I only browse the web with Adblock Plus and noscript in Firefox. At the minimum I use Adblock Plus.
There's no need for ad blocking software. All you need is a Hosts file. It's a simple text file where any website that you want blocked is mapped to 127.0.0.1 which is the local host. You can download a Hosts file containing most ad servers, then when you come across an ad server that's not blocked it's easy to add to the file.
Ah! So that's how you escape the socialist label, by owning stock in a company?
Seeing as how Socialism is an economic system of the collective ownership of the means of production, Al Gore can't be a socialist. Unless that is you want to call stockholders a collective, however as used in socialism a collective is usually made up of the workers and Gore is not a worker at Oxy.
When you want a particular product, go to its website or a website of a supplier. NEVER click on ads of any form.
Once in a while when googling I'll click on a Google ad, open it in a new tab, then close the tab. I do this because I want to support Google.
Doing so just encourages more ads.
Ads allow content providers to provide content. Without ads there would not be much content and what was available users would have to pay for. Even/.,/. displays ads as well as asks users to subscribe. I don't myself and once my ip addie was blocked because I passed some ceiling in page impressions. I've also had replies I wanted to make blocked because I posted too many replies in 1 day.
Search engines are not THAT tough to build. Technologically, it's within their grasp. But people just don't WANT to do business with MS. Without a captive market, customers and would-be partners take their business elsewhere.
And if Microsoft wants Yahoo! because of the eyeballs that will be a problem for them. It's easy for people to switch to another search engine or email provider. I've heard a few people say that if MS does acquire Yahoo! they'll switch, though I use mostly Google for searching I use Yahoo! for email and for the groups and I will switch.
Their most successful/innovative product is XBox, and they lose money on every single one that ships. The joke of it is, by the time they reach the break even point it will be time to upgrade the hardware and start losing money again.
MS has reached the break even point on the XBox, for the second quarter they've made profits, $89 million this last quarter.
On the desktop, I predict Apple will do the best job capitalizing on the Vista meltdown. Linux will rule the cheapie subnotebooks and everything below that in the food chain, along with the server world. MSFT will be stuck in the middle, sandwiched between Linux on the low end and Apple on the high end.
I was just wondering... Yahoo's stock fell after Microsoft withdrew their original offer. Did it slide all the way back to pre-acquisition-attempt value or did it remain above that?
Yahoo!'s share price remained above the price before MS's original offer, more than $7 above. Yahoo!'s lowest price this year was $19.05 on 31 January. It's lowest point in May was on the 5th, at $24.37. It closed today, er yesterday the 19th at $27.68. And on the 16th, $27.66
While I think Write To Them is a fine service and encourage people to use it more, I can't help but feel this is a little premature. This is just another hare-brained idea by the Home Office that MPs haven't even seen yet. Why don't we wait until they actually have a copy of the bill before bombarding them with complaints about it? Otherwise we run the risk of looking like paranoid kooks for protesting a bill that nobody has read because it doesn't even exist yet.
Of course things like this will be discussed amongst government officials, and talking to the telecoms to find out the technical feasibility would be something done early in the process. I would start to be concerned if this was officially proposed, and then really concerned if it was accepted and enacted.
The tyme to talk in opposition is when talk like this starts, not when it's actually proposed.
If I were British I would be considerably more afraid of my government than any terrorist.
I'm American and I fear our government more than any other terrorists. This is backwards, government is supposed to fear citizens, not citizens fear government.
I won't say it's the only one, but a big reason the US exports so much food is because agricultural businesses receive billions of dollars in subsidies, which causes havoc with the economies of Third World Nations. For instance, corn is native to Mexico however because US companies get billions of US taxpayer dollars businesses like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill are able to export corn to Mexico and sell it there for less than Mexican farmers spend on growing corn. This is neither fair nor free trade.
Undesirable jobs that 'white people' don't want to do - e.g. janitorial work, low-paying service jobs, monotonous jobs like security guard, or hard jobs like construction (hours in the sun, hours in the rain, etc.).
As a white American I've had two of the types of jobs you list, maybe three. I worked in house keeping, janitorial, and I've worked in construction. Specifically working with concrete and masonry. And I got the construction job through a day labor pool I worked at.
1. Coming from poorer, less-educated countries, immigrants appreciate the value of a dollar. They don't take for granted that there will be food on the table, good working conditions, and a roof over their heads. They work for it because they know what it's like to go without it
Though not all many of those people I worked with through the labor pool were homeless. Some slept under bridges, some in tents in the woods, and some in a vehicle.
2. They know the value of hard work. Poorer Americans in particular are always looking for the 'quick fix', because they've been deluded into believing in the 'American Dream' - dream long enough and good things will come out of nowhere. They don't try to raise themselves up, because they expect someone else to do it for them.
Though not all, some of those I met at the labor pools were some of the hardest working people I met. I first went to a labor pool, temp agency, as a student in college. I don't know of any student, except a few disabled students, who worked as hard as some of those at the labor pool.
While I was writing this, I was thinking of inhouse tools for a company which has directors who are just happy using the technology they are confident about, and not necessarily interested in keeping up to date with the latest technology
In this case it doesn't matter much to the programmers anyway, if it's "good enough" the directors won't care to have the bugs fixed and they will out of work anyway.
And if you look at a lot of them they are alpha/beta releases and not the 1.0 that you come to expect with proprietary software though.
What are the 2.5 and 2.6 releases of the Linux kernel then? Or take NeoOffice. While I have version 2.1 it's up to 2.2.3. NeoOffice, neither my version nor the new one is an alpha. I'm not sure about whether either one is a beta or not. My version of Firefox is 2.0.0.6, I don't know what's the current version for Macs. Look at Blender, I have version 2.44.
But there is a difference, the GIMP is not backed by any major corporation
CinePaint is backed by major corporations. It's called FilmGIMP because it's used by movies studios, it started as GIMP but a programmer added capabilities to it that photographers wanted, such as 24 bit colour depths per channel. The maintainers of GIMP did not accept them however some in the movie industry ran with it creating a fork. Here's a list of movie studios and movies that used it, two being Sean Connery's "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and Tom Cruise's "The Last Samurai".
So you would expect them to be a little less on features, another thing is, the GIMP developers focus on what means the most to them
That's right, businesses give users what they want whereas OS maintainers only do what they want, which takes us back to there being a place for both FOOS and proprietary software.
There's space for both proprietary and FOOS software. Photoshop is a good example of proprietary software, despite being worked on for more than 10 years GIMP is no where near having the capabilities of Photoshop. While CinePaint, aka FilmGIMP, is closer I don't know if it has all the capabilities of PS. While I haven't used PS I did use GIMP and Paint Shop Pro, and PSP beat GIMP handily.
Actually open source does encourage rushing software out of the door. Look at how often fixes are released, frequently. Of course many OS projects make it easy to install patches but they are still released with bugs.
it's more important to have some piece of software up and running to generate useful results that it is to have perfectly modular software that can be reused by changing the a couple of inherited classes.
While I agree it's important to get production code out to where it's used, I'd add that it's important to continue development and have a test bed.
a good programmer who writes bug-free modular code will probably end up doing himself out of the job because as time goes by, there will be less code that needs to changed or upgraded per job request.
I don't think so, unless the programmer is only good with a couple of things. First all too often there's mission creep. Then there's new OSes along with their new sets of APIs. Even once software is released and the bugs are ironed out there will be a demand for a "New and Improved" version. Maybe with new features or options.
I'm normally not a fan of wikipedia, but since this is so very basic stuff, I'm going to make an exception:
Carbon_dioxide_levels_and_photorespiration
I noticed your link says "light-independent reactions" increase with increased CO2 levels however it says nothing about light dependent reactions. And I haven't seen a reduction in light. It also says nothing about plants who slow slower with an enriched CO2 environment yet I previously included links to scientific articles that said some plants do show a slower growth rate.
Yes there are exceptions (that's only because plants have dropped the co2 content of the athmosphere so very much). One or two. Doesn't change a thing for food crops though, or for trees, or...
Once again you didn't read the articles I provided a link to, the "New Scientist" article specifically says "A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1C have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent (see Don't count on the trees)." Now this doesn't say an increase in CO2 slows growth it does say a raise in temperatures does, and Greenhouse Gases are called that because they raise temperatures. And if you look at the Google link you will see the search was for "co2 plants OR trees growth". Another article, from Harvard, goes over a science study that shows "Warming may not spark tree growth". Here's another Google, this one for co2 trees slowed growth food. As for food, what affects food crops like corn more than anything else is using the crops to feed cows and other animals as well as biofuels. In the US 90% of the corn grown is to feed livestock and not humans. Yet the amount of corn needed to raise 1 pound of meat can feed a bunch of people. And cows aren't corn eaters, they're ruminants and eat grass. Yahoo! has a webpage explaining why cattle are fed corn instead of grass.
You are being dishonest, sir.
Whereas I've provided plenty of links to scientific research and articles you haven't provided anything and I'm the one being dishonest? You're the dishonest one not me. You're dishonest and, like president Bush, ignore science. Unless you can have a rational conversation and provide evidence to back up your claims I see no reason to continue.
And here I thought all the people I know with hydroponic setups were running CO2 blowers on their Cash Crop (TM) plants to make them grow bigger faster and increase their yield but large amounts. I was such a dummy, thank you.
Yes, added CO2 can make some plants grow faster but it also retards the growth of others. One of those plants it boosts the growth of is poison ivy.
The most important limitation in the plants' rate of photosynthesis is the LOW carbon content of the athmosphere
Did you read TFA about how high CO2 levels can retard some plants' growth? I included the link.
Making the athmosphere revert to, oh say 12% co2 (which is a few million times the current level) would be a good thing for plants.
Read the Sciencedaily article. And Google, which returned the Sciencedaily article, can provide more like it. If it's not acceptable maybe an article from "New Scientist", which Google also provided, is acceptable. If not maybe you're like Bush, anti-science.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know one person that gets anything but annoyed from online advertisements...
You may not know anyone but many people do buy because of online ads. If they didn't then businesses wouldn't waste their money on ads.
FalconI only browse the web with Adblock Plus and noscript in Firefox. At the minimum I use Adblock Plus.
There's no need for ad blocking software. All you need is a Hosts file. It's a simple text file where any website that you want blocked is mapped to 127.0.0.1 which is the local host. You can download a Hosts file containing most ad servers, then when you come across an ad server that's not blocked it's easy to add to the file.
FalconAh! So that's how you escape the socialist label, by owning stock in a company?
Seeing as how Socialism is an economic system of the collective ownership of the means of production, Al Gore can't be a socialist. Unless that is you want to call stockholders a collective, however as used in socialism a collective is usually made up of the workers and Gore is not a worker at Oxy.
FalconWhen you want a particular product, go to its website or a website of a supplier. NEVER click on ads of any form.
Once in a while when googling I'll click on a Google ad, open it in a new tab, then close the tab. I do this because I want to support Google.
Doing so just encourages more ads.
Ads allow content providers to provide content. Without ads there would not be much content and what was available users would have to pay for. Even /., /. displays ads as well as asks users to subscribe. I don't myself and once my ip addie was blocked because I passed some ceiling in page impressions. I've also had replies I wanted to make blocked because I posted too many replies in 1 day.
FalconSearch engines are not THAT tough to build. Technologically, it's within their grasp. But people just don't WANT to do business with MS. Without a captive market, customers and would-be partners take their business elsewhere.
And if Microsoft wants Yahoo! because of the eyeballs that will be a problem for them. It's easy for people to switch to another search engine or email provider. I've heard a few people say that if MS does acquire Yahoo! they'll switch, though I use mostly Google for searching I use Yahoo! for email and for the groups and I will switch.
Their most successful/innovative product is XBox, and they lose money on every single one that ships. The joke of it is, by the time they reach the break even point it will be time to upgrade the hardware and start losing money again.
MS has reached the break even point on the XBox, for the second quarter they've made profits, $89 million this last quarter.
On the desktop, I predict Apple will do the best job capitalizing on the Vista meltdown. Linux will rule the cheapie subnotebooks and everything below that in the food chain, along with the server world. MSFT will be stuck in the middle, sandwiched between Linux on the low end and Apple on the high end.
"Apple dominates sales for PCs above $1,000".
FalconI was just wondering... Yahoo's stock fell after Microsoft withdrew their original offer. Did it slide all the way back to pre-acquisition-attempt value or did it remain above that?
Yahoo!'s share price remained above the price before MS's original offer, more than $7 above. Yahoo!'s lowest price this year was $19.05 on 31 January. It's lowest point in May was on the 5th, at $24.37. It closed today, er yesterday the 19th at $27.68. And on the 16th, $27.66
FalconWhile I think Write To Them is a fine service and encourage people to use it more, I can't help but feel this is a little premature. This is just another hare-brained idea by the Home Office that MPs haven't even seen yet. Why don't we wait until they actually have a copy of the bill before bombarding them with complaints about it? Otherwise we run the risk of looking like paranoid kooks for protesting a bill that nobody has read because it doesn't even exist yet.
"When they came for me..."
FalconOf course things like this will be discussed amongst government officials, and talking to the telecoms to find out the technical feasibility would be something done early in the process. I would start to be concerned if this was officially proposed, and then really concerned if it was accepted and enacted.
The tyme to talk in opposition is when talk like this starts, not when it's actually proposed.
FalconHave you guys seen what's been happening to the republican assholes who've been running our government?
I won't blame the Republicans, the powers that the PATRIOT Act gave Bush Clinton tried to grab as president too.
FalconNo he's not, Al Gore's family is a big holder of stocks in Oxidental Petroleum Company, Oxy.
FalconIf I were British I would be considerably more afraid of my government than any terrorist.
I'm American and I fear our government more than any other terrorists. This is backwards, government is supposed to fear citizens, not citizens fear government.
FalconI won't say it's the only one, but a big reason the US exports so much food is because agricultural businesses receive billions of dollars in subsidies, which causes havoc with the economies of Third World Nations. For instance, corn is native to Mexico however because US companies get billions of US taxpayer dollars businesses like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill are able to export corn to Mexico and sell it there for less than Mexican farmers spend on growing corn. This is neither fair nor free trade.
FalconWhen the US is left without the ability to produce anything of value
But the US does produce things of value, food. The US is one of the top food exporters.
FalconNo they don't. As far as employment is concerned all anyone has the right to is opportunity.
FalconYou have to learn the culture too.
That's pretty much true with any foreign language.
Ni hao,
Falconni hao ma?
Undesirable jobs that 'white people' don't want to do - e.g. janitorial work, low-paying service jobs, monotonous jobs like security guard, or hard jobs like construction (hours in the sun, hours in the rain, etc.).
As a white American I've had two of the types of jobs you list, maybe three. I worked in house keeping, janitorial, and I've worked in construction. Specifically working with concrete and masonry. And I got the construction job through a day labor pool I worked at.
1. Coming from poorer, less-educated countries, immigrants appreciate the value of a dollar. They don't take for granted that there will be food on the table, good working conditions, and a roof over their heads. They work for it because they know what it's like to go without it
Though not all many of those people I worked with through the labor pool were homeless. Some slept under bridges, some in tents in the woods, and some in a vehicle.
2. They know the value of hard work. Poorer Americans in particular are always looking for the 'quick fix', because they've been deluded into believing in the 'American Dream' - dream long enough and good things will come out of nowhere. They don't try to raise themselves up, because they expect someone else to do it for them.
Though not all, some of those I met at the labor pools were some of the hardest working people I met. I first went to a labor pool, temp agency, as a student in college. I don't know of any student, except a few disabled students, who worked as hard as some of those at the labor pool.
FalconWhile I was writing this, I was thinking of inhouse tools for a company which has directors who are just happy using the technology they are confident about, and not necessarily interested in keeping up to date with the latest technology
In this case it doesn't matter much to the programmers anyway, if it's "good enough" the directors won't care to have the bugs fixed and they will out of work anyway.
FalconAnd if you look at a lot of them they are alpha/beta releases and not the 1.0 that you come to expect with proprietary software though.
What are the 2.5 and 2.6 releases of the Linux kernel then? Or take NeoOffice. While I have version 2.1 it's up to 2.2.3. NeoOffice, neither my version nor the new one is an alpha. I'm not sure about whether either one is a beta or not. My version of Firefox is 2.0.0.6, I don't know what's the current version for Macs. Look at Blender, I have version 2.44.
But there is a difference, the GIMP is not backed by any major corporation
CinePaint is backed by major corporations. It's called FilmGIMP because it's used by movies studios, it started as GIMP but a programmer added capabilities to it that photographers wanted, such as 24 bit colour depths per channel. The maintainers of GIMP did not accept them however some in the movie industry ran with it creating a fork. Here's a list of movie studios and movies that used it, two being Sean Connery's "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and Tom Cruise's "The Last Samurai".
So you would expect them to be a little less on features, another thing is, the GIMP developers focus on what means the most to them
That's right, businesses give users what they want whereas OS maintainers only do what they want, which takes us back to there being a place for both FOOS and proprietary software.
FalconProprietary software encourages rushed-out-the-door projects, open-source doesn't.
There's space for both proprietary and FOOS software. Photoshop is a good example of proprietary software, despite being worked on for more than 10 years GIMP is no where near having the capabilities of Photoshop. While CinePaint, aka FilmGIMP, is closer I don't know if it has all the capabilities of PS. While I haven't used PS I did use GIMP and Paint Shop Pro, and PSP beat GIMP handily.
Actually open source does encourage rushing software out of the door. Look at how often fixes are released, frequently. Of course many OS projects make it easy to install patches but they are still released with bugs.
Falconit's more important to have some piece of software up and running to generate useful results that it is to have perfectly modular software that can be reused by changing the a couple of inherited classes.
While I agree it's important to get production code out to where it's used, I'd add that it's important to continue development and have a test bed.
a good programmer who writes bug-free modular code will probably end up doing himself out of the job because as time goes by, there will be less code that needs to changed or upgraded per job request.
I don't think so, unless the programmer is only good with a couple of things. First all too often there's mission creep. Then there's new OSes along with their new sets of APIs. Even once software is released and the bugs are ironed out there will be a demand for a "New and Improved" version. Maybe with new features or options.
FalconI'm normally not a fan of wikipedia, but since this is so very basic stuff, I'm going to make an exception :
Carbon_dioxide_levels_and_photorespiration
I noticed your link says "light-independent reactions" increase with increased CO2 levels however it says nothing about light dependent reactions. And I haven't seen a reduction in light. It also says nothing about plants who slow slower with an enriched CO2 environment yet I previously included links to scientific articles that said some plants do show a slower growth rate.
Yes there are exceptions (that's only because plants have dropped the co2 content of the athmosphere so very much). One or two. Doesn't change a thing for food crops though, or for trees, or ...
Once again you didn't read the articles I provided a link to, the "New Scientist" article specifically says "A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1C have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent (see Don't count on the trees)." Now this doesn't say an increase in CO2 slows growth it does say a raise in temperatures does, and Greenhouse Gases are called that because they raise temperatures. And if you look at the Google link you will see the search was for "co2 plants OR trees growth". Another article, from Harvard, goes over a science study that shows "Warming may not spark tree growth". Here's another Google, this one for co2 trees slowed growth food. As for food, what affects food crops like corn more than anything else is using the crops to feed cows and other animals as well as biofuels. In the US 90% of the corn grown is to feed livestock and not humans. Yet the amount of corn needed to raise 1 pound of meat can feed a bunch of people. And cows aren't corn eaters, they're ruminants and eat grass. Yahoo! has a webpage explaining why cattle are fed corn instead of grass.
You are being dishonest, sir.
Whereas I've provided plenty of links to scientific research and articles you haven't provided anything and I'm the one being dishonest? You're the dishonest one not me. You're dishonest and, like president Bush, ignore science. Unless you can have a rational conversation and provide evidence to back up your claims I see no reason to continue.
FalconI would *love* a service like that.
Yea, I bet a lot of others would too.
FalconAnd here I thought all the people I know with hydroponic setups were running CO2 blowers on their Cash Crop (TM) plants to make them grow bigger faster and increase their yield but large amounts. I was such a dummy, thank you.
Yes, added CO2 can make some plants grow faster but it also retards the growth of others. One of those plants it boosts the growth of is poison ivy.
Falconmore co2 = better working.
Better what?
The most important limitation in the plants' rate of photosynthesis is the LOW carbon content of the athmosphere
Did you read TFA about how high CO2 levels can retard some plants' growth? I included the link.
Making the athmosphere revert to, oh say 12% co2 (which is a few million times the current level) would be a good thing for plants.
Read the Sciencedaily article. And Google, which returned the Sciencedaily article, can provide more like it. If it's not acceptable maybe an article from "New Scientist", which Google also provided, is acceptable. If not maybe you're like Bush, anti-science.
FalconPowering electrolysis seems like an ideal application for solar power.
Why not use the solar power itself instead of electrolyzing water to make hydrogen? Entropy says you loose energy when converting it.
Falcon