I got fed up and went back to 7.2. I'll give 8.0 another shot, if the fonts are fixed and the browser's updated, then I'm a happy camper.
I also hate the advertising (who likes it?), I'll give the other browsers another shot-- Maybe I was a little too critical, I don't want a "web-tv" browser either, I want option panels galore with hundreds of features available. I sometimes feel like some of the "Linux" software got the backend 110% right, but left the front end at only 80%--
Standards lag behind products by how much, 3 years? Coding to standards are great if the product is to be used for the next 10 years. (Yes, fine, you don't need to mention the COBOL Y2k thing, but those were enterprise applications). GUI front-end design changes OFTEN, many times before a standard would ever come out (actually it's time for the standard + time for the browsers to adopt them + time for users to upgrade).
Coding to a product isn't always a sin, only in the general case.
Quite possible, I'm sorry I'm coming across as being very angry-- I think the Mozilla folks and the rest of the *nix crew does great work, I really respect them for that.
But to respond, even if Mac OS X has achieved that middle ground, why hasn't that software been ported to Windows? (Ok, I can't switch operating systems, that's not feasible, but show me a web browser that renders like IE _AND_ does more, cool, more productive stuff, whatever.
How about this as a middle ground: Have a check-box on the browser toolbar, call it "Emulate IE", and when it's checked, it looks just like IE would render it. Then the browser can also render "correctly", but when I go to a site that was coded for IE specific extensions, it renders it that way. That would be ideal for me.
Also, I believe it's unfortunate that my mantra has to be "simple is more important than powerful". I would much rather live in a world where the best written software is used, and the rest is weeded out. Alas, that's not the world we live in.
Actually, IE is a standard not because Microsoft wants it to be, but because it is used by virtually everyone. I code to IE HTML because it contains some elements not supported by official standards, and these elements make the page look better. That's why I use them. It's unfortunate that IE and the "standard" is different, but if neither change, I will continue coding to IE, because that's what my user base is.
Mike
There seems to be a great divide between the Microsoft World and the *nix World. The former creates easy to use software at the expense of power, and the later creates the reverse. The middle ground MUST be reached.
Perfect example: I bought a new box, installed Redhat 7.2, ran Netscape, viewed a couple web pages. Looks like absolute crap! Don't tell me about getting new fonts and blah blah blah--thats not my problem. Even if the software is free, the goal is to make me (the customer) want to use it. I don't have the time or energy to fiddle around with settings all day and night. I just want it to work. When I see a webpage in browser XYZ, I want it to look the same as it does in IE 6.0 on my windows box. You know why? Because 94.5% of visitors to my website use IE, and 97.5% use Windows. I know that IE renders things "wrong", but because of those percentages, that makes it right, and everyone else wrong. So why can't Netscape/Gecko/Mozilla/etc render things the way I want them to? And until they do, I'm using IE.
All of this talk about ECMAScript, XUL, all of these new technologies that will make my life so wonderfully easy mean nothing to me until they become adopted, and they will never become adopted until they are easy to use. That should be the focus area--not cool techno addons that 0.0001% of sites will utilize. I want my browsing experience to be simple and powerful, but simple is more important.
How about the immediate marketability of an "invention"? Most products take months to years to bring to market, and in this time, the word gets out. You seldom see only one company have the exclusive market for a product. If vitamin O had been But I always drink plenty of..."Malk"? -- Now with Vitamin R sold by other companies too, it might have taken off. Be wary of the sole keeper of a secret.
I think this is a great start! I would have no problem with $0.99 for a burnable song that I want. It does NOT translate to $15-20 per cd, because there are only two CDs that I own that contain all good songs (Nirvana's Nevermind and Metallica's Black Album--FYI). I could see depositing, say, $20 or $30 into a debit account on Apple, or maybe integrate it with PayPal or something, and then when I want a song or two or three, wha-la!
Of course, as soon as other companies jump in line, maybe they'll have some songs for $0.79, and competition should keep things either reasonable or monopolized, in which case people will continue trading.
I don't condone music piracy, but I feel like I've been being cheated for years by the RIAA. If they want to continue, they must ADAPT, and this seems like a viable model to me.
Of course, I could see the final price being $2.99 or $4.99 or something, in which case all bets are off.
I only keep NYB on track 0, but I'll be damned if I'll let Intuit store their garbage there too! And besides, what if products A, B, C, D, and E all want to store their stuff there too? It's not elegant, but a bad idea.
I'm sure (or hope, at least) that the public just doesn't know about the *real* classified labs. I'm sure stuff is doing at LANL, but do you really think they'd secure the top secret projects with strings and empty holsters? The fact that this reporter got in so easily suggests that it's not a big deal anyway.
My college required students to telnet into their vax machine to retrieve mail up until about 4 years ago, when they trashed everything and went to novell webmail.
I figure this flaw won't affect them till maybe 2015 when they decide that IMAP might be the way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, look how well .tv did.
Lexmark should team up with Gilette, they could package a printer and a Mach-3 razor together, and have them both last approximately as long. Of course, I'd need to agree to the TOS for using my razor, and only use it in the approved "downward motion" manner.
Great, just great. Now we're all guilty of violating the DMCA. Thanks guys.
I'm working on a conversion for .java code to Whitespace. It should save people weeks of bug fixes.
When was the last time you ran 2, 3, 5, or 100 separate O/Ss on your intel box, sectioned each of them a chunk of memory, etc? Mainframes are still cost-efficient--they don't have many commericals (other than IBM), but what was done on mainframes 15 years ago is stuff that PCs just got-- Mainframes are still being improved, and aren't going anywhere soon-- at least, IMHO.
True, mine didn't either, but the IS or IT "degrees" were all about it. And yeah, grades were inflated terribly. Of course, I wasn't complaining when I was there--maybe I should have been.
Don't most modern web browsers support gzipping the webpage before transit? I would think that would be 90% of the compression this "new" technology would give... I've hardly ever seen it used though... Any ideas why not?
The problem is lack of specialized talent. In neither undergraduate nor graduate school (graduated last year) was a single mainframe course offered. The "old timers" who work on mainframes here are their own special group-- very few people are brought in, and certainly it would be a good idea to change this, since mainframes are years ahead of PCs in terms of hardcore OS technology. If colleges didn't focus so strongly on learning VB and Office, maybe CS degrees would mean as much as they used to...
I think once they get a car to drive from LA to Vegas, they should put it up against a woman in an SUV with a cell phone and see if she can drive as well as the machine.
Megamania was the greatest game ever. I still play it. I think my high score was around 360,000. Of course, most atari games are superior to the crap they hock in stores now.
Anyone here ever owned an Aquarius? They had a D&D game on it--probably the best game I've ever played, I wish I could get a PC version of it. Oh well, back to reality.
I thought this was already well known and accepted. Light == electromagnetic waves == radio waves == cosmic waves. Fiber optics have an enormous bandwidth because it's using light instead of photons, they could similarly use microwaves instead of light.
Of course, separating the separate broadcasts are the issue, but the more sensitive the equipment, the less of a problem this seems. I have a radio that has a "fine-tune" dial, so that I can probably go down to 92.305 FM if I wanted to, and it would be almost identical to 92.3 FM, This is sloppiness on the transmitter, if they were 92.3 then you would have a very small window, and then you can pack more stations in the same window, without opening up the demodulator can of worms.
I'd be happy to see this put into practice, but I don't see many big-name companies backing something to lower their market share, even if it's totally unfair.
Hmm, It seems I'm beaten, I agree totally with you. I tried installing RH 8, but the installation didn't take, I got fed up and went back to 7.2. I'll give 8.0 another shot, if the fonts are fixed and the browser's updated, then I'm a happy camper.
I also hate the advertising (who likes it?), I'll give the other browsers another shot-- Maybe I was a little too critical, I don't want a "web-tv" browser either, I want option panels galore with hundreds of features available. I sometimes feel like some of the "Linux" software got the backend 110% right, but left the front end at only 80%--
Standards lag behind products by how much, 3 years? Coding to standards are great if the product is to be used for the next 10 years. (Yes, fine, you don't need to mention the COBOL Y2k thing, but those were enterprise applications). GUI front-end design changes OFTEN, many times before a standard would ever come out (actually it's time for the standard + time for the browsers to adopt them + time for users to upgrade).
Coding to a product isn't always a sin, only in the general case.
Quite possible, I'm sorry I'm coming across as being very angry-- I think the Mozilla folks and the rest of the *nix crew does great work, I really respect them for that.
But to respond, even if Mac OS X has achieved that middle ground, why hasn't that software been ported to Windows? (Ok, I can't switch operating systems, that's not feasible, but show me a web browser that renders like IE _AND_ does more, cool, more productive stuff, whatever.
How about this as a middle ground: Have a check-box on the browser toolbar, call it "Emulate IE", and when it's checked, it looks just like IE would render it. Then the browser can also render "correctly", but when I go to a site that was coded for IE specific extensions, it renders it that way. That would be ideal for me.
Also, I believe it's unfortunate that my mantra has to be "simple is more important than powerful". I would much rather live in a world where the best written software is used, and the rest is weeded out. Alas, that's not the world we live in.
Actually, IE is a standard not because Microsoft wants it to be, but because it is used by virtually everyone. I code to IE HTML because it contains some elements not supported by official standards, and these elements make the page look better. That's why I use them. It's unfortunate that IE and the "standard" is different, but if neither change, I will continue coding to IE, because that's what my user base is. Mike
There seems to be a great divide between the Microsoft World and the *nix World. The former creates easy to use software at the expense of power, and the later creates the reverse. The middle ground MUST be reached.
Perfect example: I bought a new box, installed Redhat 7.2, ran Netscape, viewed a couple web pages. Looks like absolute crap! Don't tell me about getting new fonts and blah blah blah--thats not my problem. Even if the software is free, the goal is to make me (the customer) want to use it. I don't have the time or energy to fiddle around with settings all day and night. I just want it to work. When I see a webpage in browser XYZ, I want it to look the same as it does in IE 6.0 on my windows box. You know why? Because 94.5% of visitors to my website use IE, and 97.5% use Windows. I know that IE renders things "wrong", but because of those percentages, that makes it right, and everyone else wrong. So why can't Netscape/Gecko/Mozilla/etc render things the way I want them to? And until they do, I'm using IE.
All of this talk about ECMAScript, XUL, all of these new technologies that will make my life so wonderfully easy mean nothing to me until they become adopted, and they will never become adopted until they are easy to use. That should be the focus area--not cool techno addons that 0.0001% of sites will utilize. I want my browsing experience to be simple and powerful, but simple is more important.
Mike
How about the immediate marketability of an "invention"? Most products take months to years to bring to market, and in this time, the word gets out. You seldom see only one company have the exclusive market for a product. If vitamin O had been But I always drink plenty of..."Malk"? -- Now with Vitamin R sold by other companies too, it might have taken off. Be wary of the sole keeper of a secret.
I think this is a great start! I would have no problem with $0.99 for a burnable song that I want. It does NOT translate to $15-20 per cd, because there are only two CDs that I own that contain all good songs (Nirvana's Nevermind and Metallica's Black Album--FYI). I could see depositing, say, $20 or $30 into a debit account on Apple, or maybe integrate it with PayPal or something, and then when I want a song or two or three, wha-la!
Of course, as soon as other companies jump in line, maybe they'll have some songs for $0.79, and competition should keep things either reasonable or monopolized, in which case people will continue trading.
I don't condone music piracy, but I feel like I've been being cheated for years by the RIAA. If they want to continue, they must ADAPT, and this seems like a viable model to me.
Of course, I could see the final price being $2.99 or $4.99 or something, in which case all bets are off.
Well it's my own fault for opting in to all of the penile enlargement, spy-cam, and russian mail-order bride companies.
I only keep NYB on track 0, but I'll be damned if I'll let Intuit store their garbage there too! And besides, what if products A, B, C, D, and E all want to store their stuff there too? It's not elegant, but a bad idea.
I'm sure (or hope, at least) that the public just doesn't know about the *real* classified labs. I'm sure stuff is doing at LANL, but do you really think they'd secure the top secret projects with strings and empty holsters? The fact that this reporter got in so easily suggests that it's not a big deal anyway.
Bad, very very bad.
When you buy Comparator stock at $0.06 and it goes up to $1.25, SELL IT BEFORE YOU GET BURNED!
Seriously though, I'd tell me to relax-- nothing is as important as I thought when I was 12-- And talk to more girls in school.
Was that a 12 Monkeys reference? If so, nice.
My college required students to telnet into their vax machine to retrieve mail up until about 4 years ago, when they trashed everything and went to novell webmail.
I figure this flaw won't affect them till maybe 2015 when they decide that IMAP might be the way to go.
(shrug)