Check the last paragraph that you replied to there. I do believe that RFIDs will probably follow (and most likely include) UPC info. That's to say that if I'm looking for a wide-screen TV, I might just ping through your walls for it - check a UPC database for brands, and know what house to Target.
Before a criminal would actually have to look through your window!
Of course, there are much more important points as well. How embarrassing would it be if someone pinged RFIDs for medications or adult toys?
This is stuff that could directly effect government people personally. Wait till the press get's hold of RFID codes for things that congressmen own? Imagine political camaigns run on, "Would you trust your vote in congress to someone who keeps 400 adult videos in his living room?
Don't worry - Congress is just as suspicious of the Press as the Press is suspicious of Congress. RFID privacy laws will be passed - and probably appended to wire-tapping laws.
If you have never seen Monty Python movies before, you may find this one a little dis-appointing. It's not the hands-down funniest movie they made. I'd put it third (just to warn you).
... and The Holy Grail
The Meaning of Life
Life of Bryan
In some ways you could equate the Life of Brian to a funnier Forrest Gump, but you'll have to see it to understand what that means.
While most of the apps are things that Linux users would recognize... in the video he is specifically targetings "the most dominant desktop provider", so I have no doubt that they want to make sure it works on Windows first.
I also played mine in RealPlayer 8 and had no issues with playback. XINE can deal with the QuickTime stream, but you have to download the whole thing first.
For my own part, I don't know a single US resident who took the Freedom Fries thing seriously... "I'd like some French, ha, yeah they're freedom fries now, ha-ha.". To wit the guy behind the counter smiles and says, "Whatever you say sir," and to himself, 'What's this guy smoking?'
As I race around a math class in TuxRacer. Excellent engine - well done!
Well, if you are a foriegn import (as it appears from your posts) then your son has already got an advantage... immediate family members that are outside (or from outside) of the US. That alone does a world of good in getting someone to care about what is outside close borders.
The majority of all people never leave the town that they were born in for a significant amount of time. My kids have never been outside of this country.
Like I said, I tell my kids about politics, but I have that distinct feeling that they only care enough so that I'll shut-up. They are kids, and I persist - but I am not perfect, and where I leave off, hopefully they will be better than I.
Concerning "the way elections are run", well I don't really have a problem with that. I believe that a well informed public can make changes that are decent and necessary, and that a blind public can create laws like the "DMCA". I also believe that all of the resources that are necessary to becoming well informed are readily available (I'm a US native, and I'm aware...what's his excuse?). I do my part, I know the issues and I vote. So I am part of the apallingly poor turnout that determines the leadership of the US Government. Mine is only one vote, but damned my complaints if I don't use that vote for what I believe in.
Ah, the behold the power of congress. Even if the US elected "Gerhard Schroeder" (German Chancellor)**, the US congress wouldn't let him get anything usefull passed into law.
The US government is organized in such a way that it's particularly difficult to create new laws, or to ratify international treaties. Even a few highly ranked congressional representatives can quickly kill the ratification of a treaty that might hurt thier state in some way. (For example, Local district manufactures land-mines).
**
I point out the German Chancellor because he is a world "thought leader" when it comes to "the US is going too far". Not because I think he'd actually be able to help the US popularity quagmire.
A little over-zealous, perhaps - but I'm not smoking anything.
Perhaps I should have phrased it as, "there was a huge outpouring of international support from governments and people alike. This good-will could have been nutured into a healthy relationship. Instead, the US gov't turned it's back on everybody - told the UN that it didn't want their help, or their rules - and declared war on 'terrorism' in an undefined (everyone is a threat) way."
It's just that the revised phrase doesn't make a readable bullet-point.
This comment, applies to yours as well.
Though, you make some important points (that enhance the point that I really wanted to make anyway).
I highly doubt that someone in the UK or most of Europe would have a specific problem with your political view. Considering the last election... ...Oh, please don't let another bleeding heart liberal bring this up again...
just over half the country disagrees with the current government anyway. Although I personally feel Clinton was no better (and possibly worse) than Bush.
You are very correct to note that the media does NOT give effective editorial on these points where the US is deficient in International relations. All of these points were reported - they just don't get editorial coverage, except on tin-foil-hat-wearing sites, and extremly liberal media outlets.
Not all of us choose to be blind. It's just that American affluance breeds indifference. Try convincing your children as to why they should care about pollution, American land-mines or why US military leaders should be held to the same international standards as the rest of the world. Chances are, like mine, they won't care. I keep telling them about it though, and someday they'll grow up, and hopefully not think it's strange to care about such things.
I was hoping that it wouldn't need to be a distinction. From the way you worded it, it sound's like you are saying that the British people are against the Amercian People (which, while some are, I doubt that even a majority of British people have a specific problem with American people).
I'll have to ask my friends in London if they are inherantly against me. Maybe they are.
Anyway, I was thinking government to government relations, and had hoped that would be implied. If this is a people against people thing, then please let me know!
I'm an IT Director. I make software decisions every day. Free software is not free to me by a long shot. Free software cost the countless hours of several people who care enough about a product to put time into coding and testing it.
By the time you have even heard of this software, it has been in use at several sites for many months... usually years. That is several people taking the risk of running a possibly unstable product, joining the mailing lists, sending feedback (and sometimes fixes).
I submit patches to Open Source where I can, and I use products that are labelled alpha and beta quite frequently - if they do, or have the potential to do, what I need them to. Once a product has reached critical mass (Apache, Linux, VIM) I use the software with confidence. Other's have already paid for it with thier time and energy. At that point, the cost of the software is usually in the time it takes to install and configure it with sub-standard documentation, lack of wizards, etc.
If I wasn't in IT, I would not use a lot of the stuff that I do - I know I can usually "make it work" and submit the tips/questions/fixes/how-to that are requisite in using such software in it's early phases.
Rollover menu wasn't my choice, or my problem. In some sites I've been required by the customer that rollover "light up" menu links appear. These are relatively easy with a decent understanding of CSS.
CSS2 and Mozilla (not I.E.) can do full roll-over menus without the help of scripting. But this does NOTHING on I.E. Similarly, microsoft.com has menus (in black, top right of screen) that do nothing unless I.E. is loading them).
If your boss/client wants menus like that, then there is no choice but to break the Any Browser campaign (which I believe in), and use JavaScript (or Server Side Includes) to create different pages for different browsers - again, breaking many browsers that spoof their headers, or otherwise lie (Opera, "MSIE Compatible").
In collage, they'll be 18, and they can do whatever they want. At that point, they should have the intelligence to be able to understand the full consequences of what they are doing.
Where "Transitional" means, "support broken browsers," it also means break this browser.
The fix that always works is <body width="100%">. Of course, I am no longer using HTML "Strict", and am now relegated to HTML "Transitional". At that point, both I.E. and Mozilla change the rendering engine entirely, and suddenly start creating a whole different set of problems.
I ran into this while trying to deal with a site that required interlocking graphics where everything was supposed to be left justified, and the background picture needed to line up with the foreground (clickable) pictures. AND the header across the top was supposed to expand with the screen. There was a -5 pixel background shift in I.E. that I couldn't get rid of (and if I tried, Netscape would forward shift the background +5).
I was to the point that I was about to create separate CSS files for Internet Explorer, but when I tried, that broke Opera (because Opera automatically puts in the "MSIE Compatible" tag). This is very difficult to parse for using CSS alone (I wasn't willing to CGI the entire site).
I ended up doing a center-all site with the same fix as you suggested. I'm very glad this wasn't a client site.
Basically, anybody who wants to download windows apps, or whom are even looking for software.. are quite likely to run Mozilla or some other browser. Most web surfer's actually don't do anything with the software that's on their system unless it can be installed non-obtrusively, over the web (at which point, it's a function of web browsing - not software hunting).
Basically, the Any Browser campaign says to write everything to HTML 4.01 "Strict". Use CSS for all layout. Mozilla development fits this very nicely. Check out Eric Meyer'sCSS/EDGE. Everything at CSS/Edge fits with the "AnyBrowser" way of doing things, but yet not everything at CSS/Edge will load with Internet Explorer.
In my own less complex pages, I've found that I can make a page load/similarly/ in both, but I can't use HTML "Strict", unless Internet Explorer starts to choke (throwing everything to the left edge when I wanted it centered, etc.).
So, as the above post mentioned, you end up writing to Internet Explorer, but you loose compatability with some "text readers for the blind", lynx, etc.
Ah, but who cares if a blind person can read your web page. Well, maybe your web page isn't just a collection of photos, maybe you have something of interest. Then, you should care.
Bottom line, the user will think that you're web page is broken if it doesn't load in I.E., and you loose readers this way. So, you end up with a web page that is a little more sparse, and less feature rich than you wanted.
Barney _is_ offensive, agreed. Barney is given a specific half hour slot that is planned in advance. To plan for your children to not be exposed to Barney (on T.V.), you can do so quite easily.
I'm all for in context swearing on television when they stipulate a disclaimer in advance. The worst thing is when a regular show comes on, and the context suddenly slips into profanity without warning.
How cute is it when a 3-year-old says, "This is fucking great" - and repeats it because of the exciting reaction culled from both sides. Look at the polarity (and sheer number) of posts here. That three-year-old gets all of it from the teenager laughing, "that's cool!", to the old lady, "my WORD!".
So what context does that child have for the proper use of words that create such polarity? I, as a parent, struggle with that.
Further, in school (no choice here, all US children must go to school), the kids curse - to eachother. If your child thinks it is "just fine" to curse to a teacher, your child will be punished. Is this censorship, too? Yes, perhaps it is. It also teaches the lesson that there are appropriate times, places and situations where cursing is acceptable (which is true in school, business, the courtroom and government). So, until everything comes into perfect alignment and there is no inappropriate time and place, at least tell me before cursing to my kids.
For the Superbowl, my kids did watch, and they never saw the nipple. If they did, they didn't see the nipple. Sure as hell though, they were grossly effected by it the next day. Because of the polarized REACTION to it. So now nudity is just a little more "cool", and a little more "accepted" - but sure as hell, I don't want my kids mooning the teacher, or a football stadium.
25Million paying customers aren't what they used to be. The rest of this post is based on the old addage, know thy enemy well.
Several things happened to AOL over the last 10 years. Ten years ago, AOL first hit critical mass of 1 million subscribers.
Eight years ago, AOL purchased WebCrawler and a few other companies. They launched AOL Europe opening internet service to the German public. And AOL Europe didn't make money, but cost a bundle to set up.
Seven years ago, as AOL popularity grew - they ran into their first significant snag. Users were complaining about busy signals. For the first time, AOL started loosing customers. So they went on a one year buying campaign, and bought tons of "local access" phone banks in colocation across the US. They also launched AIM.
Six years ago, with all of their mistakes being paid for on credit, and the good faith of a very fast internet access (dial-up) business - they expanded their European operations, and started marketing to the mass media, and giving away the first several hours of service free. And putting me in a position where I didn't have to buy floppy's for three years. They also bought CompuServe and ICQ networks.
Five years ago, AOL buys Netscape, MovieFone, Spinner, Winamp and SHOUTcast. Still spending money. This is when broadband starts/really/ catching on.
Four years ago, AOL merged with Time Warner. They had been spending money like it's going out of style and were expecting - the whole time - that the ever expanding market would pay for all of this.
In 2001, AOL surpassed 30 million subscribers. But the market was saturated. No more new blood to pay for the expanded debt. But, for the first time, AOL Europe started pulling it's own profit.
In 2002 AT&T pulled out of the AOL/Time Warner business, and since then AOL has been stagnant.
Add the economic downturn, and the fact that AOL is trying to expand into China and Japan (expensive prospect), and they are an Albatross. They are very profitable (for now) mind you, but without growth, their existing infrastructure is aging... How long will they stay profitable?
The foundary industry itself is divided into many sections. For large cast projects, innovative materials and span engineering... I have no doubt that Europe is number one. The US had the lead there until the mid-1980s. I would point out; here the US didn't loose because of un-protected IP, but lack of R&D - and a general swing to buy foundry products from cheaper (non-US) labor markets.
Cheaper labor markets also exacerbate the problem of loosing the advantage of having well protected patents
However, IIRC the US still leads the technological foundry effort where it comes to micro-foundry (same industry, different sector). US foundry companies have been leading the double-digit micron market in technical advancement for some time, and again - to the point of the article - it doesn't appear to be Europe that's catching up, but Taiwan and Malaysia. Much of this thread has been based on IP and emerging market countries - I'd consider Europe to be established, and to have decent IP protection laws. Micro-foundry is a leading industry that is loosing ground because of process copying and low R&D overhead of emerging economic markets.
Dpes anybody remember the virtual pet for Windows 3.1? There was a dog and a cat version, maybe others? Those were very popular among women 8 years ago - and they were not sold as "business apps".
Yet another product replaced with a Microsoft product (clippy in MS Office).
I've known several women who actually play video games though. They certainly spend more time gaming than I do.
Slashdot Mirror
There are scenarios about what the retailers know they can get away with, and scenarios that include what the retailers actually want.
Before a criminal would actually have to look through your window!
Of course, there are much more important points as well. How embarrassing would it be if someone pinged RFIDs for medications or adult toys?
This is stuff that could directly effect government people personally. Wait till the press get's hold of RFID codes for things that congressmen own? Imagine political camaigns run on, "Would you trust your vote in congress to someone who keeps 400 adult videos in his living room?
Don't worry - Congress is just as suspicious of the Press as the Press is suspicious of Congress. RFID privacy laws will be passed - and probably appended to wire-tapping laws.
In some ways you could equate the Life of Brian to a funnier Forrest Gump, but you'll have to see it to understand what that means.
I also played mine in RealPlayer 8 and had no issues with playback. XINE can deal with the QuickTime stream, but you have to download the whole thing first.
Yes it's in the m68k processor family. It's essentially the same chips as the Palm devices use.
For my own part, I don't know a single US resident who took the Freedom Fries thing seriously... "I'd like some French, ha, yeah they're freedom fries now, ha-ha.". To wit the guy behind the counter smiles and says, "Whatever you say sir," and to himself, 'What's this guy smoking?'
Well, if you are a foriegn import (as it appears from your posts) then your son has already got an advantage... immediate family members that are outside (or from outside) of the US. That alone does a world of good in getting someone to care about what is outside close borders.
The majority of all people never leave the town that they were born in for a significant amount of time. My kids have never been outside of this country.
Like I said, I tell my kids about politics, but I have that distinct feeling that they only care enough so that I'll shut-up. They are kids, and I persist - but I am not perfect, and where I leave off, hopefully they will be better than I.
Concerning "the way elections are run", well I don't really have a problem with that. I believe that a well informed public can make changes that are decent and necessary, and that a blind public can create laws like the "DMCA". I also believe that all of the resources that are necessary to becoming well informed are readily available (I'm a US native, and I'm aware...what's his excuse?). I do my part, I know the issues and I vote. So I am part of the apallingly poor turnout that determines the leadership of the US Government. Mine is only one vote, but damned my complaints if I don't use that vote for what I believe in.
In the mean time, I practice capitolism.
I think that American's do have a tendancy of hating those who hate them (personalizing politics without knowing the issues).
Which brings us back to that lack of editorial that I was talking of in another post.
The US government is organized in such a way that it's particularly difficult to create new laws, or to ratify international treaties. Even a few highly ranked congressional representatives can quickly kill the ratification of a treaty that might hurt thier state in some way. (For example, Local district manufactures land-mines).
**
I point out the German Chancellor because he is a world "thought leader" when it comes to "the US is going too far". Not because I think he'd actually be able to help the US popularity quagmire.
Perhaps I should have phrased it as, "there was a huge outpouring of international support from governments and people alike. This good-will could have been nutured into a healthy relationship. Instead, the US gov't turned it's back on everybody - told the UN that it didn't want their help, or their rules - and declared war on 'terrorism' in an undefined (everyone is a threat) way."
It's just that the revised phrase doesn't make a readable bullet-point.
I highly doubt that someone in the UK or most of Europe would have a specific problem with your political view. Considering the last election...
...Oh, please don't let another bleeding heart liberal bring this up again...
just over half the country disagrees with the current government anyway. Although I personally feel Clinton was no better (and possibly worse) than Bush.
You are very correct to note that the media does NOT give effective editorial on these points where the US is deficient in International relations. All of these points were reported - they just don't get editorial coverage, except on tin-foil-hat-wearing sites, and extremly liberal media outlets.
Not all of us choose to be blind. It's just that American affluance breeds indifference. Try convincing your children as to why they should care about pollution, American land-mines or why US military leaders should be held to the same international standards as the rest of the world. Chances are, like mine, they won't care. I keep telling them about it though, and someday they'll grow up, and hopefully not think it's strange to care about such things.
I was hoping that it wouldn't need to be a distinction. From the way you worded it, it sound's like you are saying that the British people are against the Amercian People (which, while some are, I doubt that even a majority of British people have a specific problem with American people).
I'll have to ask my friends in London if they are inherantly against me. Maybe they are.
Anyway, I was thinking government to government relations, and had hoped that would be implied. If this is a people against people thing, then please let me know!
By the time you have even heard of this software, it has been in use at several sites for many months... usually years. That is several people taking the risk of running a possibly unstable product, joining the mailing lists, sending feedback (and sometimes fixes).
I submit patches to Open Source where I can, and I use products that are labelled alpha and beta quite frequently - if they do, or have the potential to do, what I need them to. Once a product has reached critical mass (Apache, Linux, VIM) I use the software with confidence. Other's have already paid for it with thier time and energy. At that point, the cost of the software is usually in the time it takes to install and configure it with sub-standard documentation, lack of wizards, etc.
If I wasn't in IT, I would not use a lot of the stuff that I do - I know I can usually "make it work" and submit the tips/questions/fixes/how-to that are requisite in using such software in it's early phases.
Just after Sept 11, 2001 - most of the world (save a few corners of hatred) loved the US. Most across the globe was a New Yorker for a short period.
The Bush politics, and pushy-war-mongering, squandered the good will of the world in record time.
Now, after a few years, most of the world is indiffernt to the US, a bit more of the world hates us, and Great Britain is on our side.
You're both right. Where's the agrument there?
Agreed, but the way those features load into I.E. are "not good enough for saleable work".
CSS2 and Mozilla (not I.E.) can do full roll-over menus without the help of scripting. But this does NOTHING on I.E. Similarly, microsoft.com has menus (in black, top right of screen) that do nothing unless I.E. is loading them).
If your boss/client wants menus like that, then there is no choice but to break the Any Browser campaign (which I believe in), and use JavaScript (or Server Side Includes) to create different pages for different browsers - again, breaking many browsers that spoof their headers, or otherwise lie (Opera, "MSIE Compatible").
In collage, they'll be 18, and they can do whatever they want. At that point, they should have the intelligence to be able to understand the full consequences of what they are doing.
The fix that always works is <body width="100%">. Of course, I am no longer using HTML "Strict", and am now relegated to HTML "Transitional". At that point, both I.E. and Mozilla change the rendering engine entirely, and suddenly start creating a whole different set of problems.
I ran into this while trying to deal with a site that required interlocking graphics where everything was supposed to be left justified, and the background picture needed to line up with the foreground (clickable) pictures. AND the header across the top was supposed to expand with the screen. There was a -5 pixel background shift in I.E. that I couldn't get rid of (and if I tried, Netscape would forward shift the background +5).
I was to the point that I was about to create separate CSS files for Internet Explorer, but when I tried, that broke Opera (because Opera automatically puts in the "MSIE Compatible" tag). This is very difficult to parse for using CSS alone (I wasn't willing to CGI the entire site).
I ended up doing a center-all site with the same fix as you suggested. I'm very glad this wasn't a client site.
Basically, anybody who wants to download windows apps, or whom are even looking for software .. are quite likely to run Mozilla or some other browser. Most web surfer's actually don't do anything with the software that's on their system unless it can be installed non-obtrusively, over the web (at which point, it's a function of web browsing - not software hunting).
Epiphany won't compile without having Mozilla source nearby. So Epiphany is close enough to Mozilla as to not matter.
Basically, the Any Browser campaign says to write everything to HTML 4.01 "Strict". Use CSS for all layout. Mozilla development fits this very nicely. Check out Eric Meyer's CSS/EDGE. Everything at CSS/Edge fits with the "AnyBrowser" way of doing things, but yet not everything at CSS/Edge will load with Internet Explorer.
In my own less complex pages, I've found that I can make a page load /similarly/ in both, but I can't use HTML "Strict", unless Internet Explorer starts to choke (throwing everything to the left edge when I wanted it centered, etc.).
So, as the above post mentioned, you end up writing to Internet Explorer, but you loose compatability with some "text readers for the blind", lynx, etc.
Ah, but who cares if a blind person can read your web page. Well, maybe your web page isn't just a collection of photos, maybe you have something of interest. Then, you should care.
Bottom line, the user will think that you're web page is broken if it doesn't load in I.E., and you loose readers this way. So, you end up with a web page that is a little more sparse, and less feature rich than you wanted.
I'm all for in context swearing on television when they stipulate a disclaimer in advance. The worst thing is when a regular show comes on, and the context suddenly slips into profanity without warning.
How cute is it when a 3-year-old says, "This is fucking great" - and repeats it because of the exciting reaction culled from both sides. Look at the polarity (and sheer number) of posts here. That three-year-old gets all of it from the teenager laughing, "that's cool!", to the old lady, "my WORD!".
So what context does that child have for the proper use of words that create such polarity? I, as a parent, struggle with that.
Further, in school (no choice here, all US children must go to school), the kids curse - to eachother. If your child thinks it is "just fine" to curse to a teacher, your child will be punished. Is this censorship, too? Yes, perhaps it is. It also teaches the lesson that there are appropriate times, places and situations where cursing is acceptable (which is true in school, business, the courtroom and government). So, until everything comes into perfect alignment and there is no inappropriate time and place, at least tell me before cursing to my kids.
For the Superbowl, my kids did watch, and they never saw the nipple. If they did, they didn't see the nipple. Sure as hell though, they were grossly effected by it the next day. Because of the polarized REACTION to it. So now nudity is just a little more "cool", and a little more "accepted" - but sure as hell, I don't want my kids mooning the teacher, or a football stadium.
Several things happened to AOL over the last 10 years. Ten years ago, AOL first hit critical mass of 1 million subscribers.
Eight years ago, AOL purchased WebCrawler and a few other companies. They launched AOL Europe opening internet service to the German public. And AOL Europe didn't make money, but cost a bundle to set up.
Seven years ago, as AOL popularity grew - they ran into their first significant snag. Users were complaining about busy signals. For the first time, AOL started loosing customers. So they went on a one year buying campaign, and bought tons of "local access" phone banks in colocation across the US. They also launched AIM.
Six years ago, with all of their mistakes being paid for on credit, and the good faith of a very fast internet access (dial-up) business - they expanded their European operations, and started marketing to the mass media, and giving away the first several hours of service free. And putting me in a position where I didn't have to buy floppy's for three years. They also bought CompuServe and ICQ networks.
Five years ago, AOL buys Netscape, MovieFone, Spinner, Winamp and SHOUTcast. Still spending money. This is when broadband starts /really/ catching on.
Four years ago, AOL merged with Time Warner. They had been spending money like it's going out of style and were expecting - the whole time - that the ever expanding market would pay for all of this.
In 2001, AOL surpassed 30 million subscribers. But the market was saturated. No more new blood to pay for the expanded debt. But, for the first time, AOL Europe started pulling it's own profit.
In 2002 AT&T pulled out of the AOL/Time Warner business, and since then AOL has been stagnant.
Add the economic downturn, and the fact that AOL is trying to expand into China and Japan (expensive prospect), and they are an Albatross. They are very profitable (for now) mind you, but without growth, their existing infrastructure is aging... How long will they stay profitable?
The foundary industry itself is divided into many sections. For large cast projects, innovative materials and span engineering... I have no doubt that Europe is number one. The US had the lead there until the mid-1980s. I would point out; here the US didn't loose because of un-protected IP, but lack of R&D - and a general swing to buy foundry products from cheaper (non-US) labor markets.
Cheaper labor markets also exacerbate the problem of loosing the advantage of having well protected patents
However, IIRC the US still leads the technological foundry effort where it comes to micro-foundry (same industry, different sector). US foundry companies have been leading the double-digit micron market in technical advancement for some time, and again - to the point of the article - it doesn't appear to be Europe that's catching up, but Taiwan and Malaysia. Much of this thread has been based on IP and emerging market countries - I'd consider Europe to be established, and to have decent IP protection laws. Micro-foundry is a leading industry that is loosing ground because of process copying and low R&D overhead of emerging economic markets.
Yet another product replaced with a Microsoft product (clippy in MS Office).
I've known several women who actually play video games though. They certainly spend more time gaming than I do.