When the iPod was launched, the portable music player market was decades old, and there were high-end, hard-drive based MP3 players available that very few people were willing to pay for. I think his analogy works just fine.
Yes. It is hard to believe. Especially since I have Google Apps for my own domain and they've never asked me if I was using them to replace Microsoft applications. I'm not, because I've never had any MS applications installed except for IE and the Office Test Drive that came with my Mac and were promptly deleted the first time I turned it on. I've convinced they have 100,000 domains signed up and their product manager is using that to claim that 100,000 companies have completely switched. If so, this man is a liar and I don't care if he works for a company I like (and I am a big fan of Google, thank you very much) or one I hate. Excuse me for not being a hypocritical fanboy, by M$ isn't cramming my head anywhere.
They're claiming 100,000 "completely replaced" MS products. I take this to mean that these companies were using MS apps before and they're not anymore. I also am almost completely sure this is a load of crap.
I seriously doubt any company trying this as a free trial has "completly replaced" MS products with Google Apps.
In fact, if their product manager is this delusional, I'm seriously reconsidering my optimism about these apps every being improved enough to completely replace MS Office. We can only hope he's replaced with someone good when he's inevitably institutionalized.
Weird that the Russians would manage to put together such an amazing business model and service
Why is that weird? They had almost 75 years of experience under a regime that believed in taking property from the "evil capitalists" who owned it and redistributing it to the masses. It's not that weird that they'd figure out how to apply that to "intellectual property" as well.
The Standard Edition is still free, and includes pretty much all of the functionality of the Premier Edition at the moment, with the exception of calendar sharing, as far as I can tell. Their current terms of service for the Standard Edition state that they will continue to offer a free version for as long as they offer the service at all, and the clause of the agreement that allows them to change the terms specifically exempts the clause that guarantees the continued availability of a free version. I can pretty much guarantee that their lawyers wouldn't let them include that exemption if they had any intention whatsoever of ever killing the free version, and they probably weren't happy about including it even so.
This is still a problem, but we're getting increasingly close to a world where you can go pretty much anywhere and still have net access. Converting an entire business with a lot of travelling employees to Google Apps instead of traditional apps that will work on a non-networked PC is probably still premature, but there may be businesses who don't rely as much on travel that might give it a try.
Right. Defining your units of measure based on the length on an arbitrary person's body parts is much more logical than trying to base them on something that's unlikely to change.
I listen to a Clear Channel-owned alternative rock station all the time. Oddly enough, they let their DJs play music that's not being "forced" on the people that listen to the top-40/pop station broadcasting from down the hall. I've never been "forced" to listen to Britney on this station once. GP is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or something.
That's ok, neither did the submitter. The phrase "interactive site" doesn't even appear in the bill.
`(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS- Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the Commission shall by rule define the terms `social networking website' and `chat room' for purposes of this subsection. In determining the definition of a social networking website, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a website--
`(i) is offered by a commercial entity;
`(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
`(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
`(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
`(v) enables communication among users.'.
I'd like to see how GP's unbreakable DRM scheme is going to stop people from listening to Britney if they're not downloading her music but listening to it on the radio.
Of course, since you're just making up statistics (Clear Channel has never controlled close to 75% of the US radio market or "something like" it), it's hard to take your comment seriously at all. I heard that currently 99% of US radio stations only play NPR news and indy rock. It's true because I said so.
Oh please. People buy music you think is "garbage" because they like it. They can already get the music the smaller artists are giving away for free, but they don't want it because it's crap. No one's "forcing" anyone to listen to anything; the major labels put out plenty of music that doesn't sell well, and you can bet if they could force people to buy it they would. Insightful my ass.
But of course they have solutions. Otherwise, you couldn't start with an empty 9x9 grid and create a Sudoku in it in the first place.
In any case, solving the things is a much more trivial problem than creating valid ones or arbitrary difficulty. But the fact that seemingly hundreds of different publishers are out there creating books without any quantum computers at all is probably a good hint that nothing to do with Sudoku is a particularly impressive computational task to use to show how great your new quantum computer is.
High school students who get homework in AP physics or what not ought to be able to collaborate.
Well excuse me for passing AP Physics just fine (in 1992, not the 60s) by actually figuring out all of my homework myself. I always thought the point of doing all of those problem sets was to show you that personally actually learned the material, not to show that at least one person on the internet knows how to solve them. Do they allow you to use MySpace while you're taking the AP exams, too? By your logic, they probably should.
You're accusing specific corporations of committing specific felonies, and when someone pointed out that to do so without evidence is "nonsense", you pointed to other corporations that broke various laws.
My analogy isn't a threat, it's an example of how someone could use your exact logic to accuse you of specific crimes you didn't commit and rebut any notion of needing evidence by pointing to the fact that someone else committed those crimes.
You seem to be upset about the dishonesty your perceive in this corporations, but to accuse them of crimes with no evidence whatsoever is just as dishonest, and quite hypocritical.
If our society has reached the point where schoolchildren can't do their schoolwork without help from their peers on social networking sites, I'd be in favor of outlawing the use of the internet by anyone under the age of 18. But I'd like to think that our kids aren't quite that dumb yet.
The 14th Amendment doesn't apply in any sense there. The Constitution doesn't, as read by the courts now, forbid Congress from passing emissions standards, so the states are not forbidden to do so by the 14th Amendment.
There are claims made that since Congress chooses not to control emissions as much as California wants to that California therefore can't do that either, but that's not a 14th Amendment issue (and it's rather hypocritical that the people making these types of arguments are usually the same ones who will shout until their blue in the face about "states rights" when the federal government wants a national speed limit).
Anyone who's going to take your money to spend all day digging holes and filling them in is probably unlikely to come up with a cure for cancer regardless of how much you pay them to do research.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, SiteFinder is what Verisign did.
When the iPod was launched, the portable music player market was decades old, and there were high-end, hard-drive based MP3 players available that very few people were willing to pay for. I think his analogy works just fine.
Yes. It is hard to believe. Especially since I have Google Apps for my own domain and they've never asked me if I was using them to replace Microsoft applications. I'm not, because I've never had any MS applications installed except for IE and the Office Test Drive that came with my Mac and were promptly deleted the first time I turned it on. I've convinced they have 100,000 domains signed up and their product manager is using that to claim that 100,000 companies have completely switched. If so, this man is a liar and I don't care if he works for a company I like (and I am a big fan of Google, thank you very much) or one I hate. Excuse me for not being a hypocritical fanboy, by M$ isn't cramming my head anywhere.
They're claiming 100,000 "completely replaced" MS products. I take this to mean that these companies were using MS apps before and they're not anymore. I also am almost completely sure this is a load of crap.
I seriously doubt any company trying this as a free trial has "completly replaced" MS products with Google Apps.
In fact, if their product manager is this delusional, I'm seriously reconsidering my optimism about these apps every being improved enough to completely replace MS Office. We can only hope he's replaced with someone good when he's inevitably institutionalized.
To stop their employees from continuing the pervasive use of powerpoint to present data, maybe?
At least the reporters are able to tell the difference between OU and OSU, unlike certain Slashdot-posting idiots I could mention.
I haven't read the article, but I'm sort of guessing they're not planning to run fiber or copper cables to Mars.
Weird that the Russians would manage to put together such an amazing business model and service
Why is that weird? They had almost 75 years of experience under a regime that believed in taking property from the "evil capitalists" who owned it and redistributing it to the masses. It's not that weird that they'd figure out how to apply that to "intellectual property" as well.
The Standard Edition is still free, and includes pretty much all of the functionality of the Premier Edition at the moment, with the exception of calendar sharing, as far as I can tell. Their current terms of service for the Standard Edition state that they will continue to offer a free version for as long as they offer the service at all, and the clause of the agreement that allows them to change the terms specifically exempts the clause that guarantees the continued availability of a free version. I can pretty much guarantee that their lawyers wouldn't let them include that exemption if they had any intention whatsoever of ever killing the free version, and they probably weren't happy about including it even so.
This is still a problem, but we're getting increasingly close to a world where you can go pretty much anywhere and still have net access. Converting an entire business with a lot of travelling employees to Google Apps instead of traditional apps that will work on a non-networked PC is probably still premature, but there may be businesses who don't rely as much on travel that might give it a try.
Right. Defining your units of measure based on the length on an arbitrary person's body parts is much more logical than trying to base them on something that's unlikely to change.
I listen to a Clear Channel-owned alternative rock station all the time. Oddly enough, they let their DJs play music that's not being "forced" on the people that listen to the top-40/pop station broadcasting from down the hall. I've never been "forced" to listen to Britney on this station once. GP is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or something.
That's ok, neither did the submitter. The phrase "interactive site" doesn't even appear in the bill.
`(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS- Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the Commission shall by rule define the terms `social networking website' and `chat room' for purposes of this subsection. In determining the definition of a social networking website, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a website--
`(i) is offered by a commercial entity;
`(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
`(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
`(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
`(v) enables communication among users.'.
You're thinking of Coburn; he's the one who likes to sterilize women without their consent. Stevens isn't even a physician.
Cool. I suggest you start travelling on Air Force One from now on; I hear it's a lot more comfortable than commercial planes.
I'd like to see how GP's unbreakable DRM scheme is going to stop people from listening to Britney if they're not downloading her music but listening to it on the radio.
Of course, since you're just making up statistics (Clear Channel has never controlled close to 75% of the US radio market or "something like" it), it's hard to take your comment seriously at all. I heard that currently 99% of US radio stations only play NPR news and indy rock. It's true because I said so.
Oh please. People buy music you think is "garbage" because they like it. They can already get the music the smaller artists are giving away for free, but they don't want it because it's crap. No one's "forcing" anyone to listen to anything; the major labels put out plenty of music that doesn't sell well, and you can bet if they could force people to buy it they would. Insightful my ass.
A simple transistor uses "some quantum mechanics" too. I call BS.
They're not Sudoku.
But of course they have solutions. Otherwise, you couldn't start with an empty 9x9 grid and create a Sudoku in it in the first place.
In any case, solving the things is a much more trivial problem than creating valid ones or arbitrary difficulty. But the fact that seemingly hundreds of different publishers are out there creating books without any quantum computers at all is probably a good hint that nothing to do with Sudoku is a particularly impressive computational task to use to show how great your new quantum computer is.
High school students who get homework in AP physics or what not ought to be able to collaborate.
Well excuse me for passing AP Physics just fine (in 1992, not the 60s) by actually figuring out all of my homework myself. I always thought the point of doing all of those problem sets was to show you that personally actually learned the material, not to show that at least one person on the internet knows how to solve them. Do they allow you to use MySpace while you're taking the AP exams, too? By your logic, they probably should.
You're accusing specific corporations of committing specific felonies, and when someone pointed out that to do so without evidence is "nonsense", you pointed to other corporations that broke various laws.
My analogy isn't a threat, it's an example of how someone could use your exact logic to accuse you of specific crimes you didn't commit and rebut any notion of needing evidence by pointing to the fact that someone else committed those crimes.
You seem to be upset about the dishonesty your perceive in this corporations, but to accuse them of crimes with no evidence whatsoever is just as dishonest, and quite hypocritical.
If our society has reached the point where schoolchildren can't do their schoolwork without help from their peers on social networking sites, I'd be in favor of outlawing the use of the internet by anyone under the age of 18. But I'd like to think that our kids aren't quite that dumb yet.
The 14th Amendment doesn't apply in any sense there. The Constitution doesn't, as read by the courts now, forbid Congress from passing emissions standards, so the states are not forbidden to do so by the 14th Amendment.
There are claims made that since Congress chooses not to control emissions as much as California wants to that California therefore can't do that either, but that's not a 14th Amendment issue (and it's rather hypocritical that the people making these types of arguments are usually the same ones who will shout until their blue in the face about "states rights" when the federal government wants a national speed limit).
Anyone who's going to take your money to spend all day digging holes and filling them in is probably unlikely to come up with a cure for cancer regardless of how much you pay them to do research.