I taught myself shorthand from some 3rd or 4th hand Gregg texts I found in used bookstores.
I can write at 150-200 WPM, notes that I read at about 1/4 the speed of typewritten notes.
Now, would you say that this is an "obsolete" skill?
I find that I use it for all sorts of purposes, including writing at what is much closer to the speed of thought than what a typewriter or computer word processor could manage.
I suppose dictation offers comparable speed, if you have a personal secretary.
Typing is today's broadly taught system of high speed input, with a huge installed base of devices that enable it. Transition to an alternative is more than a decade away. Anyone old enough to learn to type will need the skill during the next ten years.
Of course, I'm waiting for a device that will understand a series of hand gestures, like shorthand, that enables input at speeds approaching 150-200WPM.
He can reach out to 'normal' reality whenever and wherever he wants.
Pecard probably created the 'Kirk' who left the NEXIS with him at the climax of Movie 7.
How about a meaningful comparison of electronic data retrieval services?
Compare Google to Lexis-Nexis.
Lexis-Nexis has boolean logic driven search (not natural language), and lacks "PageRank", but it includes all sorts of major periodicals not offered and certainly not archived on the web.
Lexis-Nexis would win hands down in all sorts of categories of questions.
It's an object lesson in the impact of intellectual property laws on access to information in our societies.
Have a look at a9.com, which is Amazon's new search entry.
Aside from a good web search engine, it provides a "history" of your previous searches and other innovative features.
Am I the only one who gets a tingly feeling deep inside when I read about IBM and linux? It just feels so nice to be backed by a mountain of hard cold cash.
I get that same warm, tingly feeling inside as did the members of Team OS/2 in the old days.
How about beefing up liability for closed source applications -- in a manner that users cannot "opt out of" by shrink wrapper -- but leaving open source applications with effective immunity?
The argument being, that effective 3rd party oversight protects the open source user.
The review does not discuss external editor support. In fact, most of the clients supported don't have it.
Sylpheed, judged "not next generation enough" by the reviewer, enables me to compose in a custom konsole/xterm/rxvt in Vim, or Gvim -- a capability that makes it the only usuable GUI client IMHO.
Graceful way to undo? Of course not.
However, it's not to say that a financial market could not operate with these types of glitches anticipated in the system. For example, there could be introduced explicit insurance against the risk of such infrastructure failures.
Notably, large players -- typically making the most sweeping "hedging" buys of the kind described here -- would not buy such an insurance product. Instead, they would self-insure, adopting internal practices that would factor in the risk of infrastructure failure, and spread the risk across all its operations.
In other words, in the absence of explicit insurance, it's just another example of games that only large institutions should play. In fact, it is often neither advisable nor desirable to make markets "safe" for small players. It's just too expensive, in terms of additional overhead and lost market efficiencies.
O.K., perhaps Google has "changed the world" in terms of search and the Internet.
But their announced ambitions to "reinvent" the IPO market, avoiding classical underwriting and directly auctioning their shares, really is too much. The comments are more than presumptuous and pretentious. They are sophomoric.
Isn't it enough to be the first company since 2000 to mount a successful IPO of an Internet-based business, with enormous multiplies applied to forward revenues, toward a $10 billion plus valuation? The idea that an Internet company, among all the companies out there, will fundamentally reinvent the way that public offerings of this magnitude are done in the U.S. is laughable.
As Google is run (and currently owned) by smart people, I think that the company's discussion of auctioning its shares is a way of making a lot of noise, and heightening speculation -- in the face of obvious interest by the Microsoft Corporation. It is intended to raise the issue of its valuation in a big, very public way, and enhance the prospects of a Microsoft acquisition at the highest possible cash amount.
It is certainly not intended to build good will on Wall Street. It's hilarious to think that the way to exert influence on Wall Street is to suggest ways to fundamentally undermine the revenue streams of the leading investment bank underwriters.
The WiFi network is operated by the school, and the laptops used for Internet research at desks are for all practical purposes required.
This is therefore, in the eyes of the law, a completely different case -- with a vastly different defendent -- than in the case of the potential issue of injury from the use of cell phones.
OK, so this had nothing to do with the antitrust case w/r/t Microsoft. Take it to mean that it is not a strictly punitive measure taken viz-a-viz the case, which could be problematic in all sorts of ways.
Instead, consider the antitrust investigation conducted by state officials as "The Education of the Great State of Massachussetts" in all matters of Microsoft business practices.
They have some learning under their belts, and it shows.
Slashdot Mirror
Moogle.
I taught myself shorthand from some 3rd or 4th hand Gregg texts I found in used bookstores. I can write at 150-200 WPM, notes that I read at about 1/4 the speed of typewritten notes. Now, would you say that this is an "obsolete" skill? I find that I use it for all sorts of purposes, including writing at what is much closer to the speed of thought than what a typewriter or computer word processor could manage. I suppose dictation offers comparable speed, if you have a personal secretary. Typing is today's broadly taught system of high speed input, with a huge installed base of devices that enable it. Transition to an alternative is more than a decade away. Anyone old enough to learn to type will need the skill during the next ten years. Of course, I'm waiting for a device that will understand a series of hand gestures, like shorthand, that enables input at speeds approaching 150-200WPM.
He can reach out to 'normal' reality whenever and wherever he wants. Pecard probably created the 'Kirk' who left the NEXIS with him at the climax of Movie 7.
How about a meaningful comparison of electronic data retrieval services?
Compare Google to Lexis-Nexis.
Lexis-Nexis has boolean logic driven search (not natural language), and lacks "PageRank", but it includes all sorts of major periodicals not offered and certainly not archived on the web.
Lexis-Nexis would win hands down in all sorts of categories of questions.
It's an object lesson in the impact of intellectual property laws on access to information in our societies.
License the booming voice of Vincent Price, launch the blimps and proclaim you are the Master of the World!
Have a look at a9.com, which is Amazon's new search entry. Aside from a good web search engine, it provides a "history" of your previous searches and other innovative features.
Right, with all the grace of a metronome.
I get that same warm, tingly feeling inside as did the members of Team OS/2 in the old days.
We might have those flying cars by now.
Get Mozex at http://mozex.mozdev.org/ and you can use Vim to edit Textareas ... the basic html component for contributing to blogs, etc.
How about beefing up liability for closed source applications -- in a manner that users cannot "opt out of" by shrink wrapper -- but leaving open source applications with effective immunity? The argument being, that effective 3rd party oversight protects the open source user.
Sylpheed, judged "not next generation enough" by the reviewer, enables me to compose in a custom konsole/xterm/rxvt in Vim, or Gvim -- a capability that makes it the only usuable GUI client IMHO.
I wonder if they moved up the release of the trailer, when they heard that Saddam's hiding place had been labeled the "Spider Hole".
Evolution 1.5 still has no support for launching an external editor when composing email! I can't use vi/vim, so I won't use the product.
Graceful way to undo? Of course not. However, it's not to say that a financial market could not operate with these types of glitches anticipated in the system. For example, there could be introduced explicit insurance against the risk of such infrastructure failures. Notably, large players -- typically making the most sweeping "hedging" buys of the kind described here -- would not buy such an insurance product. Instead, they would self-insure, adopting internal practices that would factor in the risk of infrastructure failure, and spread the risk across all its operations. In other words, in the absence of explicit insurance, it's just another example of games that only large institutions should play. In fact, it is often neither advisable nor desirable to make markets "safe" for small players. It's just too expensive, in terms of additional overhead and lost market efficiencies.
Wow, we've accomplished digital resolution comparable to 1940s film technology. Yawn.
But their announced ambitions to "reinvent" the IPO market, avoiding classical underwriting and directly auctioning their shares, really is too much. The comments are more than presumptuous and pretentious. They are sophomoric.
Isn't it enough to be the first company since 2000 to mount a successful IPO of an Internet-based business, with enormous multiplies applied to forward revenues, toward a $10 billion plus valuation? The idea that an Internet company, among all the companies out there, will fundamentally reinvent the way that public offerings of this magnitude are done in the U.S. is laughable.
As Google is run (and currently owned) by smart people, I think that the company's discussion of auctioning its shares is a way of making a lot of noise, and heightening speculation -- in the face of obvious interest by the Microsoft Corporation. It is intended to raise the issue of its valuation in a big, very public way, and enhance the prospects of a Microsoft acquisition at the highest possible cash amount.
It is certainly not intended to build good will on Wall Street. It's hilarious to think that the way to exert influence on Wall Street is to suggest ways to fundamentally undermine the revenue streams of the leading investment bank underwriters.
see article.
This is therefore, in the eyes of the law, a completely different case -- with a vastly different defendent -- than in the case of the potential issue of injury from the use of cell phones.
Pricier than the MontBlanc, though.
Note that the MontBlanc does not adapt in this way, and is known to bleed ink while flying.
So, I suppose it's time for forking, to service the other candidates (and parties).
Instead, consider the antitrust investigation conducted by state officials as "The Education of the Great State of Massachussetts" in all matters of Microsoft business practices.
They have some learning under their belts, and it shows.
And now, just how can I hack my TiVo into using this?
Right. We'll be funding all this manned space exploration then. No problem.
1/2 is a significant %, compared to the typical promotion offering a % to non-profit causes.