Google's informal corporate motto never was "Do no evil," rather it is "Don't be evil," (reference) which carries an entirely different set of implications with it. In the case of China, Google decided that to completely deprive the country of its information would be more evil than to voluntarily censor the government-forbidden sites, at least for now. I can't say that I agree with Google completely, either, but there's no need to misrepresent their stance via straw man.
So, this is basically Google looking up the search phrases in a thesaurus and then returning hits on those words too?
IIRC, Google already does similar work using the tilde (~) symbol in front of a search term to search for it and its synonyms. Google also introduced Google Sets a while ago, which does an interesting grouping of similar items, although not necessarily synonyms. I haven't yet seen the sets integrated into Google's standard search by default, so I suppose this is a possible implementation of that.
MS has already fixed a number of CSS bugs in IE7 and has made it mostly standards compliant, from their blog. The major bugs fixed at the time of posting include:
Peekaboo bug
Guillotine bug
Duplicate Character bug
Border Chaos
No Scroll bug
3 Pixel Text Jog
Magic Creeping Text bug
Bottom Margin bug on Hover
Losing the ability to highlight text under the top border
IE/Win Line-height bug
Double Float Margin Bug
Dave Shea tested the first beta and gave some information on its conformity. IE Blog has also been posting regular updates with ever-new fixes to very annoying bugs. It seems that the IE team is working with web developers in an unprecedented way. Embrace and extend TBD.
sIFR text is completely selectable and copy/paste-able. The headache part is that the selection doesn't carry over between the sIFR elements into the normal HTML part, which could be considered a browser/plugin limitation but still a pain, nonetheless.
For the uninitiated, please read about sIFR before making accusations about its supposed limitations. It is scalable and it viewable with Flash and/or CSS disabled. The whole point is that the HTML can stay completely semantic and indexable, but the font can be customized to the needs of the designers. Far too many of the responses here indicate that the/. community has no clue quite how far modern web professionals are going to keep the HTML user-friendly and standards-compliant, while still making their website pleasurable to view on as many browsers as possible (so they get web traffic from people besides, you know, geeks).
For further reading into the web designer community, poke around sites like the following:
Homer: That lousy pothole. Why don't they fix it? Bart: [walks in with a cookie and a glass of milk] I heard Mayor Quimby spent the street repair fund on a secret swimming pool for himself. Homer: Get out. Who told you that? Bart: Nelson. Homer: Hmmm. That's the kind of dirt that belongs on my web page. Lisa: You can't post that on the Internet. You don't even know if it's true! Homer: Nelson has never steered me wrong, honey. Nelson is gold. Bart: You know, it might have been Jimbo. Homer: Beautiful, we have confirmation. [Lisa sighs in exasperation]
We hope to address these and other issues in the future. For example:
* Anonymity could be provided by proxying requests through intermediate nodes, so that neither the originator nor the provider of the results for any request can be determined. Although Kenosis currently works via simple HTTP, future versions may use SSL for link-based encryption and public-key encryption for end-to-end verification of the authenticity of requests and node metadata.
By combining the print- specific CSS stylesheet described above with the WebArch document, a nicely formatted PDF document can be created.
The point is that both CSS and XSL can be used to output to PDF. The authors state that CSS wasn't made to be a Turing-complete language, rather a layout language. They aren't saying CSS can do everything XSL can, rather that most of what you can layout with XSL can be replicated in fewer lines, and more readably, with CSS.
I know the feeling. When I visited my family back home for a week, I worked on 8 PCs before I left. If you're handing out stuff in lieu of fixing hte computer, you might consider the Ubuntu CD package. Last I checked Ubuntu is still shipping free pressed CD packs. I just received all 10 of mine yesterday, and they look good. The package includes both a Live CD and an Install CD, with a brief explanation of what each does. I plan to hand the CD out to people I think would be interested in trying something different.
I fully agree. My BT download rates were lousy until I limited my upload rate between 10 and 20KB/s (where my maximum upload is 30KB/s) using Azureus. It seems that BitTorrent drowns itself for no good reason, which is a shame when you are unable to set your maximum upload speed (like in the generic client, which has no default upload cap AFAIK). I supposed it is difficult to specify a cap without knowing the maximum capacity of the connection, though.
In my American Government course, our professor read an article to us something along the lines of "Do the Federalist Papers seem too difficult to understand to you?" He then read how the original writers made sure that the language was understandable by an average farmer at the time.
I wonder how many more people would know what our laws mean if we hadn't been educationally dumbed down.
I'd rather not have Microsoft do browser-based anything, considering their history of ActiveX-ing a majority of their products. Isn't the whole point of browser-based computing to eliminate proprietary code?
You know, I don't have many problems with one program:one task thinking, except that using that thinking, new user expansion will be stunted. The more you isolate programs, the less likely you are to gain a user base. That may be the very thing that some Linux enthusiasts are going for: exlusivity. I wouldn't see the point in that, and it seems many people are ruining that by trying to spread the word about Firefox. One reason Firefox can pick up users so fast is because it combines many different useful features into one program. I'm not sure about you, but I've tried a lot of extensions, too. The point of each extension is exactly the opposite of what you're talking about. It adds functionality to an already functioning browser.
You could break the whole thing down infinitely, and by your definition, Firefox does too much. Whether or not you use Firefox, the point is that one program and one task may have been good enough for your grandmother, but who wants to write software for your grandmother? Nobody. Simple programs abound, but they don't innovate.
Plextor has a large selection of excellent external drives. I was looking at the PX-716UF the other day, and it looks like it has all the features of the normal 716A, but in a USB/Firewire enclosure.
Actually, I intended to say, "My quick Google search only revealed business models for businesses on the Internet, as opposed to businesses models for the Internet..."
But, you're right, there is not alot of thought out there.
This is by far the biggest problem with the Internet business model. Consumers want free content, producers want to give consumers what they want, providers want to charge producers or tax consumers through intrusive ads. Consumers hate the ads because they want their free content. Consumers already feel like they've given their share of money by paying the ISP for the cost of entry.
Nobody has come up with a bulletproof business model, but one suggestion has been to meter your data like your electricity, water, and gas. That could work, as long as the money went back to the source's provider. That way, the cost of provision is shared by those who use it. This system could be unnecessarily cumbersome and no doubt costly to set up.
Are there websites that offer more theories or business models for the Internet on a large scale? My quick Google search revealed business models for businesses on the Internet.
I believe it. After first getting XP, I encrypted my Documents folder, then had to reinstall Windows shortly thereafter. For several months, Windows XP wouldn't allow me to access my old documents folder, saying "Access is denied," but I kept it on my hard disk anyway. After a while, I was able to open the folder and view all of the files stored in there without a single problem.
I don't put any stock in it, other than to make access inconvenient novices.
Using the new software, I was able to bypass user names and passwords that secure Web-based e-mail programs and view personal messages sent and received on public PCs.
She didn't bypass user names and passwords. She accessed unprotected files just like Windows Explorer allows. This is a non-issue. If users don't want their information to be seen, they should be protecting their profile's Documents and Settings folder.
In conjuntion with HijackThis, I use Process Explorer when supporting our customers. It's really invaluable for Killing Processes or Process Trees of spyware like Bubba.wintools that continually regenerate all of its files and registry entries if they are running.
It's sad that we went from caring about how cookies affect our privacy to frantically trying to keep our computers free of extremely persistant little programs that are free to do whatever they want with your data.
This job is hard enough, let them and thier shoddy training be, ask to be esecalated, chances are you can and will be.
You will not be escalated. You will be passed among 6 different peers who "can't help you" and will attempt to pass you to another department. I have been passed around to people who will say they are passing me to someone else and the extension they pass me to tells me, "The number you dialed is invalid. Goodbye." *click*
You're right, tech support is hard. I'm working my second tech support job right now and it's taken a bit to get used to. But, the point of this article is that adding a language barrier to the problem is completely unnecessary. Don't trick yourself into believing that the reason why this language barrier is there is anything other than because the company only cares about the bottom line, not the customers.
From the article:
Barr has had better luck with supervisors. "But getting to them is like pulling hen's teeth. One tech person indicated they didn't even have a supervisor."
Instead of using the standard US list, try using the list adjusted for inflation. It really sheds some light on what people considered a good movie during their time. By that measure, Ford has been in 4 of the top 20 movies of all time:
I believe it depends on the wireless router you're using. I remember reading a comparison of D-Link's DI-624 vs a Microsoft router, and the D-Link was able to somehow separate the traffic so that it was not slowed by "b" devices on the same network.
Slashdot Mirror
Google's informal corporate motto never was "Do no evil," rather it is "Don't be evil," (reference) which carries an entirely different set of implications with it. In the case of China, Google decided that to completely deprive the country of its information would be more evil than to voluntarily censor the government-forbidden sites, at least for now. I can't say that I agree with Google completely, either, but there's no need to misrepresent their stance via straw man.
MS has already fixed a number of CSS bugs in IE7 and has made it mostly standards compliant, from their blog. The major bugs fixed at the time of posting include:
Dave Shea tested the first beta and gave some information on its conformity. IE Blog has also been posting regular updates with ever-new fixes to very annoying bugs. It seems that the IE team is working with web developers in an unprecedented way.
Embrace and extend TBD.
If you're really interested in which bugs IE7 will not have, you should read Dave Shea's post on the first beta. Also of interest is MS IEBlog's post listing which CSS bugs have already been fixed after the first beta. A list of the major ones follows:
sIFR text is completely selectable and copy/paste-able. The headache part is that the selection doesn't carry over between the sIFR elements into the normal HTML part, which could be considered a browser/plugin limitation but still a pain, nonetheless.
For further reading into the web designer community, poke around sites like the following:
See Google's Official Blog post:a y.html/
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/rumor-of-d
If it's what Google says it is, I don't see why this is any more threatening or buzzworthy than Sitemaps is.
From the Kenosis web site:
It's being worked on. [via]
At the end of the article, the authors say this:The point is that both CSS and XSL can be used to output to PDF. The authors state that CSS wasn't made to be a Turing-complete language, rather a layout language. They aren't saying CSS can do everything XSL can, rather that most of what you can layout with XSL can be replicated in fewer lines, and more readably, with CSS.
I know the feeling. When I visited my family back home for a week, I worked on 8 PCs before I left. If you're handing out stuff in lieu of fixing hte computer, you might consider the Ubuntu CD package. Last I checked Ubuntu is still shipping free pressed CD packs. I just received all 10 of mine yesterday, and they look good. The package includes both a Live CD and an Install CD, with a brief explanation of what each does. I plan to hand the CD out to people I think would be interested in trying something different.
I fully agree. My BT download rates were lousy until I limited my upload rate between 10 and 20KB/s (where my maximum upload is 30KB/s) using Azureus. It seems that BitTorrent drowns itself for no good reason, which is a shame when you are unable to set your maximum upload speed (like in the generic client, which has no default upload cap AFAIK). I supposed it is difficult to specify a cap without knowing the maximum capacity of the connection, though.
In my American Government course, our professor read an article to us something along the lines of "Do the Federalist Papers seem too difficult to understand to you?" He then read how the original writers made sure that the language was understandable by an average farmer at the time.
I wonder how many more people would know what our laws mean if we hadn't been educationally dumbed down.
I'd rather not have Microsoft do browser-based anything, considering their history of ActiveX-ing a majority of their products. Isn't the whole point of browser-based computing to eliminate proprietary code?
You know, I don't have many problems with one program:one task thinking, except that using that thinking, new user expansion will be stunted. The more you isolate programs, the less likely you are to gain a user base. That may be the very thing that some Linux enthusiasts are going for: exlusivity. I wouldn't see the point in that, and it seems many people are ruining that by trying to spread the word about Firefox. One reason Firefox can pick up users so fast is because it combines many different useful features into one program. I'm not sure about you, but I've tried a lot of extensions, too. The point of each extension is exactly the opposite of what you're talking about. It adds functionality to an already functioning browser.
You could break the whole thing down infinitely, and by your definition, Firefox does too much. Whether or not you use Firefox, the point is that one program and one task may have been good enough for your grandmother, but who wants to write software for your grandmother? Nobody. Simple programs abound, but they don't innovate.
Plextor has a large selection of excellent external drives. I was looking at the PX-716UF the other day, and it looks like it has all the features of the normal 716A, but in a USB/Firewire enclosure.
Actually, I intended to say, "My quick Google search only revealed business models for businesses on the Internet, as opposed to businesses models for the Internet..."
But, you're right, there is not alot of thought out there.
This is by far the biggest problem with the Internet business model. Consumers want free content, producers want to give consumers what they want, providers want to charge producers or tax consumers through intrusive ads. Consumers hate the ads because they want their free content. Consumers already feel like they've given their share of money by paying the ISP for the cost of entry.
Nobody has come up with a bulletproof business model, but one suggestion has been to meter your data like your electricity, water, and gas. That could work, as long as the money went back to the source's provider. That way, the cost of provision is shared by those who use it. This system could be unnecessarily cumbersome and no doubt costly to set up.
Are there websites that offer more theories or business models for the Internet on a large scale? My quick Google search revealed business models for businesses on the Internet.
I believe it. After first getting XP, I encrypted my Documents folder, then had to reinstall Windows shortly thereafter. For several months, Windows XP wouldn't allow me to access my old documents folder, saying "Access is denied," but I kept it on my hard disk anyway. After a while, I was able to open the folder and view all of the files stored in there without a single problem.
I don't put any stock in it, other than to make access inconvenient novices.
Using the new software, I was able to bypass user names and passwords that secure Web-based e-mail programs and view personal messages sent and received on public PCs. She didn't bypass user names and passwords. She accessed unprotected files just like Windows Explorer allows. This is a non-issue. If users don't want their information to be seen, they should be protecting their profile's Documents and Settings folder.
In conjuntion with HijackThis, I use Process Explorer when supporting our customers. It's really invaluable for Killing Processes or Process Trees of spyware like Bubba.wintools that continually regenerate all of its files and registry entries if they are running.
It's sad that we went from caring about how cookies affect our privacy to frantically trying to keep our computers free of extremely persistant little programs that are free to do whatever they want with your data.
You will not be escalated. You will be passed among 6 different peers who "can't help you" and will attempt to pass you to another department. I have been passed around to people who will say they are passing me to someone else and the extension they pass me to tells me, "The number you dialed is invalid. Goodbye." *click*
You're right, tech support is hard. I'm working my second tech support job right now and it's taken a bit to get used to. But, the point of this article is that adding a language barrier to the problem is completely unnecessary. Don't trick yourself into believing that the reason why this language barrier is there is anything other than because the company only cares about the bottom line, not the customers.
From the article:
I believe it depends on the wireless router you're using. I remember reading a comparison of D-Link's DI-624 vs a Microsoft router, and the D-Link was able to somehow separate the traffic so that it was not slowed by "b" devices on the same network.