And of coarse, let's not forget king of the hill in search now - Google.
I found that as time went by, Google Desktop Search bogged down the system bit by bit (literally?). I ended up uninstalling it as I have no really serious need for a desktop search engine. Don't get me wrong; I liked the program, and I thought it was great that it could index the contents of so many different types of files, as well as email and web history. I simply don't need that kind of capability, particularly when it starts slowing down the machine.
I think we're going to see a lot of breakthroughs in this area very soon, and my prediction is that the "killer desktop search app" is going to come from one of the small development houses that will probably bank everything they have on it and emerge from the "search wars" with a golden standard. But I digress.
In case anyone's interested, Woody's Watch has published a Desktop Search Handbook (in e-book format) that reviews major search apps and includes a lot of tips and such. Unfortunately, for now they only review the "biggies": Google, Copernic, Lookout, MSN, and Yahoo. But they're expanding it, and buyers get free updates for the rest of 2005. It's even cheaper for Woody's Watch subscribers ($10 instead of $15).
It means that people who cannot afford to buy laptops with wireless internet access still have to pay for it.
Situations like that already exist. People without children still help pay for education. I don't want my tax money going for feeding and housing criminals, but some of it does anyway. People with jobs support people without jobs by funding unemployment benefits through their taxes.
I knew exactly what he was talking about. I had considered emasculate, but I was just going for a simple jest -- I didn't want to be mistaken for a dyslexic.
If you want straight, flat, white-bread, nothing-but-the-facts reporting, go to CNN. If you want a bit of colour or humour, or just something more tongue-in-cheek, go to The Register. For example, check out this series of articles on the "Rise of the Machines". The Register's motto is "Biting the Hand that Feeds IT" -- not what you'll typically find in your more prestigious publications (and a big clue to me not to blindly swallow everything they say).
I sure as hell don't blame The Register. There are two scenarios here:
An accident. The submitter didn't read the full article, he just decided that the headline was good enough to submit. If this is the case, he's hasty and ill-informed.
A sneaky trick. The submitter read the full article and was just looking to get a bit of flamebait past the editors. If this is the case, mission accomplished.
Either way, if CowboyNeal had done even some basic fact-checking, he would have seen the "we're kidding" comment.
Maybe not, but wait till Google Maps gets its next improvements.
Something's wrong here...
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Fortunately for you, someone else has already taken the time to understand you and present the results in entertaining, easily digestible, but at the same time scientifically rigorous format.
How perfect for those of us who need instant results in this fast-food, breakneck-pace world. Who needs years of introspection and self-enlightenment when you can read about it on the train to work?
The whistleblowers at Enron etc. came forward and disclosed proprietary, confidential company information. I don't know about the legal definition, but that qualifies as "trade secrets" in my book. However, in Enron's case it was in the public's best interest to divulge this information to expose the crime(s) behind it. In Apple's case, there are no criminal dealings exposed by the leak -- merely proprietary information, not relevant to the "public interest". This is why the court is allowing Apple to find out the source(s).
Slashdot Mirror
Just because something's on the Internet doesn't mean that defrauding cash from a company is magically illegal.
I presume you meant to say magically legal, rather than illegal, seeing as how the term "defrauding" refers to an illegal act.
And of coarse, let's not forget king of the hill in search now - Google.
I found that as time went by, Google Desktop Search bogged down the system bit by bit (literally?). I ended up uninstalling it as I have no really serious need for a desktop search engine. Don't get me wrong; I liked the program, and I thought it was great that it could index the contents of so many different types of files, as well as email and web history. I simply don't need that kind of capability, particularly when it starts slowing down the machine.
I think we're going to see a lot of breakthroughs in this area very soon, and my prediction is that the "killer desktop search app" is going to come from one of the small development houses that will probably bank everything they have on it and emerge from the "search wars" with a golden standard. But I digress.
In case anyone's interested, Woody's Watch has published a Desktop Search Handbook (in e-book format) that reviews major search apps and includes a lot of tips and such. Unfortunately, for now they only review the "biggies": Google, Copernic, Lookout, MSN, and Yahoo. But they're expanding it, and buyers get free updates for the rest of 2005. It's even cheaper for Woody's Watch subscribers ($10 instead of $15).
...where no Canuck has gone before, eh?
Even the neuteral Swiss will have some dark periods of history that is glossed over in popular culture.
Yes, the Swiss are excellent shots. That's the reason for the holes in their cheese: target practice, and lots of it.
The White House. Or Crawford, Texas.
It means that people who cannot afford to buy laptops with wireless internet access still have to pay for it.
Situations like that already exist. People without children still help pay for education. I don't want my tax money going for feeding and housing criminals, but some of it does anyway. People with jobs support people without jobs by funding unemployment benefits through their taxes.
The mall patrons probably would have felt more at ease if the conference people themselves had been encased in plastic bubbles.
"The Moops?"
Looking to invest? Boy, you VC's just jump at anything that moves. Too bad there were no moon bases at the DEMO conference. ;)
I knew exactly what he was talking about. I had considered emasculate, but I was just going for a simple jest -- I didn't want to be mistaken for a dyslexic.
"Anonymous Cowards only, please...step right this way for the physical."
Wouldn't that be emaculate?
primatepoker.com
What's scary is that the second paragraph was written by humans.
;)
Are you sure? How can you tell?
I sure as hell don't blame The Register. There are two scenarios here:
- An accident. The submitter didn't read the full article, he just decided that the headline was good enough to submit. If this is the case, he's hasty and ill-informed.
- A sneaky trick. The submitter read the full article and was just looking to get a bit of flamebait past the editors. If this is the case, mission accomplished.
Either way, if CowboyNeal had done even some basic fact-checking, he would have seen the "we're kidding" comment."I didn't say it was dead, I said it was mostly dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead, he's slightly alive."
Will anything hold forever?
Krazy Glue and anyone on the phone with Symantec.
Africa? I was born in East Chicago.
If you can't get first post, get first bork, eh?
Hmm, Microsoft security updates. Must be the 2nd Tuesday of the month.
Ooo, thanks for reminding me. It's shower day.
The problem is finding neuron #1:
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I know...I'll just order the InvisiClues book! Maps are included!
Maybe not, but wait till Google Maps gets its next improvements.
Fortunately for you, someone else has already taken the time to understand you and present the results in entertaining, easily digestible, but at the same time scientifically rigorous format.
How perfect for those of us who need instant results in this fast-food, breakneck-pace world. Who needs years of introspection and self-enlightenment when you can read about it on the train to work?
The whistleblowers at Enron etc. came forward and disclosed proprietary, confidential company information. I don't know about the legal definition, but that qualifies as "trade secrets" in my book. However, in Enron's case it was in the public's best interest to divulge this information to expose the crime(s) behind it. In Apple's case, there are no criminal dealings exposed by the leak -- merely proprietary information, not relevant to the "public interest". This is why the court is allowing Apple to find out the source(s).
So, can you make me one?
"Anal Explorer" sounds like a nickname for a proctologist...sort of the Lewis & Clark of the industry, perhaps?