If all of that work and expense could be done by one company, and any other company could snap it up w/o having to invest in that research, then who in their right mind would invest 10's or 100's of millions of dollars into producing a product when that basically means they're giving it to their competetors for free? Sometimes when the product is sufficiently narrow in scope, even with patents, on a successful drug, drug companies fail to recover their investment during the patent's lifetime.
Get out of the competition model. It's inevitable that if patents were removed, most of the big pharma companies would have to figure out a new way to function. But is that neccessarily a bad thing? Big Pharma prefers to create treatments rather than cures, and advertises on false claims, in the name of profit (treatments rather than cures; antidepressants marketed on false claims).
I have a sneaking suspicion that more nonprofit research would happen as a result of there not being a profit to make. I also have a suspicion that when there's no profit to make, we might end up with less extortion.
"And most christians do interpet Genesis literally."
Quoting from one of the pages noted below, the global percentages for Catholics and Protestants are as follows:
* Catholic & Near Catholic (Catholic, Orthodox, High Church Anglican) - 65%
* Protestant (Protestant, Independent, Low Church Anglican) - 38%
Even the Catholics on their own would disprove your misinformed view on literal interpretation of Genesis.
Google Desktop embedding IE is unrelated to this piece of news.
It's to do with how Google Desktop has a webserver available bound to localhost, and only available with a key generated on the local machine. An IE plugin injects a link onto the Google homepage to go directly to the local webserver. This link obviously includes a key.
A mistake in how IE parses CSS allowed the extraction of this key, by importing the Google News page (with specially-crafted query) as a CSS file, such that the key would be available on examination of the imported "stylesheet", and therefore gives an attacker the key for the local webserver.
Increased funding to schools, medicine? Minimum wage? Stable economy for the past six/seven years? Minimised borrowing and debt of the country? Low unemployment? Civil partnerships for gay couples (and sorted out the age of consent gubbins for gay men)? So yes, they have done good things for "the people".
In some countries, taxes are much higher than they are in the UK. People in England seem to think that taxes are something the government likes to put on just for the hell of it; if you actually want improvements to the country, you pay taxes.
Note that I'm not saying that Labour perfect; top-up fees aren't something I agree with, and neither were/are the various wars on terror, new terrorism laws, etc.. But on the whole, Britain is better managed at the moment than it was while the Conservatives were in.
(Not that I expect you'll agree with me in any way, 'cos you sound like you're probably a Tory.)
CSS 2.1 says that there must be a two interoperable implementations for each feature for the specification to become a recommendation. This is so that the specification can be changed if it's a pain to write or to use. Granted, the earlier versions of CSS didn't have these exit criteria, but there are people on the CSS Working Group who are on your wavelength.
"What the hell is wrong with the courts? It's akin to convicting a woman of prostitution because she is "equipped" to commit the crime.
Actually, no. It's akin to accusing a women of prostituation because she has "I am a prostitute, call me on for more information" written in big letters on a poster in her window.
I just use the "Light (reduce the complexity of Slashdot's HTML for AvantGo, Lynx, or slow connections)" option. Less HTML, simpler layout, and easier on the eys.
"Do you even use modern software? Almost all of it is skinnable. Why do you think that's popular? Because people are bored? No, because modern software is generally an extension of your personality. My guess is yours is like vanilla ice cream."
Skinnable software generally doesn't conform to the interface of the OS it runs on, nor any other applications running alongside it. Skinnablity (for want of a better word) is fine, but when each application ends up having its own little way of behaving, it's bad. If you want skins, they should be OS-wide or they just lead to inconsistency.
For example, in MSN Messenger (which I sadly have to use to talk to some of my friends), it has fake window borders inside the real window borders, and it has an extra fake window title bar which has a little toggle which removes the normal window borders and title bar leaving only the fake ones. What a useful, and er, non-wasteful use of screen space. If I wanted this kind of behaviour, I'd want to configure it GUI/OS-wide, not for each application.
(I'd also point out that lots of people skin things because they are bored. Either that, or the default interface is just plain bad and by skinning it they can dress that up somewhat. Skins are often used as an excuse to not bother with decent interface design - the idea being that "if you don't like the defaults, skin it so you do" rather than actually spending time making the defaults usable.)
If you're excited about using iTunes, but have already have a music collection built up in other programs, you're in luck. iTunes can import music from Windows Media Player, MusicMatch and any other app that uses MP3, AAC or WMA (unprotected). iTunes 4.5 will now convert files digitized by Windows Media Player in unprotected format to AAC, so you can use them in iTunes or on iPod. When you import your MusicMatch library or other MP3 collection, you can choose to let iTunes make a copy of the library, or point to the old files. If you want to gather up all your music later, iTunes lets you consolidate your library anytime.
It'd be nice if they detected what version of Windows you're using and what visual theme you have loaded and customize it appropriately. Sadly, it's a waste of time when they could be doing better things.
... and IMHO and a lot of other people's, it was a step forward.
What really needs doing is some actual research on how many people prefer each to decide which should be default. I think spatial is better for new users (and old users too, if they're prepared to change how they think).
Of course, next GNOME major release there'll be a preference anyway.
I believe that there is a module for RSS that allows you to add scheduling info. But it doesn't really help, because it just shifts when the fetch occurs from on-the-hour to on-the-day or on-the-month. Just as big a peak, just at a different time.
They look almost identical in complexity - they're just different. Differences seem to be:
* Dates are in a uniform, international standard in Atom and they aren't in RSS * The atom feed uses "escaped" attributes so aggregators actually know what they're getting * Links are expressed differently
Initially Atom may look a little more complex than RSS, but it's not. Just different.
You'd rather not have "Find" look in textareas as well as body text? You'd rather not have better CSS support? And don't forget all the rendering improvements, bugfixes, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
"And most christians do interpet Genesis literally."
h tmlt ml
Quoting from one of the pages noted below, the global percentages for Catholics and Protestants are as follows:
* Catholic & Near Catholic (Catholic, Orthodox, High Church Anglican) - 65%
* Protestant (Protestant, Independent, Low Church Anglican) - 38%
Even the Catholics on their own would disprove your misinformed view on literal interpretation of Genesis.
http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/churchstat.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.h
"... offers a critical view at the new Microsoft technology ..."
It doesn't appear to be new, and it doesn't appear to be Microsoft's anymore, either.
Google Desktop embedding IE is unrelated to this piece of news.
m l
It's to do with how Google Desktop has a webserver available bound to localhost, and only available with a key generated on the local machine. An IE plugin injects a link onto the Google homepage to go directly to the local webserver. This link obviously includes a key.
A mistake in how IE parses CSS allowed the extraction of this key, by importing the Google News page (with specially-crafted query) as a CSS file, such that the key would be available on examination of the imported "stylesheet", and therefore gives an attacker the key for the local webserver.
Read TFA. http://www.hacker.co.il/security/ie/css_import.ht
Increased funding to schools, medicine? Minimum wage? Stable economy for the past six/seven years? Minimised borrowing and debt of the country? Low unemployment? Civil partnerships for gay couples (and sorted out the age of consent gubbins for gay men)? So yes, they have done good things for "the people".
In some countries, taxes are much higher than they are in the UK. People in England seem to think that taxes are something the government likes to put on just for the hell of it; if you actually want improvements to the country, you pay taxes.
Note that I'm not saying that Labour perfect; top-up fees aren't something I agree with, and neither were/are the various wars on terror, new terrorism laws, etc.. But on the whole, Britain is better managed at the moment than it was while the Conservatives were in.
(Not that I expect you'll agree with me in any way, 'cos you sound like you're probably a Tory.)
CSS 2.1 says that there must be a two interoperable implementations for each feature for the specification to become a recommendation. This is so that the specification can be changed if it's a pain to write or to use. Granted, the earlier versions of CSS didn't have these exit criteria, but there are people on the CSS Working Group who are on your wavelength.
He told them in April, according to BoingBoing, and they still hadn't fixed the problem totally.
Actually, no. It's akin to accusing a women of prostituation because she has "I am a prostitute, call me on for more information" written in big letters on a poster in her window.
I just use the "Light (reduce the complexity of Slashdot's HTML for AvantGo, Lynx, or slow connections)" option. Less HTML, simpler layout, and easier on the eys.
"Do you even use modern software? Almost all of it is skinnable. Why do you think that's popular? Because people are bored? No, because modern software is generally an extension of your personality. My guess is yours is like vanilla ice cream."
Skinnable software generally doesn't conform to the interface of the OS it runs on, nor any other applications running alongside it. Skinnablity (for want of a better word) is fine, but when each application ends up having its own little way of behaving, it's bad. If you want skins, they should be OS-wide or they just lead to inconsistency.
For example, in MSN Messenger (which I sadly have to use to talk to some of my friends), it has fake window borders inside the real window borders, and it has an extra fake window title bar which has a little toggle which removes the normal window borders and title bar leaving only the fake ones. What a useful, and er, non-wasteful use of screen space. If I wanted this kind of behaviour, I'd want to configure it GUI/OS-wide, not for each application.
(I'd also point out that lots of people skin things because they are bored. Either that, or the default interface is just plain bad and by skinning it they can dress that up somewhat. Skins are often used as an excuse to not bother with decent interface design - the idea being that "if you don't like the defaults, skin it so you do" rather than actually spending time making the defaults usable.)
Microsoft?
iTunes will play WMA; if not play, then at least import and convert.
Source:It'd be nice if they detected what version of Windows you're using and what visual theme you have loaded and customize it appropriately. Sadly, it's a waste of time when they could be doing better things.
Reminds me of what someone on IRC said once: "I only got interested in Linux because someone mentioned free beer"
... and IMHO and a lot of other people's, it was a step forward.
What really needs doing is some actual research on how many people prefer each to decide which should be default. I think spatial is better for new users (and old users too, if they're prepared to change how they think).
Of course, next GNOME major release there'll be a preference anyway.
Mm, sorry. I didn't realise this from my brief look at the CDF spec.
I believe that there is a module for RSS that allows you to add scheduling info. But it doesn't really help, because it just shifts when the fetch occurs from on-the-hour to on-the-day or on-the-month. Just as big a peak, just at a different time.
Why switch based on User-Agent? PNGs work on everything, it's alpha transparency that doesn't, which GIFs don't have anyway.
int main(void)
{
webcrawler();
return 1;
}
They look almost identical in complexity - they're just different. Differences seem to be:
* Dates are in a uniform, international standard in Atom and they aren't in RSS
* The atom feed uses "escaped" attributes so aggregators actually know what they're getting
* Links are expressed differently
Initially Atom may look a little more complex than RSS, but it's not. Just different.
You'd rather not have "Find" look in textareas as well as body text? You'd rather not have better CSS support? And don't forget all the rendering improvements, bugfixes, etc.
See the changelog.