Today the risk of this type of scheme would be obvious even to a US legislator. Now right to life will be able to stalk doctors who provide abortions by telephone, Saddam loyalists will be able to stalk senior Republicans and Al Qaeda will be able to stalk everyone.
...which is why reporters on Air Force One were required to remove the batteries from their cell phones on the President's Thanksgiving Day trip to Iraq.
They know how to control it for themselves -- why should they care about the privacy of individuals when there are $$$ to be made?
Some folks think that painting it is a better solution. You see, if you paint part of it white, it will deflect the asteroid by about 1 earth-radius 20 years ahead of time. (Less than the margin of error in our guess, most likely. Might knock it into us.) And, to paint a 100-meter or 1-kilometer rock takes A LOT of paint.
It's a small asteroid... but I wouldn't want to paint it.
I knew Hartford lost their franchise, but in terms of expanding the NHL this is going just a little too far. No wonder nobody plays them anymore.
I wonder if they use roller blades instead of hockey skates in their intra-team scrimages? Hmm....
... well, 1,777.58 acres worth of it, but I've got a deed to prove it.
So listen up China, India, Brazil, M$/RIAA/SCO Robber-Barons: take one molecule of my helium-3 and I'll slap your asteroids with a lawsuit so fast your heads will be spinning fast enough to establish their own artificial gravity!
but is it undercutting its own "superiority"?
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1
Apparently, Murray didn't look at any analysis of changing economic systems and the effect they might have on this decrease in accomplishment. Perhaps capitalism and an overwhelming concern with collecting pounds/francs/marks/dollars is funneling that "lateral thinking" in ways that are, overall, detrimental to our own best progress.
"Practical" these days all too often means "Profit!"
If you're going to get a PowerBook and start getting into all the Apple press and BBSes out there, you'll find there are LOTS of Apple Zealots who absolutely HATE most of what Jobs has been doing. Most are OS 9/Quark 5 hold-outs or people who refuse to give up their 680x0 machines from 10 years ago or so, but you'll find lots of folk who hate Brushed Metal, hate Aqua, hate Column Views, hate that command-N gives you a new Finder Window and not a new Folder, ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Sure, there are those of us who line up at Little Stevie's Kool-Aid Stand ($129 for a cup of Kool-Aid? I'll take three!!!) but just wait for the screams when most Mac Zealots find what's been done to Finder in 10.3....
If you've got more than one Mac to upgrade, remember that the Apple Store sells family packs -- 5 OS licenses for $199 instead of $129 for just one license. License says they have to be installed in Macs in the same "housing unit", so I don't know how that might affect machines that move somehow or another to another "unit"....
...as an aside, since it includes Xcode, it's just perfect for the family that develops and compiles their own code together!
Danny Goodman's been publishing computer books since before most of the people reading/. have been alive. His greatest strengths are certainly with JavaScript and working with the DOM, but if you've ever wondered, for instance, something like document.getElementById("doh").style.top comes out as "auto" and not the 100px you set it to, you'd appreciate his understanding of CSS and how it interacts with JS and the DOM as well. If I could hazard a guess, I'd bet that Goodman uses "attributes" since (1) the book is really centered on the DOM and "property" has a rather specific meaning within an object-based framework, and (2) since CSS properties are parallel to HTML tag attributes, the term isn't all that alien.
True, if what you want is a CSS reference, then Eric Meyer is the one to look to -- but for a pure reference, I'd recommend his Cascading Style Sheets 2.0: Programmer's Reference by Osborne. The O'Reilly book was dated the day it was published, since they didn't want to cover some of the more advanced CSS2 subjects.
Those two books -- Goodman's DHTML and Meyer's Osborne-CSS references -- are the only one's I need to keep chained to my desk so that my colleagues don't walk off with them.
Reminds me of grade school English class, where we'd write a story/poem, and then the class tried to analyze it. I'd often as not just write some mundane piece about people walking down the street, and the class would proceed, with the teacher's help, to show how I REALLY was talking about the progress one takes through life, and a bunch of utter bullshit.
Sure is bullshit if they're trying to ascribe their interpretations to you. But just because a work is "meaning-free" to its author doesn't mean that it should be equally meaningless to everyone else. That's just as much bullshit as insisting that the point of analyzing art is to determine precisely what the author meant by a particular work, rather than looking for your own meaning.
Hmmm... isn't that the problem inherent in the Matrix? The machines want a virtual reality to be spoonfed to humans and for those humans to unquestioningly accept it for what the authors intend it to be, but there's always those who chose to interpret it otherwise....
I'm not up on the latest on fuel cell technology, but what's the potential for using fuel cells to power stuff like plasma displays?
Or, as a variation of the "I'm getting fried by all this wireless" theme, how about any wireless means of recharging batteries? I mean, futurists like to talk about huge solar collectors out in space that would beam the electricity they generate to an earth-bound station that would pump it into the power grid -- is there any similar sort of technology that has promise on a scale like this without frying us from the inside out?
More and more, I've found that to be such a fitting description of BBEdit. Sounds like for the Mac Unix folks out there it may even qualify as "Insanely Great", but I'm a web developer and every time I have to take my right hand off the keyboard to reach for the mouse to click on the tool bar, activate a menu command, or check off boxes in a dialog, I wind up losing time and productivity. Homesite has always been a superior tool for coding in markup languages, particularly because of its tag insight and tag completion features. When Macromedia bought Allaire I was hoping we'd finally get Homesite on the Mac, but it looks like they (Macromedia) have folded it into Dreamweaver MX. It's a shame BBEdit never looked into something along the same lines. Forget about any arguments about "product distinction" or anything like that -- Adobe and Macromedia know well enough to copy features of the other's software when it makes sense. XML Spy takes Homesite's tag insight one better by generating pop-up menu content based on your DTD/schema, so its not like there isn't any precedent for other programs using this feature either.
Looks like I have something to look forward to with BBEdit, tho, since I'm trying to learn more about what I can do with the Unix under the hood....
I don't know what they did, but the game is actually playable now -- I don't need to keep a novel handy for those delays between adding items to a city's build queue. First time I did this, I did a double take it's so fast now. Overall performance is much snappier and much more stable.
Especially if it helps the author to express his or her grief about this. Your response to that "useless junk" cost you more time and energy than reading the original. Let it pass.
"Computers not working in education"? Let's hope not... the kids are the ones supposed to be doing the work.
That statement needs some qualifications, tho. First -- no apologies for "not knowing" here: over the last 20 years, I have taught science to students from 5th to 12th grades; I've taught computers to middle and high school students; I have taught undergraduate classes in astronomy, educational psychology, and science teaching methodology for elementary and secondary teacher candidates; I've taught graduate courses on the psychology of learning and on research methodology; I've conducted research on how students learn topics from science to multimedia authoring (before the Web existed) and on how they learn while working in groups; and I've published articles on the results of my research in peer-reviewed journals on all of these topics. So what does that get me? All of that qualifies me to say that I really don't know much about this topic (because I know that no one really knows that much about this topic!)
Back to qualifying the statement. Kids need to do the work -- but what sort of work do they need to do?
I know this about the research done on calculators in the classroom: when they're used as time-saving devices that let kids finish worksheets faster, then yes, they can interfere with those kids' scores on standardized measures of mathematics understanding. Not that the kids who do the worksheets by hand do all that much better. Calculators can perform algorithmic processes faster and, when the correct keys are punched, far more quickly and accurately than humans can. So let them do that. When calulators are used in combination with curricula that focus students on identifying problems, breaking them down into manageable pieces, and then solving those with whatever tools they need -- pencil and paper to diagram a problem, or calculator to do long division , for example -- then calculators can free up cognitive processes for those higher-level thinking tasks because the robotic-process stuff gets dumped into the calculators. Use technology in the manner in which it was intended, and you do see benefits.
Which reminds me -- any teacher or professor who marks a student down for using a piece of technology to arrive at a correct answer isn't simply a pompous ass: that person should be banned from using such technology in his or her own work. "I didn't learn this by using calculators/computers/whatever" is a lame, hypocritical basis of an argument against that technology and the WORST excuse for a theory of teaching I've ever heard. If a child has some device that will take the drudgery YOU had to live through out of a learning task, then you should be grateful for it and figure out how to better spend the additional time and mindshare that gadget gives you.
As for computers in education -- if you want to know what's gone so wrong with them, just look at how they are used in schools and how we use them on a daily basis.
No, wait, strike that. I forgot my audience. Education can't simply be about training children to play games and/or write game programs.</sarcasm>
Most programs (projects, not software) I've seen "introducing" computers to the classroom focus way too low or too high. On the one hand, you have computers as replacements for teachers/books/everything-else-in-the-school that often involve software no better than flashcard programs, and providing support to teachers limited to how to schedule computer time for their students and collect the automatically-recorded scores. On the other hand, I've seen some horrendous technology dumps done in the name of putting the Next Big Thing in one or two demonstration schools -- which essentially ends up being the glitzy cousin of the flashcard program.
In other words, the computers come with some Primary-Piece-of-Software that is supposed to illustrate the value of computers in education... some monolithic one-shot bandaid to a school district's ailing Technology Program. Often paid for by donations from well-meaing researchers with government funding or maybe-well-meaning companies looking to be philanthropic (M$ is a wonderful example of how it shouldn't be done -- donate the hardware to schools then expect them to pay software licensing fees for the operating systems on them and for tech support... the gift that keeps on giving...).
So, again, how do YOU use technology to make your work easier/better/deeper/faster/whatever? So what if students IM each other in the middle of a lecture -- if they miss some point they needed to know, they'll pay for it come test time or learn it by some other means... on the other hand, what if those IMs are about what the topic of the lecture is? Instead of hurriedly jotting down notes that will be meaningless in a few hours, these students are trying to discuss the ideas behind what they are hearing. Given how some professors preach, it might be the only chance these students get to discuss what they're learning in class! One thing I do know -- learning how to convey a message succinctly as well as learning how to "listen" for responses while IMing someone is a critical job skill these days. 95% of the time I spend IMing people is work-related... even if that colleague is two cubes away. Turns out text-based communication beats oral communication for a number of tasks, and IMing can be the best tool for the best approach.
The point here is this: computers do some things far, far better than humans can. Just like how a shovel is a better tool for digging a hole than using your fingers, and how a horse is better at pulling a plowblade than a human, or how a tractor can pull a rack of plowblades better than a horse. A computer is not a teacher or a miracle-device or a babysitter -- it's a tool. Any tool used improperly will, at best, waste your time and, at worst, harm you in some way. Glorify computers as some sort of magic learning elixir, and talk of "silicon snake oil" becomes legitimate. But it shouldn't be tacked on the computers -- put the blame on those selling the snake oil.
Computers will begin to make a dent in improving education when everyone -- not just teachers... I have always found that the people outside of the education profession, particularly politicians and parents and researchers, have much grander and unrealistic views of what computers can accomplish in education than educators do -- when everyone will look to using computers in the classroom for what they truly are. Tools.
Some of the folks who study language development argue that in acquiring language skills, our brains radically modify the way in which we encode our memories -- thus the connection between lost memories and the onset of speech. Those early memories may still be there; we just don't remember how to remember them.
Of course, you don't need language to have a memory -- some episode from your life, a smell, a feel, a sound: none of those need to be put into language until you want to tell someone else about them... and then, quite often, you can't find adequate words.
The toughest thing about it all is that until we develop some technology (and the scientific know-how behind it) to "read" memories directly from someone's gray matter, there is little anyone can do to provide any direct evidence on any of this. If anything is "true" about our current knowledge of the nervous system, its that science continually underestimates what our brains are capable of doing. This holds both physiologically (as with the belief that nerve cells stop growing after a certain age) and psychologically (it seems that the greatest limit to the level of intelligence an infant can demonstrate is the imagination of the experimenter in finding a way to measure intelligence appropriately).
So, those memories may still be there. Others who claim to remember further back than you may be responding to suggestive learning, or they may have an "abnormal" ability to recall preverbal memories, just as some people have abnormal "photographic" memories or can memorize pi to a zillion places.
AH, I see... "Minority Report", minus the psychics.
Better start buying music CDs with your plastic, folks -- if you don't buy it from the official sources, you're next up against the Wall.....
(pssst! anyone know where I can buy a forged credit report showing how much money I sent to Columbia House and BMG?....)
Solipsism abounds...
on
Broken .Mac?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Amazing how if something works perfectly for you (or fails perfectly for you), anyone else who experiences anything different must be a bleedin' nitwit.
My.Mac service goes out regularly every afternoon. Mail has fits trying to retrieve my email. Was in the SoHo store one day and one of the salesfolk there helping me out couldn't connect, and just blew it off acknowledging that things get a bit backed up in the middle of the day.
Then again, living and working in Manhattan, I know the traffic patterns and I know when to stay off the bridges and out of the tunnels if I don't want to be chewing exhaust for an hour or two. And I don't check my.Mac email at 1pm. It might work fine in Podunk, Idaho at 1pm, but not from where I'm sitting.
(...but my Roadrunner service is up all the time =^P )
Slashdot Mirror
...which is why reporters on Air Force One were required to remove the batteries from their cell phones on the President's Thanksgiving Day trip to Iraq.
They know how to control it for themselves -- why should they care about the privacy of individuals when there are $$$ to be made?
Cell phone viruses? Text-message spam? Never seen on- ... hold on, my phone just beeped ... looks like I've got 53 new text messages...
No, make that 67....
Been there. Been done by that. I've already been run-over twice.
Still looking for the opportunity to be run-over a third time...
If you're using XPlay to operate your iPod in a manner that Apple says it doesn't support in the first place, why are you griping about/to Apple?
I knew Hartford lost their franchise, but in terms of expanding the NHL this is going just a little too far. No wonder nobody plays them anymore. I wonder if they use roller blades instead of hockey skates in their intra-team scrimages? Hmm....
... well, 1,777.58 acres worth of it, but I've got a deed to prove it.
So listen up China, India, Brazil, M$/RIAA/SCO Robber-Barons: take one molecule of my helium-3 and I'll slap your asteroids with a lawsuit so fast your heads will be spinning fast enough to establish their own artificial gravity!
"DOWN, DOWN , DOWN!! GO, GO, GO!! MINE, MINE, MINE!! BWAH-HAHAHAHAHA!!!"
-- Daffy Duck
Apparently, Murray didn't look at any analysis of changing economic systems and the effect they might have on this decrease in accomplishment. Perhaps capitalism and an overwhelming concern with collecting pounds/francs/marks/dollars is funneling that "lateral thinking" in ways that are, overall, detrimental to our own best progress.
"Practical" these days all too often means "Profit!"
If you're going to get a PowerBook and start getting into all the Apple press and BBSes out there, you'll find there are LOTS of Apple Zealots who absolutely HATE most of what Jobs has been doing. Most are OS 9/Quark 5 hold-outs or people who refuse to give up their 680x0 machines from 10 years ago or so, but you'll find lots of folk who hate Brushed Metal, hate Aqua, hate Column Views, hate that command-N gives you a new Finder Window and not a new Folder, ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Sure, there are those of us who line up at Little Stevie's Kool-Aid Stand ($129 for a cup of Kool-Aid? I'll take three!!!) but just wait for the screams when most Mac Zealots find what's been done to Finder in 10.3....
If you've got more than one Mac to upgrade, remember that the Apple Store sells family packs -- 5 OS licenses for $199 instead of $129 for just one license. License says they have to be installed in Macs in the same "housing unit", so I don't know how that might affect machines that move somehow or another to another "unit"....
...as an aside, since it includes Xcode, it's just perfect for the family that develops and compiles their own code together!
Danny Goodman's been publishing computer books since before most of the people reading /. have been alive. His greatest strengths are certainly with JavaScript and working with the DOM, but if you've ever wondered, for instance, something like document.getElementById("doh").style.top comes out as "auto" and not the 100px you set it to, you'd appreciate his understanding of CSS and how it interacts with JS and the DOM as well. If I could hazard a guess, I'd bet that Goodman uses "attributes" since (1) the book is really centered on the DOM and "property" has a rather specific meaning within an object-based framework, and (2) since CSS properties are parallel to HTML tag attributes, the term isn't all that alien.
True, if what you want is a CSS reference, then Eric Meyer is the one to look to -- but for a pure reference, I'd recommend his Cascading Style Sheets 2.0: Programmer's Reference by Osborne. The O'Reilly book was dated the day it was published, since they didn't want to cover some of the more advanced CSS2 subjects.
Those two books -- Goodman's DHTML and Meyer's Osborne-CSS references -- are the only one's I need to keep chained to my desk so that my colleagues don't walk off with them.
Now, if only it would sync my Nokia 3650 images folder with iPhoto and Video folder with iMovie....
Sure is bullshit if they're trying to ascribe their interpretations to you. But just because a work is "meaning-free" to its author doesn't mean that it should be equally meaningless to everyone else. That's just as much bullshit as insisting that the point of analyzing art is to determine precisely what the author meant by a particular work, rather than looking for your own meaning.
Hmmm ... isn't that the problem inherent in the Matrix? The machines want a virtual reality to be spoonfed to humans and for those humans to unquestioningly accept it for what the authors intend it to be, but there's always those who chose to interpret it otherwise....
long live the 10Gig model!
(Now, if I only had a spare $300 on me....)
I'm not up on the latest on fuel cell technology, but what's the potential for using fuel cells to power stuff like plasma displays?
Or, as a variation of the "I'm getting fried by all this wireless" theme, how about any wireless means of recharging batteries? I mean, futurists like to talk about huge solar collectors out in space that would beam the electricity they generate to an earth-bound station that would pump it into the power grid -- is there any similar sort of technology that has promise on a scale like this without frying us from the inside out?
just curious....
Make way, Unix ... Tiax rules! Unix is dead because Tiax wills it!
... he may be a vampire in disguise.
Funeral to be held in Athkatla. Just beware of the Gates in the cemetary
More and more, I've found that to be such a fitting description of BBEdit. Sounds like for the Mac Unix folks out there it may even qualify as "Insanely Great", but I'm a web developer and every time I have to take my right hand off the keyboard to reach for the mouse to click on the tool bar, activate a menu command, or check off boxes in a dialog, I wind up losing time and productivity. Homesite has always been a superior tool for coding in markup languages, particularly because of its tag insight and tag completion features. When Macromedia bought Allaire I was hoping we'd finally get Homesite on the Mac, but it looks like they (Macromedia) have folded it into Dreamweaver MX. It's a shame BBEdit never looked into something along the same lines. Forget about any arguments about "product distinction" or anything like that -- Adobe and Macromedia know well enough to copy features of the other's software when it makes sense. XML Spy takes Homesite's tag insight one better by generating pop-up menu content based on your DTD/schema, so its not like there isn't any precedent for other programs using this feature either.
Looks like I have something to look forward to with BBEdit, tho, since I'm trying to learn more about what I can do with the Unix under the hood....
I don't know what they did, but the game is actually playable now -- I don't need to keep a novel handy for those delays between adding items to a city's build queue. First time I did this, I did a double take it's so fast now. Overall performance is much snappier and much more stable.
Especially if it helps the author to express his or her grief about this. Your response to that "useless junk" cost you more time and energy than reading the original. Let it pass.
"Computers not working in education"? Let's hope not ... the kids are the ones supposed to be doing the work.
That statement needs some qualifications, tho. First -- no apologies for "not knowing" here: over the last 20 years, I have taught science to students from 5th to 12th grades; I've taught computers to middle and high school students; I have taught undergraduate classes in astronomy, educational psychology, and science teaching methodology for elementary and secondary teacher candidates; I've taught graduate courses on the psychology of learning and on research methodology; I've conducted research on how students learn topics from science to multimedia authoring (before the Web existed) and on how they learn while working in groups; and I've published articles on the results of my research in peer-reviewed journals on all of these topics. So what does that get me? All of that qualifies me to say that I really don't know much about this topic (because I know that no one really knows that much about this topic!)
Back to qualifying the statement. Kids need to do the work -- but what sort of work do they need to do?
I know this about the research done on calculators in the classroom: when they're used as time-saving devices that let kids finish worksheets faster, then yes, they can interfere with those kids' scores on standardized measures of mathematics understanding. Not that the kids who do the worksheets by hand do all that much better. Calculators can perform algorithmic processes faster and, when the correct keys are punched, far more quickly and accurately than humans can. So let them do that. When calulators are used in combination with curricula that focus students on identifying problems, breaking them down into manageable pieces, and then solving those with whatever tools they need -- pencil and paper to diagram a problem, or calculator to do long division , for example -- then calculators can free up cognitive processes for those higher-level thinking tasks because the robotic-process stuff gets dumped into the calculators. Use technology in the manner in which it was intended, and you do see benefits.
Which reminds me -- any teacher or professor who marks a student down for using a piece of technology to arrive at a correct answer isn't simply a pompous ass: that person should be banned from using such technology in his or her own work. "I didn't learn this by using calculators/computers/whatever" is a lame, hypocritical basis of an argument against that technology and the WORST excuse for a theory of teaching I've ever heard. If a child has some device that will take the drudgery YOU had to live through out of a learning task, then you should be grateful for it and figure out how to better spend the additional time and mindshare that gadget gives you.
As for computers in education -- if you want to know what's gone so wrong with them, just look at how they are used in schools and how we use them on a daily basis.
No, wait, strike that. I forgot my audience. Education can't simply be about training children to play games and/or write game programs.</sarcasm>
Most programs (projects, not software) I've seen "introducing" computers to the classroom focus way too low or too high. On the one hand, you have computers as replacements for teachers/books/everything-else-in-the-school that often involve software no better than flashcard programs, and providing support to teachers limited to how to schedule computer time for their students and collect the automatically-recorded scores. On the other hand, I've seen some horrendous technology dumps done in the name of putting the Next Big Thing in one or two demonstration schools -- which essentially ends up being the glitzy cousin of the flashcard program.
In other words, the computers come with some Primary-Piece-of-Software that is supposed to illustrate the value of computers in education ... some monolithic one-shot bandaid to a school district's ailing Technology Program. Often paid for by donations from well-meaing researchers with government funding or maybe-well-meaning companies looking to be philanthropic (M$ is a wonderful example of how it shouldn't be done -- donate the hardware to schools then expect them to pay software licensing fees for the operating systems on them and for tech support ... the gift that keeps on giving...).
So, again, how do YOU use technology to make your work easier/better/deeper/faster/whatever? So what if students IM each other in the middle of a lecture -- if they miss some point they needed to know, they'll pay for it come test time or learn it by some other means ... on the other hand, what if those IMs are about what the topic of the lecture is? Instead of hurriedly jotting down notes that will be meaningless in a few hours, these students are trying to discuss the ideas behind what they are hearing. Given how some professors preach, it might be the only chance these students get to discuss what they're learning in class! One thing I do know -- learning how to convey a message succinctly as well as learning how to "listen" for responses while IMing someone is a critical job skill these days. 95% of the time I spend IMing people is work-related ... even if that colleague is two cubes away. Turns out text-based communication beats oral communication for a number of tasks, and IMing can be the best tool for the best approach.
The point here is this: computers do some things far, far better than humans can. Just like how a shovel is a better tool for digging a hole than using your fingers, and how a horse is better at pulling a plowblade than a human, or how a tractor can pull a rack of plowblades better than a horse. A computer is not a teacher or a miracle-device or a babysitter -- it's a tool. Any tool used improperly will, at best, waste your time and, at worst, harm you in some way. Glorify computers as some sort of magic learning elixir, and talk of "silicon snake oil" becomes legitimate. But it shouldn't be tacked on the computers -- put the blame on those selling the snake oil.
Computers will begin to make a dent in improving education when everyone -- not just teachers ... I have always found that the people outside of the education profession, particularly politicians and parents and researchers, have much grander and unrealistic views of what computers can accomplish in education than educators do -- when everyone will look to using computers in the classroom for what they truly are. Tools.
Some of the folks who study language development argue that in acquiring language skills, our brains radically modify the way in which we encode our memories -- thus the connection between lost memories and the onset of speech. Those early memories may still be there; we just don't remember how to remember them.
Of course, you don't need language to have a memory -- some episode from your life, a smell, a feel, a sound: none of those need to be put into language until you want to tell someone else about them ... and then, quite often, you can't find adequate words.
The toughest thing about it all is that until we develop some technology (and the scientific know-how behind it) to "read" memories directly from someone's gray matter, there is little anyone can do to provide any direct evidence on any of this. If anything is "true" about our current knowledge of the nervous system, its that science continually underestimates what our brains are capable of doing. This holds both physiologically (as with the belief that nerve cells stop growing after a certain age) and psychologically (it seems that the greatest limit to the level of intelligence an infant can demonstrate is the imagination of the experimenter in finding a way to measure intelligence appropriately).
So, those memories may still be there. Others who claim to remember further back than you may be responding to suggestive learning, or they may have an "abnormal" ability to recall preverbal memories, just as some people have abnormal "photographic" memories or can memorize pi to a zillion places.
AH, I see ... "Minority Report", minus the psychics.
Better start buying music CDs with your plastic, folks -- if you don't buy it from the official sources, you're next up against the Wall.....
(pssst! anyone know where I can buy a forged credit report showing how much money I sent to Columbia House and BMG?....)
Amazing how if something works perfectly for you (or fails perfectly for you), anyone else who experiences anything different must be a bleedin' nitwit.
.Mac service goes out regularly every afternoon. Mail has fits trying to retrieve my email. Was in the SoHo store one day and one of the salesfolk there helping me out couldn't connect, and just blew it off acknowledging that things get a bit backed up in the middle of the day.
.Mac email at 1pm. It might work fine in Podunk, Idaho at 1pm, but not from where I'm sitting.
My
Then again, living and working in Manhattan, I know the traffic patterns and I know when to stay off the bridges and out of the tunnels if I don't want to be chewing exhaust for an hour or two. And I don't check my
(...but my Roadrunner service is up all the time =^P )