I can't speak for others, but I want to be the one to decide what is and isn't right for me instead of some jerk off (oops, is that censored?) that doesn't share the same beliefs as me.
Perhaps. But I for one want some kind of assurance that I can sit down with my child and watch television and feel reasonably safe that they won't be exposed to words or ideas that I don't want them to be. I would feel more confident with PBS then most other channels.
I don't see the problem here anyway. The FCC never allowed those words on the big four networks channels. Why is this such a big deal? I agree with one of the posts above that this sounds more like a publicity stunt then anything.
Opera seems to be the only browser with true page caching. Hit back 4 times as fast as you can and instantly you will be back 4 pages. No load times and seemingly no render times. It is totally cached. This is like browsing on JOLT. Once you get hooked on the speed it is hard to go back.
That's not a feature that is unique to opera. I know for a fact that IE can do it and I am fairly certain that FF can do it as well.
In IE, its' a matter of Internet Options -> General -> Temporary Internet Files -> Settings. I prefer to have it check back to see if the site has been updated myself.
I do recognize that title so I may be mistaken on the piece that I am thinking of. I am fairly certain that there was a piece around that time that was made by stretching and cutting/joining tapes.
Perhaps that is the guy I am thinking of. I remember being tought (in an awful music history class) that the first electronic piece was "Hiroshima" around '69. If I remember correctly, it was done by cutting and stretching tape containing sounds/music. Very different from today's concept of electronic music.
That may be so. But I have a mac. I have been on Apple's web site MANY times and I have never seen those. Would it be alright if Microsoft buried these links deep in their website or in any of those default bookmark folders that nobody ever even looks at?
Microsoft engineers users' perception such that they are led to believe that IE is the only web browser.
It's not a matter of being too lazy to download Firefox, it's a matter of not knowing it exists because Microsoft's marketing has conditioned them to think IE = The Internet.
This is not a bad thing in general. This is what every company's marketing department dreams of: making their product synonomous with the service. Kleenex and Band-Aid are both other companies that have done this successfully.
Why do users equate IE with the Internet? Where did Microsoft go wrong here? What were they supposed to do? Not include a browser with the OS? Have links to competing browsers on the desktop?
I don't think the number of IE-only sites are the reason for Microsoft's browser dominance. They are the result of them.
IE is a fast and effective browser that for a time was the best available. Now users are starting to realize that it is no longer the best and hasn't been for some time now. Consumers use whatever is the best for them until something better for them comes a long.
If you buy a Ford and the radio only plays The Ford Station and you need to get a gas tank adapter to use anything but Ford Gas do you think Ford might be held responsible when someone plays a song on The Ford Station that makes Ford Gas explode?
That is not a fair comparison. Windows doesn't force you to use any of Microsoft's products (with the exception of IE for WindowsUpdate).
I guess what I am trying to say is that the term "peer-to-peer" is not ambiguous. There are distinct differences between p2p and the client-server model.
Your workgroup example is still the traditional client-server model. It's not an issue of whether or not they "qualify as peers." Each machine on the LAN acts as a server for it's files. There is a fundamental difference between the p2p model and the standard client-server paradigm.
CD burning/trading does not quailfy as p2p because there is no network involved. You can't extend it to here without extending it to every other possible information exchange between people. I assume that is your point though.
No. None of those are peer-to-peer. The term peer-to-peer describes a network without set servers. Your frist two examples adhere to the traditional client-server model. Your second two aren't even remotely related.
Well now... This is one of the few times that I have actually agreed with the "Funny" mod. I'm sure you'll get a "troll" in there eventually. Very enjoyable.
Re:The Linus / Linux connection
on
Who Wrote Linux?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Proper citing of source would have been nice though I guess it's not a huge issue since posting as AC.
I don't think most companies (or departments) concerned about security would allow that. Apart from making coprorate theft easier, what happens when it gets lost or the owner gets mugged?
Some people (including myself) have an issue with people using the one word sentance, "Wrong." The poster comes across as arrogant regardless of the validity of the parent. Perhaps that is why it was modded down.
No canidate could posibly get a majority of geograpicaly seperate people to agree to have him as their President.
I think it was more of a logistical thing then having seperate people agree on one president, though that might be what you are saying . You mentioned "geographically seperate people," I think it goes beyond that. Can you imagine the nightmare of trying to tally up a popular vote for the whole country without mass communication? It would be a bigger mess than the 2000 election.
I assume that that is the reason for having primaries at different times for different states. I think mass communication killed the the system of primaries though. Now, whoever wins the first few primaries basically ends up getting the endorsements (if those even matter) and the nomination.
I think we need a single popular primary for all canditates with x percentage of popular support. Then finish it off with a runoff of the top two.
I cannot imagine a situation where this could come into effect though. No member of either of the two dominant parties is going to introduce this ammendment for risk of losing their dominance.
Thanks. I have wondered that too. I seem to remember hearing something country having the same situation but I can't remember which one (Germany?) Anyway, I guess it is the same thing there.
But what's the point of having the president if he has no real power? Seems like a waste of money to me.
In my experience, most scientists, while generally brilliant (from my perspective) in their field, tend to lack a lot of practical knowledge and common sense about the outside world.
If nobody had ever worked on areas that have no immediate practical purpose, we'd still be focused on optimizing the designs of pointed sticks and stone hammers.
Why do you all insist on changing what I am saying?
This isn't about scientific discovery. Nowhere did I say that the resources spent discovering these are wasted. I am saying there are better things to spend time teaching children in public schools about.
You can have Automatic Update download and even install things on Windows XP.
While this is great for most home users, a lot of people (including myself) do not do this. I want to know exactly what is being put on my system. I don't need the Euro conversion utility. I don't need windows media player 9. Right now there are 8-10 things that it has wanted to install for over a year that I refuse to put on.
I don't want something slow loading, bloated with features, and overcomplicated. You know, IE.
IE is a lot of things but I don't see how you can say that. IE is very fast loading on every system I have used it on because of the fact that it is so integrated wit the OS. IE loaded much faster then the 0.8 build of firefox. The 0.9x build is much faster but I havn't compared it with IE.
What feature bloat are you talking about with IE? The tabbed-browsing? The pop-up blocking? No, it has neither. IE browses and that's it.
And finally, what exactly is over complicated about it? The only thing that I can possibly think of is the "Advanced" tab in the preferences. It is called "Advanced" for a reason. Most users do not need to modify anything in that tab. Most features that users will need are on the first tab in the preferences.
Firefox is a much superior browser and IE has a lot of flaws but didn't hit on any of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for others, but I want to be the one to decide what is and isn't right for me instead of some jerk off (oops, is that censored?) that doesn't share the same beliefs as me.
Perhaps. But I for one want some kind of assurance that I can sit down with my child and watch television and feel reasonably safe that they won't be exposed to words or ideas that I don't want them to be. I would feel more confident with PBS then most other channels.
I don't see the problem here anyway. The FCC never allowed those words on the big four networks channels. Why is this such a big deal? I agree with one of the posts above that this sounds more like a publicity stunt then anything.
And most pop-ups, if they're not blocked, open in separate tabs underneath the current page so they don't slow you down.
That's not a feature. That the pop-ups do that by design in the web page code.
Opera seems to be the only browser with true page caching. Hit back 4 times as fast as you can and instantly you will be back 4 pages. No load times and seemingly no render times. It is totally cached. This is like browsing on JOLT. Once you get hooked on the speed it is hard to go back.
That's not a feature that is unique to opera. I know for a fact that IE can do it and I am fairly certain that FF can do it as well.
In IE, its' a matter of Internet Options -> General -> Temporary Internet Files -> Settings. I prefer to have it check back to see if the site has been updated myself.
I do recognize that title so I may be mistaken on the piece that I am thinking of. I am fairly certain that there was a piece around that time that was made by stretching and cutting/joining tapes.
Perhaps that is the guy I am thinking of. I remember being tought (in an awful music history class) that the first electronic piece was "Hiroshima" around '69. If I remember correctly, it was done by cutting and stretching tape containing sounds/music. Very different from today's concept of electronic music.
But the 64-bit OS is not available. It's not a fair comparison.
That may be so. But I have a mac. I have been on Apple's web site MANY times and I have never seen those. Would it be alright if Microsoft buried these links deep in their website or in any of those default bookmark folders that nobody ever even looks at?
Microsoft engineers users' perception such that they are led to believe that IE is the only web browser.
It's not a matter of being too lazy to download Firefox, it's a matter of not knowing it exists because Microsoft's marketing has conditioned them to think IE = The Internet.
This is not a bad thing in general. This is what every company's marketing department dreams of: making their product synonomous with the service. Kleenex and Band-Aid are both other companies that have done this successfully.
Why do users equate IE with the Internet? Where did Microsoft go wrong here? What were they supposed to do? Not include a browser with the OS? Have links to competing browsers on the desktop?
I don't think the number of IE-only sites are the reason for Microsoft's browser dominance. They are the result of them.
IE is a fast and effective browser that for a time was the best available. Now users are starting to realize that it is no longer the best and hasn't been for some time now. Consumers use whatever is the best for them until something better for them comes a long.
If you buy a Ford and the radio only plays The Ford Station and you need to get a gas tank adapter to use anything but Ford Gas do you think Ford might be held responsible when someone plays a song on The Ford Station that makes Ford Gas explode?
That is not a fair comparison. Windows doesn't force you to use any of Microsoft's products (with the exception of IE for WindowsUpdate).
I guess what I am trying to say is that the term "peer-to-peer" is not ambiguous. There are distinct differences between p2p and the client-server model.
Your workgroup example is still the traditional client-server model. It's not an issue of whether or not they "qualify as peers." Each machine on the LAN acts as a server for it's files. There is a fundamental difference between the p2p model and the standard client-server paradigm.
CD burning/trading does not quailfy as p2p because there is no network involved. You can't extend it to here without extending it to every other possible information exchange between people. I assume that is your point though.
anything written by people you don't know should be questioned
That is true. It is true even more so with content found on the Internet.
No. None of those are peer-to-peer. The term peer-to-peer describes a network without set servers. Your frist two examples adhere to the traditional client-server model. Your second two aren't even remotely related.
Well now... This is one of the few times that I have actually agreed with the "Funny" mod. I'm sure you'll get a "troll" in there eventually. Very enjoyable.
Proper citing of source would have been nice though I guess it's not a huge issue since posting as AC.
"Insightful?" More like "off-topic." These are two different situations.
Your comparison is akin to comparing visitors to the White House carrying weapons with the secret service carrying weapons in the white house.
I don't think most companies (or departments) concerned about security would allow that. Apart from making coprorate theft easier, what happens when it gets lost or the owner gets mugged?
Some people (including myself) have an issue with people using the one word sentance, "Wrong." The poster comes across as arrogant regardless of the validity of the parent. Perhaps that is why it was modded down.
No canidate could posibly get a majority of geograpicaly seperate people to agree to have him as their President.
I think it was more of a logistical thing then having seperate people agree on one president, though that might be what you are saying . You mentioned "geographically seperate people," I think it goes beyond that. Can you imagine the nightmare of trying to tally up a popular vote for the whole country without mass communication? It would be a bigger mess than the 2000 election.
I assume that that is the reason for having primaries at different times for different states. I think mass communication killed the the system of primaries though. Now, whoever wins the first few primaries basically ends up getting the endorsements (if those even matter) and the nomination.
I think we need a single popular primary for all canditates with x percentage of popular support. Then finish it off with a runoff of the top two.
I cannot imagine a situation where this could come into effect though. No member of either of the two dominant parties is going to introduce this ammendment for risk of losing their dominance.
I know... slightly off topic but I needed a rant.
Thanks. I have wondered that too. I seem to remember hearing something country having the same situation but I can't remember which one (Germany?) Anyway, I guess it is the same thing there.
But what's the point of having the president if he has no real power? Seems like a waste of money to me.
In my experience, most scientists, while generally brilliant (from my perspective) in their field, tend to lack a lot of practical knowledge and common sense about the outside world.
It could just be me though.
If nobody had ever worked on areas that have no immediate practical purpose, we'd still be focused on optimizing the designs of pointed sticks and stone hammers.
Why do you all insist on changing what I am saying?
This isn't about scientific discovery. Nowhere did I say that the resources spent discovering these are wasted. I am saying there are better things to spend time teaching children in public schools about.
You can have Automatic Update download and even install things on Windows XP.
While this is great for most home users, a lot of people (including myself) do not do this. I want to know exactly what is being put on my system. I don't need the Euro conversion utility. I don't need windows media player 9. Right now there are 8-10 things that it has wanted to install for over a year that I refuse to put on.
I don't want something slow loading, bloated with features, and overcomplicated. You know, IE.
IE is a lot of things but I don't see how you can say that. IE is very fast loading on every system I have used it on because of the fact that it is so integrated wit the OS. IE loaded much faster then the 0.8 build of firefox. The 0.9x build is much faster but I havn't compared it with IE.
What feature bloat are you talking about with IE? The tabbed-browsing? The pop-up blocking? No, it has neither. IE browses and that's it.
And finally, what exactly is over complicated about it? The only thing that I can possibly think of is the "Advanced" tab in the preferences. It is called "Advanced" for a reason. Most users do not need to modify anything in that tab. Most features that users will need are on the first tab in the preferences.
Firefox is a much superior browser and IE has a lot of flaws but didn't hit on any of them.
That may be true but problems won't go unpatched because we won't be waiting for a company to do it.