A few years, and bulk diamonds will be on the Home Shopping Channel.
I keep telling people and nobody believes me, but how they could have missed THIS Wired article is beyond me.
As if the HOT CHICK covered in CHEAP DIAMONDS wasn't enough to attract any geek, the mention of revelutionary cheap processors should have been like pheromones to the poor diamond clad lady. (She dare not show up to a lan party dressed like that...)
Anyway, the Wired article was mentioned here at Slashdot a few weeks ago, and I picked up a copy at the newstand to read at work. It finally looks like DeBeers is focked. Intel, AMD, and IBM, and Microsoft all have something to gain from this. DeBeers simply doesn't have the strong-arm capabilities to keep those four giants down.
As I understand the code (since last looking at it) there was some code, and some tables. If the data tables were stored on one site, and the code itself on another, is it complete enough to be in violation?
It's a shame he's no longer around to give his thoughts on this.
He personally said it was all just a joke. I'm sure "TEA FOR TWO", "FOR TEA, TWO", or whatever play on phonics you can pull out of it is all just some amazing synchronicity.
DNA himself said that 42 was a joke, nothing more.
What I find amusing is that he probably did intend it as a joke, and probably meant nothing at all by it, but that hasn't stopped people from finding all kinds of interesting things in the number.
Though, much like 5/23 (The Law of Fives) if you look hard enough you're going to find patterns.
I don't suppose you know enough to change to classic mode, set up the classic look, and simply turn off all of the fluff?
Most people I know who don't want to upgrade to XP because they don't like the look are exactly the sorts of people that aren't technically savvy enough to even begin to think about dealing with the higher learning curve of *nix.
I have less respect for someone that uses Linux because they think it's perfect, than I do for someone that runs Windows but realizes that it isn't.
yeah we already had worms that executed automatically in outlook.
Only if the PREVIEW PANE was active. Who in their right mind keeps the preview pane active? I don't. In fact, whenever reading suspicious e-mail, I don't open it at all. Not even in the preview pain, er pane (which is the same as opening the e-mail).
I always view properties, then source. Do I wish viewing the e-mail as pure ascii was easier in Outlook? Well, of course I do. But Outlook can do it, and it is safe.
Most of the time, though, I don't even bother to go that far. I mass-delete all of my e-mail for a day at one time ussually. If someone really wants to contact me, they'll send me an Online Message with some kind of messenger. E-mail is so obsolete....
but you lose many of the features that are available in the newer version -- essentially crippling your software.
There are better arguments for your point than this one. If you downgrade to older versions of the file-format and lose newer features, it's as if you never upgraded at all. What would you expect? To save the newer version of the file format, and AUTOMATICALLY have older versions know what to do with the new features?
I'm guessing here, but I'm thinking if the older software new how to handle the newer features, then they would have been in the older software.
Really though, feature-creep gets annoying when the newer software doesn't actually add any USABLE features, and it really just makes the old software obsolete without good cause. Very often, this is the case with Microsoft's stuff.
So far, I don't think any UI is even close to perfect. They're either going the wrong direction by becoming too fancy, bloated, and cluttered, or they're become too simplistic and lacking any but the most basic of functions.
If I were to design a UI, it would certainly reflect elements of ALL of them, from Mac OS X, to Windows 95 through XP, and even to include elements of AmigaOS and BeOS.
And on top of all that, I'd make the MINIMALIST options the default with easy access to turning on the babyfood options. That might scare off many of the newbies, but those that stuck around would probably learn something along the way.
Unless you use AOL's voice, or Yahoo's Cam's/Voice/Chat, there is nothing you will want to do that Trillian doesn't support.
If you want to use the best features of Yahoo, just go to the web-site http://chat.yahoo.com and use the Java based applet. It supports all those features (yes, including voice, cam, and chat) and it runs alongside Trillian which will still handle and log your Instant Messages.
Trillian's only downside is the slightly higher difficulty for a newbie in setting up. Large firms can hire consultants to do that, though. (I'm for hire...)
All in all, what it came down to in the end is that when on Windows I couldn't find a single reason why I should use the official AIM/ICQ/YAHOO/MSN clients, when there were too many reasons that I SHOULD be using Trillian.
http://www.trillian.cc
FNORD
Re:Gator by Choice, WTF?
on
Gator Examined
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I agree with you on the Gator opinion, Gator isn't just a gray area, it's a completely unjustifiable hijack of the users' resources. The developers should have the living shit beat out of them until they cry for mercy at which point they're promptly killed, execution style.
IE on the other hand, I use by choice. You can talk all the crap you want, but in my opinion, IE is still a better browser, all ethics and personal Microsoft hatred aside. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, I could say "who in their right mine would use Mozilla", but I know deep down that sometimes the answer to such questions isn't a robotic "this one is better, therefor all others have no use". If you like Mozilla, it's great that you have the choice to use Mozilla. Don't assume that others do not have uses for IE. I frequently use Mozilla, and I still don't like it for more reasons than I care to get into here. For me, IE is a better browser.
Gator, on the other hand, as I see it (even from a utilitarian standpoint) has absolutely no function that isn't best performed in other ways.
I used to live just down the street from the place in this picture, only really it wasn't quite down the street, so much as around (and through) one of the adjacent corners. The view was nice, if not a little disturbing, but parking was hell.
That landlord was a little warped, too, I tell you.
Will it last longer in a low pressure environment like in the mountains?
A few things can be assumed. First off, the estimate of 48 hours is probably just that. If the movie only lasts 48 hours, or if it happens to last 80, then it was all just chance one way or the other.
I'm guessing they probably say 48 hours, because that is the minimum it could last. The point behind the movie is that it does decay, and it's not so much a matter of how long that decay actually takes.
Next, if the reaction happens actually because of contact with air, then it's safe to assume that it actually NEEDS constant exposure to that air to react. If that's the case, no problem. Gloss clearcoat will easily prevent the air from reacting and can be purchased in a spray can at any hardware store. I'm suspecting that if you buy one of these movies and place it label down and give it an even, clean, and complete cover of clearcoat, the reaction will probably stop.
That's a great question. Does a site with "News and Commentary" fit in the blog catagory if only one or two people write it?
What if it looks like a blog, but has nothing but on-topic posts (whatever the news-site's topic may be)? It has too many opinion spots, though, so it can't really be purely news. Does the fact that it's about a subject, and not some person mean it's no longer a blog?
The line between Blog-NotBlog is so fuzzy at times, I don't see how they can fairly make a distinction.
After all, in a way, Slashdot is just a blog for the editors. Certainly some people would consider my sites blogs.
"Honest officer, I was just eating a can of pringles and I thought, 'Hey! Maybe someone provides free internet service outside this large office building!'"
The Coca-Cola Company brings this action to enjoin defendant from printing, distributing and selling commercially a poster which consists of an exact blown-up reproduction of plaintiff's familiar "Coca-Cola" trademark and distinctive format except for the substitution of the script letters "ine" for "-Cola", so that the poster reads "Enjoy Cocaine." Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. 1338 and 1332.
That was their mistake. I would have modified the trademark "WAVE" myself. Perhaps reversed it or made it two intersecting lines. Oddly enough, the Coca-Cola "WAVE" is a registered trademark, just like the Nike "SWOOSH".
Parody is not against the law, and in fact has been successfully protected by free speech rights. Trademark infringement will still get you in trouble.
Parodies can RESEMBLE their targets, but they should also be distinctive enough that they do not exactly copy the "victim".
Don't kid yourself. Microsoft and Intel are in bed together and have been for a very long time. Once again, I don't have primary sources much like the parent (I'm sure someone will post some) but I know that Microsoft works very closely with Intel, moreso than they do with AMD if they do at all.
We keep working on newer faster computers, better and better AI, and we keep trying to find machines that are fault tolerant and self healing.
You watch, before it's over with all of our machines and computers are going to be genetically engineered creatures that are alive.
We'll have giant brains in vats, and giant beasts of burdon doing our labor. We'll grow our homes instead of building them, and we won't need highways because we'll fly around everywhere we go on giant birdlike creatures.
Everything will be organic save for some things that are still best served by mechanical means. Having said that, nearly all of our lives will involve some kind of biotechnology, except for food. All of our food will come out of some kind of machine.
True, but we're talking about Parody, which is an entirely different situation than Trade.
If you were making fun of something for the sake of Parody, you generally can get away with a whole lot more than you can if you are trying to sell a product using someone else's name.
On the other hand, if you are trying to do a parody of something and you out-right use the name, you tend to weaken your own defense in regards to the rights to parody something.
For instance, a fake television commercial on a comedy show about Crack A Cola is almost certainly going to walk away without incident. However, if the imaginary commercial was about Coke-A-Cola there would be some lawyers making phone calls, I promise you.
Slashdot Mirror
For their safty (and your own), Please Don't Eat the Nanites. Thank you, Mgt.
A few years, and bulk diamonds will be on the Home Shopping Channel.
I keep telling people and nobody believes me, but how they could have missed THIS Wired article is beyond me.
As if the HOT CHICK covered in CHEAP DIAMONDS wasn't enough to attract any geek, the mention of revelutionary cheap processors should have been like pheromones to the poor diamond clad lady. (She dare not show up to a lan party dressed like that...)
Anyway, the Wired article was mentioned here at Slashdot a few weeks ago, and I picked up a copy at the newstand to read at work. It finally looks like DeBeers is focked. Intel, AMD, and IBM, and Microsoft all have something to gain from this. DeBeers simply doesn't have the strong-arm capabilities to keep those four giants down.
How about only two parts?
As I understand the code (since last looking at it) there was some code, and some tables. If the data tables were stored on one site, and the code itself on another, is it complete enough to be in violation?
How about two different files on the same site?
It's a shame he's no longer around to give his thoughts on this.
He personally said it was all just a joke. I'm sure "TEA FOR TWO", "FOR TEA, TWO", or whatever play on phonics you can pull out of it is all just some amazing synchronicity.
DNA himself said that 42 was a joke, nothing more.
What I find amusing is that he probably did intend it as a joke, and probably meant nothing at all by it, but that hasn't stopped people from finding all kinds of interesting things in the number.
Though, much like 5/23 (The Law of Fives) if you look hard enough you're going to find patterns.
FNORD
XP usability can be identical to Windows 95.
I don't suppose you know enough to change to classic mode, set up the classic look, and simply turn off all of the fluff?
Most people I know who don't want to upgrade to XP because they don't like the look are exactly the sorts of people that aren't technically savvy enough to even begin to think about dealing with the higher learning curve of *nix.
I have less respect for someone that uses Linux because they think it's perfect, than I do for someone that runs Windows but realizes that it isn't.
yeah we already had worms that executed automatically in outlook.
Only if the PREVIEW PANE was active. Who in their right mind keeps the preview pane active? I don't. In fact, whenever reading suspicious e-mail, I don't open it at all. Not even in the preview pain, er pane (which is the same as opening the e-mail).
I always view properties, then source. Do I wish viewing the e-mail as pure ascii was easier in Outlook? Well, of course I do. But Outlook can do it, and it is safe.
Most of the time, though, I don't even bother to go that far. I mass-delete all of my e-mail for a day at one time ussually. If someone really wants to contact me, they'll send me an Online Message with some kind of messenger. E-mail is so obsolete....
but you lose many of the features that are available in the newer version -- essentially crippling your software.
There are better arguments for your point than this one. If you downgrade to older versions of the file-format and lose newer features, it's as if you never upgraded at all. What would you expect? To save the newer version of the file format, and AUTOMATICALLY have older versions know what to do with the new features?
I'm guessing here, but I'm thinking if the older software new how to handle the newer features, then they would have been in the older software.
Really though, feature-creep gets annoying when the newer software doesn't actually add any USABLE features, and it really just makes the old software obsolete without good cause. Very often, this is the case with Microsoft's stuff.
So far, I don't think any UI is even close to perfect. They're either going the wrong direction by becoming too fancy, bloated, and cluttered, or they're become too simplistic and lacking any but the most basic of functions.
If I were to design a UI, it would certainly reflect elements of ALL of them, from Mac OS X, to Windows 95 through XP, and even to include elements of AmigaOS and BeOS.
And on top of all that, I'd make the MINIMALIST options the default with easy access to turning on the babyfood options. That might scare off many of the newbies, but those that stuck around would probably learn something along the way.
Why not go with the leet speak spelling instead?
f14v3r
By going with leet speak, we can all just happily accept that it's wrong will keeping the stupidity level universal.
Ever dated someone that looked like, as you say, a "billboard-queen"?
Trust me, they're vicious killers, you just don't know it.
New label layout for future game rating system...
.5% or less of the following: Plot, Originality.
ENTERTAINMENT FACTS
---
Serving Media - (DVD)
Servings Per Container 1
System PS2
Initial Load Time (45 seconds)
---
Total Fun 55%
Replay Value 20%
Number of Players 1-2
CONTAINS
CONTAINS: Sex, Violence, Adult Language, Comic Mischeif, Total Disregard for Authority, Depictions of Criminal Acts, Beastiality, Explosions, Flashing Lights, Repetitive Music, Poor Voice Acting, Cheese FMV (May contain Sex, Violence, Adult Language)
Or maybe it sounds good and justifies people not paying for it, but the bottom line is pirating is pirating.
Whatever pirating is, anyway.
My theory is that they should just drop the price of photoshop, sell many, many more copies, and then (???) profit.
Use Trillian.
Compatible. Stable. Banner Free. Skinnable. Logging Optional.
Unless you use AOL's voice, or Yahoo's Cam's/Voice/Chat, there is nothing you will want to do that Trillian doesn't support.
If you want to use the best features of Yahoo, just go to the web-site http://chat.yahoo.com and use the Java based applet. It supports all those features (yes, including voice, cam, and chat) and it runs alongside Trillian which will still handle and log your Instant Messages.
Trillian's only downside is the slightly higher difficulty for a newbie in setting up. Large firms can hire consultants to do that, though. (I'm for hire...)
All in all, what it came down to in the end is that when on Windows I couldn't find a single reason why I should use the official AIM/ICQ/YAHOO/MSN clients, when there were too many reasons that I SHOULD be using Trillian.
http://www.trillian.cc
FNORD
I agree with you on the Gator opinion, Gator isn't just a gray area, it's a completely unjustifiable hijack of the users' resources. The developers should have the living shit beat out of them until they cry for mercy at which point they're promptly killed, execution style.
IE on the other hand, I use by choice. You can talk all the crap you want, but in my opinion, IE is still a better browser, all ethics and personal Microsoft hatred aside. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, I could say "who in their right mine would use Mozilla", but I know deep down that sometimes the answer to such questions isn't a robotic "this one is better, therefor all others have no use". If you like Mozilla, it's great that you have the choice to use Mozilla. Don't assume that others do not have uses for IE. I frequently use Mozilla, and I still don't like it for more reasons than I care to get into here. For me, IE is a better browser.
Gator, on the other hand, as I see it (even from a utilitarian standpoint) has absolutely no function that isn't best performed in other ways.
I used to live just down the street from the place in this picture, only really it wasn't quite down the street, so much as around (and through) one of the adjacent corners. The view was nice, if not a little disturbing, but parking was hell.
That landlord was a little warped, too, I tell you.
a pegasus is simply a winged horse. a _unicorn_ has a horn.
Yes, but a Pegacorn is your top of the line, fully equipped mythical steed.
Will it last longer in a low pressure environment like in the mountains?
A few things can be assumed. First off, the estimate of 48 hours is probably just that. If the movie only lasts 48 hours, or if it happens to last 80, then it was all just chance one way or the other.
I'm guessing they probably say 48 hours, because that is the minimum it could last. The point behind the movie is that it does decay, and it's not so much a matter of how long that decay actually takes.
Next, if the reaction happens actually because of contact with air, then it's safe to assume that it actually NEEDS constant exposure to that air to react. If that's the case, no problem. Gloss clearcoat will easily prevent the air from reacting and can be purchased in a spray can at any hardware store. I'm suspecting that if you buy one of these movies and place it label down and give it an even, clean, and complete cover of clearcoat, the reaction will probably stop.
That's a great question. Does a site with "News and Commentary" fit in the blog catagory if only one or two people write it?
What if it looks like a blog, but has nothing but on-topic posts (whatever the news-site's topic may be)? It has too many opinion spots, though, so it can't really be purely news. Does the fact that it's about a subject, and not some person mean it's no longer a blog?
The line between Blog-NotBlog is so fuzzy at times, I don't see how they can fairly make a distinction.
After all, in a way, Slashdot is just a blog for the editors. Certainly some people would consider my sites blogs.
How about this? Maybe a black-hat turned white-hat because they (GULP)... GREW UP?
"Honest officer, I was just eating a can of pringles and I thought, 'Hey! Maybe someone provides free internet service outside this large office building!'"
The Coca-Cola Company brings this action to enjoin defendant from printing, distributing and selling commercially a poster which consists of an exact blown-up reproduction of plaintiff's familiar "Coca-Cola" trademark and distinctive format except for the substitution of the script letters "ine" for "-Cola", so that the poster reads "Enjoy Cocaine." Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. 1338 and 1332.
That was their mistake. I would have modified the trademark "WAVE" myself. Perhaps reversed it or made it two intersecting lines. Oddly enough, the Coca-Cola "WAVE" is a registered trademark, just like the Nike "SWOOSH".
Parody is not against the law, and in fact has been successfully protected by free speech rights. Trademark infringement will still get you in trouble.
Parodies can RESEMBLE their targets, but they should also be distinctive enough that they do not exactly copy the "victim".
What agreement with Microsoft?
Don't kid yourself. Microsoft and Intel are in bed together and have been for a very long time. Once again, I don't have primary sources much like the parent (I'm sure someone will post some) but I know that Microsoft works very closely with Intel, moreso than they do with AMD if they do at all.
We keep working on newer faster computers, better and better AI, and we keep trying to find machines that are fault tolerant and self healing.
You watch, before it's over with all of our machines and computers are going to be genetically engineered creatures that are alive.
We'll have giant brains in vats, and giant beasts of burdon doing our labor. We'll grow our homes instead of building them, and we won't need highways because we'll fly around everywhere we go on giant birdlike creatures.
Everything will be organic save for some things that are still best served by mechanical means. Having said that, nearly all of our lives will involve some kind of biotechnology, except for food. All of our food will come out of some kind of machine.
True, but we're talking about Parody, which is an entirely different situation than Trade.
If you were making fun of something for the sake of Parody, you generally can get away with a whole lot more than you can if you are trying to sell a product using someone else's name.
On the other hand, if you are trying to do a parody of something and you out-right use the name, you tend to weaken your own defense in regards to the rights to parody something.
For instance, a fake television commercial on a comedy show about Crack A Cola is almost certainly going to walk away without incident. However, if the imaginary commercial was about Coke-A-Cola there would be some lawyers making phone calls, I promise you.