It might not be that easy, since OTHER PEOPLE (a friend) could post that about him without posting it under some other handle.
Simple solution: Educate your friend(s) on on-line privacy issues and teach them basic security skills like using http://gnupg.org/ to encrypt your e-mail while you are at it. Someone who still posts embarrassing pictures after you told them not to really isn't a very good "friend".
Think about it. Wouldn't you like to know "as much as possible" about a person you are about to hire? Checking a real name on Google is, from that point of view, almost as natural as calling former employers to find out how you performed there (and why you quit). The "trick" is basically to use a alias when posting "stoned-looking" pictures.. It's easy to do a search for the name on the application, it's much harder to find out what the person applying actually has done online if he/she only use aliases and fake names (and other e-mail address than the one used on the application). Oh btw, unless it's obvious, a "home page" where you brag about law violations, drug use and tell the world that you have a political view that's likely to be viewed as "not very politically correct" also don't help you much..
"If Google opened its pagerank, then the order of search results would be the cleverness of the webmasters to craft their webpage to exploit Google's methods, instead of actual relevence to the search involved."
Google admits how to exploit them on their own site!!!
"Following these guidelines will help Google find, index, and rank your site. Even if you choose not to implement any of these suggestions, we strongly encourage you to pay very close attention to the "Quality Guidelines," which outline some of the illicit practices that may lead to a site being removed entirely from the Google index."
It is already possible, and desirable, to "craft" the webpage to "exploit Google". It just takes a lot of time and hard work - you see, they actually explain that "the trick" to "exploit Google" is to "Create a useful, information-rich site, and write pages that clearly and accurately describe your content."
When I sometimes find myself viewing a "spam-bomb" page that ranks high on Google for days or sometimes a week before it is removed I frequently ask myself "WHY would someone go to so much trouble and spend so much time using DIRTY TRICKS when they could have made a actual informative useful site in half the time used on dirty SEO???"
What does a private company owe someone who simply wants to be ranked high?
Apparently something. You see, apparently someone turned everything up-side-down while you and I were not looking. It now appears that if you go to a resturant and get bad food and bad service and write that in a review of that resturant then the resturant can sue you for giving them a bad "rank" - just like you now apparently can sue Google for ranking a garbage website low.
If you rely only on SEO (Search Engine Optimization) focused mainly on one search engine then you are putting all your eggs in one basket. If you contact webmasters with similar sites and exchange hard links then both of you will get regular steady traffic to the benefit of both. Hard links between similar friendly sites has been the way to do it for ages and still will be in the future. You see, search engine traffic is there one day and gone tomorrow. Then you get nothing for a month and suddenly your server looks like it's about to die because you're among the first five entries for some interesting keyword. Search Engine Traffic comes and goes. Any not-totally-n00b webmaster knows this. And whining about it won't help you.
The whole issue is just stupid. If I link to some site from my website and then remove the link because I for any reason no longer like that site, and they sue.. I'd laught. This lawsuit is just a redicilous pr-stunt.
"In future if you need a list of website, it will be easier to code a webspider than going around suing search engines".
It would be great if that was anywhere even remotely close to true. As pointed out in another post and in an article I wrote in January, Yahoo, Microsoft and America Online all turned over the records asked for without question. Google was the only one who actually put up a fight... Think about it. Only one of all the corporations asked for records refused. The rest "bent over" immediately.
I wrote a story about this late January. Let me quote myself to remind ya'all of some important insights into this story:
"While Google is reacting to the government request by refusing and resisting, other "leading search engines" seem less eager to protect their users right to privacy.
It should be pointed out that:
* Yahoo,
* Microsoft and
* America Online
have all turned records over to The Bush administration."
Be very aware of this. Google is the only search engine who put up a fight on this issue! The other "leading" search engines willingly, without question, handed over all information asked for. Google in their glory avoided giving out information, the rest didn't even put up a fight. Your Google searches may be protected - for now - but the rest of your searches are now "safe" in the hands of the US Justice Department.
Let's be real, the vast, vast majority of torrent traffic is freeloaders participating in illegal piracy. A torrent on PirateBay is getting a lot more traffic then torrents for some rinky-dink Ubuntu ISO or free concert MP3 from some unsigned local band.
That's a myth. And movies at PirateBay like http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3412481 "911 - Alex Jones: Martial Law 911 Rise of the Police State HQ" are legal to download, mr. Jones actually encourages everyone to share his movies. And there are many more sites where you can download using BitTorrent legally, like http://hardcoretorrents.com/ if you want adult entertainment. Seriously. BitTorrent piracy is a myth. Yes, there are a small percentage of files pirated using that protocol, just like http, ftp, e-donkey and other file transfer protocols can be abused.
I've yet to see any real numbers showing that "piracy" is the main usage for the BitTorrent protocol.
In a democracy, if people aren't upset about what their leaders are doing and they're not uninformed then the only logical conclusions left are that they 1. Do not care or 2. Approve.
"There is an apathy that is running rapid in this country, that is deadly. Whether or not there are aliens, we are truly now at this moment a nation of sheep." --William Cooper - Download and view "Secret Government" http://torrentchannel.com/new_world_order_and_the_ alien_agenda , you'll be amazed. That 20 year old quite is getting more true and relevant by the minute. Welcome to "The World As Described in the Book 1984", in case you haven't noticed, you're already there and you've been there a while..
"We are moving to a Google that knows more about you." -- Google CEO Eric Schmidt, speaking to financial analysts, February 9, 2005, as quoted in the New York Times the next day.
It searches Google for you but doesn't give them more information about me. Not that they don't already know way too much...
I have no reason to not trust Google. However, I also don't have any reason to trust them. And I generally don't trust anyone, specially if they employ (former, but as we all know nobody really leaves the intelligence community) NSA people and almost brag about how much information they are collecting about their users.
It's like.. They slam in your face WE ARE BIG BROTHER and then add BUT IT'S ALL GOOD, YOU SEE; WE'RE NOT EVIL! Honestly!
Hear, hear! Best post I've read in a long time. torrents are as you correctly mention both safe and legal. Well, safe to the extent that some of the factual objective information about 911 and other issues available at http://torrentchannel.com/ may break big holes in your "safe" (illusion) of reality, but hey. Truth is good for you.
i find myself suddenly not wanting to ever search on the word 'torrent' again.
BitTorrent is a LEGAL protocol. It can also be abused, just like http and ftp. In light of reality, your statement is like saying "I'll never browse the web again" (yes, there are websites with illegal content, but that doesn't mean you should stop using http..). It should also be mentioned that a lot of the documentaries available using BitTorrent goes against everything the government and predominant media would have people believe - and THAT'S in reality why the protocol is being demonized!
It's about information control, NOT "pirated movies" as the mainstream media would have people think.
IE7 shows warning messages for 'Reported Phishing Websites.'
BEWARE of warning messages and censure like that. The Norwegian Police branch "kripos" provide Norwegian Internet providers with a list of "child porn" websites which they filter out. And what do you know, websites with factual objective information about 911 and other information that goes against everything our tyrannical covertly torturing government would have people believe is censured as "child porn".
So be very aware of "warning messages for 'Reported Phishing Websites.'" and other "warning messages" and "filters" who have the potential to be abused by criminal tyrannical governments.
"Isn't IE still 90% of the market share? where did this subject line come from?"
According to my Webalizer output (with a very long and careful configuration), between 74% and 84% of users of mainstream sites are using Internet Explorer. 6% to 16% from having 90% market share. It's not got 90% according to my numbers, but it's not very far from it.
I just can't imagine installing IE7 on my machine except if I REALLY have to to verify that my websites load and operate with it. And that would be really sad.
Check out http://www.browsercam.com/ if you need to know what your website(s) look like in other browsers. It's generally enough to make sure your (x)html folows W3 http://www.w3.org/ standards, but some browsers don't so Browsercam and other tools like it can be of value if you really want to know what your site will look like in other browsers. It's great for Windows users also since it can show Linux-browsers like Konqueror etc also.
Additionally, it may be of great interest and surely value for everyone to know and realize that the NSA is except from all laws that do not specifically mention NSA in the text of that law. Check it our for yourselves. THAT MEANS THAT ONLY LAWS WHERE NSA IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONION NSA APPLY TO NSA. They are the premiere intelligence agency in the world, they answer to no-one and only a handful of laws actually apply to them... Scared yet? That's just the tip of the iceberg of trouble we're in.
The difference is that this company has a virtual monopoly that's growing stronger (no thanks) to Intel planning on building DRM technology into their new chips so Linux and other free variants of the The GNU Operating System http://www.gnu.org/ may not even work in the future.
The important the difference between MS and other corporations is that if you read between the lines they don't even try to sell their product anymore, like NATO with their new ground-(HAARP etc)-to-DeathRay(tm)-satellites-to-ground, MS now only repeats one message: Resistance is futile. We will force our evil (software) upon you regardless of you wanting it or not.
How is it possible to "confirm" a big bang theory ?
Ten points to you for brilliant observation. Additionally, they don't even say they confirm the theory in any way what so ever - They only confirm that they think it is likely a good theory. And that doesn't mean as much as it used to, remember, NASA is among those telling you there is no massive covert black-ops weather modification program using chemical trails http://www.google.com/search?hl=no&q=chemtrails going on in all NATO http://www.google.com/search?hl=no&q=NATO%2Bnazi countries - even though I http://en.xiando.org/Chemtrails and half a million other people accross the world have taken literally thousands of pictures of such operations.
Big Bang remains a nice theory. It may be true or it may be total hogwash - just like "evolution". I strongly encourage everyone to think for themselves, ask though questions and never believe ANYTHING NASA says is true just because they say it is.
"So I wonder how effective all these net-ads are, esp. with people blocking them with FireFox's AdBlock, etc."
There are people out there who have a hard time working the remote control for their TV. When these people go on the Internet they use "Internet Explorer" with no updates and they don't even know there are alternatives to it. Imagine your mother on the Internet to get an idea who's looking at the pop-ups desperately trying to figure out how to close that (or any other) window.
As you may or, as your post indicates, may not be aware is that it's ALL credits. The NOT Federal (absolutely no) Reserve prints new money for 2.4cent on the dollar. Check it out for yourself!
1.) The Federal Reserve Central Bank has the Federal Reserve Notes printed by the US Treasury for pennies on the dollar, with not a cent of reserve or investment!
2.) Then it lends this 'money' to the Federal Regional Banks who multiply this deceptively created credit seven times over. For every billion dollars it borrows from the Federal Reserve Central Bank, Regional Banks lend seven billion dollars! (That is why it is called 'fractional' reserve banking.)
3.) The losers are the people and businesses who borrow this created credit line and are forced to pay it back with interest that is collateralized by real assets (their homes, cars, land, factories, etc.).
4.) Another deception of this system is that the controllers of the money supply (The FED) have virtual command of the economy. For the economy just to keep going, The FED needs to create more new credit each year than is due in interest payments. * A Federal Reserve $1 note buys goods only because people believe it has value. If people realized that there was no true value behind these Federal Reserve Notes, they would be worthless!" [CS pg 36-37]
I get your point - they aren't "paying" as in giving $ credits on a bank account but giving $ credits on a Google account. IT'S ALL WORTHLESS CREDITS! Seriously. Check it out for yourself.
I'm using adsense. This can't be good for my "shareholder value". Somebody, that means me, will have to pay for this. Anyone want to buy me dinner all next month?
The article looked like a howto to me and I learned howto make a chart. So I learned something today. Thus; the article was excellent. A little Nancy Drew is good for you anyway, few people today are able to think critically about anything! You tell them: Burning jetfuel burns at 1600 fahrenheit. Steel melts at 3000 fahrenheit. Thus; it should be obvious that the WTF towers were demolished on 911 - yet most people just look at me with this stupid gaze like I'm crazy for even doubting the "official story". The article also learned me "Modifying the Chart: Selecting it the Right Way" - stupid me, I've been selecting it "the wrong way" until now..
"but will it really increase the lifespan of your old vacuum tube monstrosity that takes up your entire garage?"
It doesn't have to take up the entire garage just because it's old. I've heard a Rumor. There's something out there called a pencil. It's got loads of features, just like modern computers. You can write letters, draw graphics, shew on the end of it and there's numerous other applications. I've also heard it's very small, light-weight and most importantly, portable.
Slashdot Mirror
It might not be that easy, since OTHER PEOPLE (a friend) could post that about him without posting it under some other handle.
Simple solution: Educate your friend(s) on on-line privacy issues and teach them basic security skills like using http://gnupg.org/ to encrypt your e-mail while you are at it. Someone who still posts embarrassing pictures after you told them not to really isn't a very good "friend".
Think about it. Wouldn't you like to know "as much as possible" about a person you are about to hire? Checking a real name on Google is, from that point of view, almost as natural as calling former employers to find out how you performed there (and why you quit). The "trick" is basically to use a alias when posting "stoned-looking" pictures.. It's easy to do a search for the name on the application, it's much harder to find out what the person applying actually has done online if he/she only use aliases and fake names (and other e-mail address than the one used on the application). Oh btw, unless it's obvious, a "home page" where you brag about law violations, drug use and tell the world that you have a political view that's likely to be viewed as "not very politically correct" also don't help you much..
"If Google opened its pagerank, then the order of search results would be the cleverness of the webmasters to craft their webpage to exploit Google's methods, instead of actual relevence to the search involved."
Google admits how to exploit them on their own site!!!
http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html
"Following these guidelines will help Google find, index, and rank your site. Even if you choose not to implement any of these suggestions, we strongly encourage you to pay very close attention to the "Quality Guidelines," which outline some of the illicit practices that may lead to a site being removed entirely from the Google index."
It is already possible, and desirable, to "craft" the webpage to "exploit Google". It just takes a lot of time and hard work - you see, they actually explain that "the trick" to "exploit Google" is to "Create a useful, information-rich site, and write pages that clearly and accurately describe your content."
When I sometimes find myself viewing a "spam-bomb" page that ranks high on Google for days or sometimes a week before it is removed I frequently ask myself "WHY would someone go to so much trouble and spend so much time using DIRTY TRICKS when they could have made a actual informative useful site in half the time used on dirty SEO???"
What does a private company owe someone who simply wants to be ranked high?
Apparently something. You see, apparently someone turned everything up-side-down while you and I were not looking. It now appears that if you go to a resturant and get bad food and bad service and write that in a review of that resturant then the resturant can sue you for giving them a bad "rank" - just like you now apparently can sue Google for ranking a garbage website low.
If you rely only on SEO (Search Engine Optimization) focused mainly on one search engine then you are putting all your eggs in one basket. If you contact webmasters with similar sites and exchange hard links then both of you will get regular steady traffic to the benefit of both. Hard links between similar friendly sites has been the way to do it for ages and still will be in the future. You see, search engine traffic is there one day and gone tomorrow. Then you get nothing for a month and suddenly your server looks like it's about to die because you're among the first five entries for some interesting keyword. Search Engine Traffic comes and goes. Any not-totally-n00b webmaster knows this. And whining about it won't help you.
The whole issue is just stupid. If I link to some site from my website and then remove the link because I for any reason no longer like that site, and they sue.. I'd laught. This lawsuit is just a redicilous pr-stunt.
"In future if you need a list of website, it will be easier to code a webspider than going around suing search engines".
It would be great if that was anywhere even remotely close to true. As pointed out in another post and in an article I wrote in January, Yahoo, Microsoft and America Online all turned over the records asked for without question. Google was the only one who actually put up a fight... Think about it. Only one of all the corporations asked for records refused. The rest "bent over" immediately.
I wrote a story about this late January. Let me quote myself to remind ya'all of some important insights into this story:
"While Google is reacting to the government request by refusing and resisting, other "leading search engines" seem less eager to protect their users right to privacy.
It should be pointed out that:
* Yahoo,
* Microsoft and
* America Online
have all turned records over to The Bush administration."
Be very aware of this. Google is the only search engine who put up a fight on this issue! The other "leading" search engines willingly, without question, handed over all information asked for. Google in their glory avoided giving out information, the rest didn't even put up a fight. Your Google searches may be protected - for now - but the rest of your searches are now "safe" in the hands of the US Justice Department.
Let's be real, the vast, vast majority of torrent traffic is freeloaders participating in illegal piracy. A torrent on PirateBay is getting a lot more traffic then torrents for some rinky-dink Ubuntu ISO or free concert MP3 from some unsigned local band.
That's a myth. And movies at PirateBay like http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3412481 "911 - Alex Jones: Martial Law 911 Rise of the Police State HQ" are legal to download, mr. Jones actually encourages everyone to share his movies. And there are many more sites where you can download using BitTorrent legally, like http://hardcoretorrents.com/ if you want adult entertainment. Seriously. BitTorrent piracy is a myth. Yes, there are a small percentage of files pirated using that protocol, just like http, ftp, e-donkey and other file transfer protocols can be abused.
I've yet to see any real numbers showing that "piracy" is the main usage for the BitTorrent protocol.
In a democracy, if people aren't upset about what their leaders are doing and they're not uninformed then the only logical conclusions left are that they 1. Do not care or 2. Approve.
_ alien_agenda , you'll be amazed. That 20 year old quite is getting more true and relevant by the minute. Welcome to "The World As Described in the Book 1984", in case you haven't noticed, you're already there and you've been there a while..
"There is an apathy that is running rapid in this country, that is deadly. Whether or not there are aliens, we are truly now at this moment a nation of sheep." --William Cooper - Download and view "Secret Government" http://torrentchannel.com/new_world_order_and_the
"We are moving to a Google that knows more about you." -- Google CEO Eric Schmidt, speaking to financial analysts, February 9, 2005, as quoted in the New York Times the next day.
I use scroogle a lot: http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm
It searches Google for you but doesn't give them more information about me. Not that they don't already know way too much...
I have no reason to not trust Google. However, I also don't have any reason to trust them. And I generally don't trust anyone, specially if they employ (former, but as we all know nobody really leaves the intelligence community) NSA people and almost brag about how much information they are collecting about their users.
It's like.. They slam in your face WE ARE BIG BROTHER and then add BUT IT'S ALL GOOD, YOU SEE; WE'RE NOT EVIL! Honestly!
I'd say you can safely search for "torrent"...
Hear, hear! Best post I've read in a long time. torrents are as you correctly mention both safe and legal. Well, safe to the extent that some of the factual objective information about 911 and other issues available at http://torrentchannel.com/ may break big holes in your "safe" (illusion) of reality, but hey. Truth is good for you.
i find myself suddenly not wanting to ever search on the word 'torrent' again.
BitTorrent is a LEGAL protocol. It can also be abused, just like http and ftp. In light of reality, your statement is like saying "I'll never browse the web again" (yes, there are websites with illegal content, but that doesn't mean you should stop using http..). It should also be mentioned that a lot of the documentaries available using BitTorrent goes against everything the government and predominant media would have people believe - and THAT'S in reality why the protocol is being demonized!
It's about information control, NOT "pirated movies" as the mainstream media would have people think.
IE7 shows warning messages for 'Reported Phishing Websites.'
BEWARE of warning messages and censure like that. The Norwegian Police branch "kripos" provide Norwegian Internet providers with a list of "child porn" websites which they filter out. And what do you know, websites with factual objective information about 911 and other information that goes against everything our tyrannical covertly torturing government would have people believe is censured as "child porn".
So be very aware of "warning messages for 'Reported Phishing Websites.'" and other "warning messages" and "filters" who have the potential to be abused by criminal tyrannical governments.
"Isn't IE still 90% of the market share? where did this subject line come from?"
According to my Webalizer output (with a very long and careful configuration), between 74% and 84% of users of mainstream sites are using Internet Explorer. 6% to 16% from having 90% market share. It's not got 90% according to my numbers, but it's not very far from it.
I just can't imagine installing IE7 on my machine except if I REALLY have to to verify that my websites load and operate with it. And that would be really sad.
Check out http://www.browsercam.com/ if you need to know what your website(s) look like in other browsers. It's generally enough to make sure your (x)html folows W3 http://www.w3.org/ standards, but some browsers don't so Browsercam and other tools like it can be of value if you really want to know what your site will look like in other browsers. It's great for Windows users also since it can show Linux-browsers like Konqueror etc also.
"guaranteed work for the next decade" by computer security experts worldwide.
Totally! And make no mistake: That's by design, not by error: NSA access was built into Windows: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/5/5263/1.html
Additionally, it may be of great interest and surely value for everyone to know and realize that the NSA is except from all laws that do not specifically mention NSA in the text of that law. Check it our for yourselves. THAT MEANS THAT ONLY LAWS WHERE NSA IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONION NSA APPLY TO NSA. They are the premiere intelligence agency in the world, they answer to no-one and only a handful of laws actually apply to them... Scared yet? That's just the tip of the iceberg of trouble we're in.
The difference is that this company has a virtual monopoly that's growing stronger (no thanks) to Intel planning on building DRM technology into their new chips so Linux and other free variants of the The GNU Operating System http://www.gnu.org/ may not even work in the future.
The important the difference between MS and other corporations is that if you read between the lines they don't even try to sell their product anymore, like NATO with their new ground-(HAARP etc)-to-DeathRay(tm)-satellites-to-ground, MS now only repeats one message: Resistance is futile. We will force our evil (software) upon you regardless of you wanting it or not.
How is it possible to "confirm" a big bang theory ?
Ten points to you for brilliant observation. Additionally, they don't even say they confirm the theory in any way what so ever - They only confirm that they think it is likely a good theory. And that doesn't mean as much as it used to, remember, NASA is among those telling you there is no massive covert black-ops weather modification program using chemical trails http://www.google.com/search?hl=no&q=chemtrails going on in all NATO http://www.google.com/search?hl=no&q=NATO%2Bnazi countries - even though I http://en.xiando.org/Chemtrails and half a million other people accross the world have taken literally thousands of pictures of such operations.
Big Bang remains a nice theory. It may be true or it may be total hogwash - just like "evolution". I strongly encourage everyone to think for themselves, ask though questions and never believe ANYTHING NASA says is true just because they say it is.
"So I wonder how effective all these net-ads are, esp. with people blocking them with FireFox's AdBlock, etc."
There are people out there who have a hard time working the remote control for their TV. When these people go on the Internet they use "Internet Explorer" with no updates and they don't even know there are alternatives to it. Imagine your mother on the Internet to get an idea who's looking at the pop-ups desperately trying to figure out how to close that (or any other) window.
As you may or, as your post indicates, may not be aware is that it's ALL credits. The NOT Federal (absolutely no) Reserve prints new money for 2.4cent on the dollar. Check it out for yourself!
1.) The Federal Reserve Central Bank has the Federal Reserve Notes printed by the US Treasury for pennies on the dollar, with not a cent of reserve or investment!
2.) Then it lends this 'money' to the Federal Regional Banks who multiply this deceptively created credit seven times over. For every billion dollars it borrows from the Federal Reserve Central Bank, Regional Banks lend seven billion dollars! (That is why it is called 'fractional' reserve banking.)
3.) The losers are the people and businesses who borrow this created credit line and are forced to pay it back with interest that is collateralized by real assets (their homes, cars, land, factories, etc.).
4.) Another deception of this system is that the controllers of the money supply (The FED) have virtual command of the economy. For the economy just to keep going, The FED needs to create more new credit each year than is due in interest payments. * A Federal Reserve $1 note buys goods only because people believe it has value. If people realized that there was no true value behind these Federal Reserve Notes, they would be worthless!" [CS pg 36-37]
I get your point - they aren't "paying" as in giving $ credits on a bank account but giving $ credits on a Google account. IT'S ALL WORTHLESS CREDITS! Seriously. Check it out for yourself.
I'm using adsense. This can't be good for my "shareholder value". Somebody, that means me, will have to pay for this. Anyone want to buy me dinner all next month?
~ $ USE="binfilter java mozilla xml2" ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge openoffice
The article looked like a howto to me and I learned howto make a chart. So I learned something today. Thus; the article was excellent. A little Nancy Drew is good for you anyway, few people today are able to think critically about anything! You tell them: Burning jetfuel burns at 1600 fahrenheit. Steel melts at 3000 fahrenheit. Thus; it should be obvious that the WTF towers were demolished on 911 - yet most people just look at me with this stupid gaze like I'm crazy for even doubting the "official story". The article also learned me "Modifying the Chart: Selecting it the Right Way" - stupid me, I've been selecting it "the wrong way" until now..
"only" $47 million in revenue in 2005? I'm fairly sure I could pay the rent and eat nice dinners every day with $47 million yearly..
"but will it really increase the lifespan of your old vacuum tube monstrosity that takes up your entire garage?"
It doesn't have to take up the entire garage just because it's old. I've heard a Rumor. There's something out there called a pencil. It's got loads of features, just like modern computers. You can write letters, draw graphics, shew on the end of it and there's numerous other applications. I've also heard it's very small, light-weight and most importantly, portable.