Microsoft replies that giving users an open-ended choice could add complexity and confusion to the browser set-up process, while offering a few options would be arbitrarily limiting.
Because as we all know giving people choices is a bad thing.
There is nothing inherently wrong with giving people the option of choosing their search engine. Granted, most people don't know what a search engine is ("I just use the blue thingy") and would probably select the default selection anyway but at least giving the option to those who have a small understanding of these things isn't that hard, he says hoping not to be proven wrong.
Google counters that claim with a study it sponsored that was conducted by Tec-Ed, a research firm. It found that only a third of users could master the four-click process to change the default.
Oh well, so much for hoping.
The issue is a simple one: Microsoft does not want to give people a choice of what search engine to use. If they did they'd see their usage drop as more people found that Google did a better job displaying useful results more quickly and with less clutter. For them to say that offering a few choices would be limiting is disingenous since by their actions they are limiting choices.
Since Google has said that what's good for the goose is good for the gander (i.e. unfettered choice) there isn't an issue of bias other than Google wanting to compete head-to-head with Microsoft. Besides, Microsoft has said in the past that something either was or was not possible then turned around and did what they say they couldn't do. They can offer the user choices for search if they want to. The question is: will they do it willingly or will they have to be forced into doing it?
I don't use an email client on my machine. I log into my various email accounts and use the providers web interface. While I do have OE on my system it isn't configured and I've never used it. So I guess I'm not a target.
*sigh* I miss all the fun. No email client to be hijacked, don't have a cel phone to be infected with worms and I use Fx to surf so no ActiveX issues to worry about.
Guess there's only one thing left to do: laugh my ass off at everyone elses problems.
Except in the first case we didn't find the weapon. It found us.
Further, as the Wiki entry states and was later confirmed, that particular shell dated back to the Iran-Iraq war.
In the second case mentioned the weapons did not have sarin gas within them.
So no, we haven't found any of the vast stockpiles of wmds that the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense and other members of the administration said we knew Saddam had. You do remember those statements don't you?
In case you've forgotten, here's a list of such statements.
It depends on if you think "better" is when people are selectively informed or not informed depending on whether the news helps your political cause.
Considering Fox News has a history of selective reporting I'd say that they're not informing people to help someone's (the current administration) political cause.
Did NPR report that US deaths in Iraq hit a 2-year low in March?
I believe they did. I know that CNN did report that fact and then went on to inform their viewers that as of the middle of April the March figure had already been eclipsed and was on its way to being on par with the figure from February.
Or did they report there was a "civil war" in Iraq?
I haven't heard NPR specifically state that. What I have heard is the guests they have interviewed have said that Iraq is all but in a civil war. If you read the stories of Iraqis who have been interviewed, they're already calling it a civil war. If anyone should know, the people who live there should.
In fact, one of them already has. But hey, he's only a former prime minister so what does he know?
I know of one instance where an author who had self-published a book containing a story, appropriately called 'The Wal-Mart Story', described how he rigged their tv section to broadcast the porn channel, and only the porn channel, and locked out anyone who tried to change the channel as well as inserting some similarly-themed vcr tapes and dvds. The story may be found here or, if not working, a copy may be found here.
So why bring this up? If you go to his site, Mentally Incontinent, you will see this story in which he says Wal-Mart offered him $500,000 for the site and all the books yet distributed because of this story. However, as you will note, the site is still up and he has since admitted it was all an April Fools joke.
Enjoy the story despite the fact that we can't blame the evil Wal-Mart for trying to squelch dissenting voices.
Oh yeah, to get back on topic, I have to agree with what others have already said: the Wiki entry doesn't seem biased. Boring like a financial report, yes, but not biased. Especially since it contains links to sites critical of how Wal-Mart operates.
The second season has been a massive joke. It's turned into a soap opera set in space (mostly).
Funny you should say that. I just read an interview Katie Sackhoff gave (can't remember where) but she says the same thing. If memory serves her exact words were: "It's turned into a goddamn space soap opera!"
She indicated she's has some creative differences with the producers in this matter but feels that the upcoming season has ironed out some of these issues. She also said (SPOILER ALERT! STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW) that Starbuck will be getting involved with someone completely unexpected. She joked (or did she?) that it was Adama.
Since noone under the age of 18 can legally sign a contract, it may have something to do with that. 18 is the age of consent in the U.S. (so why can't we drink at 18 he asks rhetorically).
If you look at any contest you will always find that little clause in there somewhere. The only exception I can think of is if the contest is specifically geared towards kids in which case it will give an age range and say you need your parents permission.
So yes, there is a reason why that bit has to be in there.
This article sounded familiar and sure enough, it was rejected on March 28th and has been sitting in my Journal ever since. While not the exact same article the concept is the same.
In my case it was Neil McAllister who penned the writeup for InfoWorld. For Neil's take on the subject, you can read it here.
Never let it be said that providing folks with recent information was ever a strong suit of this site. Unless you're counting the dupes.
but I say good for the small independent developers who are actually making money off all their hard work.
As opposed to the large, non-independent developers who are trying to make money off their hard work, right?
I know I'll be marked down but I don't care. I'm questioning why the double-standard. Why is it ok for the small guy to make money off their hard work but not for the big guy to make money off what is arguably even more hard work? In both cases someone is producing a product which they want to be paid for yet many on here feel it is acceptable to use pirated versions which they don't have to pay for and which costs the producing company money.
I've said it for well over a decade (maybe 2 decades) that the only reason this country keeps running is because of all the crap people buy. I don't mean necessity items like food, clothing, etc but all the knickknacks that people buy and sit on shelves doing nothing but collecting dust (and helping to contribute to their allergies).
How about we not provide a new way for people to spend willy-nilly and start doing some serious education on money management. I propose we start at the top with the Congress and White House since they seem to think money falls from the sky.
federal legislation is needed to aid law enforcement investigations into child pornography.
Yeah, it's only about catching the child pornographers. It won't be used for wholesale fishing expeditions to see if anyone might be doing something else illegal or who might be saying things that don't sit well.
Just like the government won't use the list of passengers who fly to trawl for people who might be doing something suspicious like buying a one-way ticket.
The Tax was only
supposed to have a duration of two years. The new business
failed, but the tax is still with us.
That's ok. Here in Pennsylvania we have a tax on the purchase of alcohol which was implemented to help the folks of the 1936 Johnstown flood. That was 70 years ago.
Last I checked, Johnstown had recovered nicely from the flood (both of them) yet we still have the tax.
You can take fecal matter, shape it into bunny shapes, squirrels, etc. but at the end of the day it is still fecal matter.
Yes but now it's shaped like bunnies, squirrels, etc. and that is what people will see. They won't care that it's shit, it's shaped so cutely it must be good!
I may have gotten a photography degree but art courses such as the one I described were requirements. Essentially it was to help one understand light and shadows and how objects interact with said light and shadows. It forced one to think about what one wanted to accomplish even if you would never paint/sketch again but would be focused on photos.
I also had to do some wire sculptures and guache paintings for this same teacher (different classes though). Again, not directly related to photography but it helped when considering form and composition.
You beat me to the punchline. You bastard! (said in the whiny Kyle voice) Now the creationists will move the goalposts once again and say, "Well what about the transitional fossils between X & Y? Where are Xa and Ya?" Repeat ad nauseum.
The one thing interesting to note is that never, in any discussion about evolution, do any creationists/IDer ever provide any evidence to support their claims. None. Nada. Zip. They only come back and say, "Well Evolution doesn't explain [insert whatever already answered question du jour is] without ever answering the question posed to them. The best they can say, "It looks to be designed."*
Witness Behes reaction to this recent posting about scientists finding out how new molecular machinery is created:
He wondered whether the receptors with the intermediate mutations would be harmful to the survival of the organisms and said a two-component hormone-receptor pair was too simple to be considered irreducibly complex. He said such a system would require at least three pieces and perform some specific function to fit his notion of irreducibly complex.
So there you have it. Incontrovertible proof that despite the evidence presented creationists will always find a way to move the goalposts.
*Whenever anyone says this you can refer them to the underwater stones off Bimini and elsewhere for refutation of this idea. The stones look designed but were tested and found to be natural formations. Therefore, their only idea is already debunked yet they still cling to it. Quartz and other crystals would also fall into the same category.
But back to the other guy, it would be nice to be surrounded by nude models all the time...
Yeah, you'd think so but really, after a while they all blend together and the enjoyment ceases.
I'm saying this not as someone who works in the industry but rather from every story I've ever read written about people in the industry (the adult industry as a whole, not just online). To a one they all say the same thing: it's just a job.
Sure, looking at cute/hot girls seems like it would be great. They come in and you get look them up and down without fear of them calling the cops on you. But you're not looking at them and imagining all the lascivious things you could do with them (well, maybe a little) but rather, do they have the look? How do they react in front of the camera? Can they follow directions? Anything about their body that might turn people off (big feet, hairy butt, etc).
When I was getting my photography degree we were required to do sketches of nude models. Both male and female. I can assure you that when the model is on the stand you're not thinking, "Whoa! She's hot. Wonder if I can take her out to dinner or something else, hint, hint, wink, wink". Rather, you're thinking, "Holy shit, how am I supposed to draw her elbow in that position?", "Dammit! Why can't I get that shadow around her hip right?", "It would be nice if I didn't have to see her fingers in profile" Repeat for every session you drew a nude model.
For the record, in case you were wondering about getting a programming job for an adult website, check my journal for a lengthy article about what the reality is like. You may have to go back a bit to find it. It's called, 'Getting a tech job in the adult industry'. It was never accepted which is why it's in my journal. After all, why would the editors accept a story about programming and porn.
My copy of W2K came with my machine so it is legally purchased. The only thing I do to maintain it is to do the updates when they come out. By hand. None of this "We'll take a look to see if you have a legitimate copy of 2K before we let you patch your system" crap.
In fact, every piece of software I own was legally purchased except for x-chat which is freely distributed.
But you are correct in that I had no intention of upgrading to Vista anyway. This article merely gave me one more reason not to do so.
Really, thank you. You have now given me the final reason NOT to upgrade.
As a poster in a previous article said, I'll keep my copy of W2K running as long as I can and when, for whatever reason, it is no longer useful I will devote my time and resources to learning how to use Linux though Apple might come first.
Thank you Microsoft. Your ineptness will be your undoing.
I can't wait to see what happens when businesses realize the cost to upgrade to your latest abomination and all the attendant problems that will occur.
Does anyone know how to stop these junk fax "calls?"
There should be a phone number at the bottom of the fax which you can call to input your phone number and have it removed from their list.
Where I used to work (state government office) they had faxes on every floor and on those times I would be out and about if I saw a junk fax I'd take it with me, call the number and have the fax number removed. As far as I know junk faxes stopped coming to those machines.
If you talk to anyone who doesn't believe in evolution their usual remark is, "I'm not related to/descended from no ape." Thus my question: if we're not related then why do we share any DNA? If we're not related to/descended from there shouldn't be any relationship (as I stated above).
In other words, if God created us in his likeness we shouldn't share any genetic similarities with any other creature on the planet. If, however, we do share genetic similarities with other creatures, then we must be related to them. Which of course means we're not special and which in turn horrifies creationists. To suggest that we're not special in some way is anathema to their thought process and belief system.
Slashdot Mirror
Because as we all know giving people choices is a bad thing.
There is nothing inherently wrong with giving people the option of choosing their search engine. Granted, most people don't know what a search engine is ("I just use the blue thingy") and would probably select the default selection anyway but at least giving the option to those who have a small understanding of these things isn't that hard, he says hoping not to be proven wrong.
Google counters that claim with a study it sponsored that was conducted by Tec-Ed, a research firm. It found that only a third of users could master the four-click process to change the default.
Oh well, so much for hoping.
The issue is a simple one: Microsoft does not want to give people a choice of what search engine to use. If they did they'd see their usage drop as more people found that Google did a better job displaying useful results more quickly and with less clutter. For them to say that offering a few choices would be limiting is disingenous since by their actions they are limiting choices.
Since Google has said that what's good for the goose is good for the gander (i.e. unfettered choice) there isn't an issue of bias other than Google wanting to compete head-to-head with Microsoft. Besides, Microsoft has said in the past that something either was or was not possible then turned around and did what they say they couldn't do. They can offer the user choices for search if they want to. The question is: will they do it willingly or will they have to be forced into doing it?
*sigh* I miss all the fun. No email client to be hijacked, don't have a cel phone to be infected with worms and I use Fx to surf so no ActiveX issues to worry about.
Guess there's only one thing left to do: laugh my ass off at everyone elses problems.
Except in the first case we didn't find the weapon. It found us.
Further, as the Wiki entry states and was later confirmed, that particular shell dated back to the Iran-Iraq war.
In the second case mentioned the weapons did not have sarin gas within them.
So no, we haven't found any of the vast stockpiles of wmds that the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense and other members of the administration said we knew Saddam had. You do remember those statements don't you?
In case you've forgotten, here's a list of such statements.
It depends on if you think "better" is when people are selectively informed or not informed depending on whether the news helps your political cause.
Considering Fox News has a history of selective reporting I'd say that they're not informing people to help someone's (the current administration) political cause.
Did NPR report that US deaths in Iraq hit a 2-year low in March?
I believe they did. I know that CNN did report that fact and then went on to inform their viewers that as of the middle of April the March figure had already been eclipsed and was on its way to being on par with the figure from February.
Or did they report there was a "civil war" in Iraq?
I haven't heard NPR specifically state that. What I have heard is the guests they have interviewed have said that Iraq is all but in a civil war. If you read the stories of Iraqis who have been interviewed, they're already calling it a civil war. If anyone should know, the people who live there should.
In fact, one of them already has. But hey, he's only a former prime minister so what does he know?
Then again, it's not much different than setting up a fake ATM somewhere and stealing the codes from people who swipe their cards.
So why bring this up? If you go to his site, Mentally Incontinent, you will see this story in which he says Wal-Mart offered him $500,000 for the site and all the books yet distributed because of this story. However, as you will note, the site is still up and he has since admitted it was all an April Fools joke.
Enjoy the story despite the fact that we can't blame the evil Wal-Mart for trying to squelch dissenting voices.
Oh yeah, to get back on topic, I have to agree with what others have already said: the Wiki entry doesn't seem biased. Boring like a financial report, yes, but not biased. Especially since it contains links to sites critical of how Wal-Mart operates.
Funny you should say that. I just read an interview Katie Sackhoff gave (can't remember where) but she says the same thing. If memory serves her exact words were: "It's turned into a goddamn space soap opera!"
She indicated she's has some creative differences with the producers in this matter but feels that the upcoming season has ironed out some of these issues. She also said (SPOILER ALERT! STOP READING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW) that Starbuck will be getting involved with someone completely unexpected. She joked (or did she?) that it was Adama.
Since noone under the age of 18 can legally sign a contract, it may have something to do with that. 18 is the age of consent in the U.S. (so why can't we drink at 18 he asks rhetorically).
If you look at any contest you will always find that little clause in there somewhere. The only exception I can think of is if the contest is specifically geared towards kids in which case it will give an age range and say you need your parents permission.
So yes, there is a reason why that bit has to be in there.
In my case it was Neil McAllister who penned the writeup for InfoWorld. For Neil's take on the subject, you can read it here.
Never let it be said that providing folks with recent information was ever a strong suit of this site. Unless you're counting the dupes.
As opposed to the large, non-independent developers who are trying to make money off their hard work, right?
I know I'll be marked down but I don't care. I'm questioning why the double-standard. Why is it ok for the small guy to make money off their hard work but not for the big guy to make money off what is arguably even more hard work? In both cases someone is producing a product which they want to be paid for yet many on here feel it is acceptable to use pirated versions which they don't have to pay for and which costs the producing company money.
Yeah, this is what we need in the U.S.: more consumers spending money at random.
We already have a negative savings rate combined with large amounts of consumer debt (for some of us at least). Thrown in the continuing increases in government borrowing and you have a royal, financial mess.
I've said it for well over a decade (maybe 2 decades) that the only reason this country keeps running is because of all the crap people buy. I don't mean necessity items like food, clothing, etc but all the knickknacks that people buy and sit on shelves doing nothing but collecting dust (and helping to contribute to their allergies).
How about we not provide a new way for people to spend willy-nilly and start doing some serious education on money management. I propose we start at the top with the Congress and White House since they seem to think money falls from the sky.
Yeah, it's only about catching the child pornographers. It won't be used for wholesale fishing expeditions to see if anyone might be doing something else illegal or who might be saying things that don't sit well.
Just like the government won't use the list of passengers who fly to trawl for people who might be doing something suspicious like buying a one-way ticket.
No, it's always about the children.
That's ok. Here in Pennsylvania we have a tax on the purchase of alcohol which was implemented to help the folks of the 1936 Johnstown flood. That was 70 years ago.
Last I checked, Johnstown had recovered nicely from the flood (both of them) yet we still have the tax.
Yes but now it's shaped like bunnies, squirrels, etc. and that is what people will see. They won't care that it's shit, it's shaped so cutely it must be good!
I may have gotten a photography degree but art courses such as the one I described were requirements. Essentially it was to help one understand light and shadows and how objects interact with said light and shadows. It forced one to think about what one wanted to accomplish even if you would never paint/sketch again but would be focused on photos.
I also had to do some wire sculptures and guache paintings for this same teacher (different classes though). Again, not directly related to photography but it helped when considering form and composition.
The one thing interesting to note is that never, in any discussion about evolution, do any creationists/IDer ever provide any evidence to support their claims. None. Nada. Zip. They only come back and say, "Well Evolution doesn't explain [insert whatever already answered question du jour is] without ever answering the question posed to them. The best they can say, "It looks to be designed."*
Witness Behes reaction to this recent posting about scientists finding out how new molecular machinery is created:
So there you have it. Incontrovertible proof that despite the evidence presented creationists will always find a way to move the goalposts.
*Whenever anyone says this you can refer them to the underwater stones off Bimini and elsewhere for refutation of this idea. The stones look designed but were tested and found to be natural formations. Therefore, their only idea is already debunked yet they still cling to it. Quartz and other crystals would also fall into the same category.
Yeah, you'd think so but really, after a while they all blend together and the enjoyment ceases.
I'm saying this not as someone who works in the industry but rather from every story I've ever read written about people in the industry (the adult industry as a whole, not just online). To a one they all say the same thing: it's just a job.
Sure, looking at cute/hot girls seems like it would be great. They come in and you get look them up and down without fear of them calling the cops on you. But you're not looking at them and imagining all the lascivious things you could do with them (well, maybe a little) but rather, do they have the look? How do they react in front of the camera? Can they follow directions? Anything about their body that might turn people off (big feet, hairy butt, etc).
When I was getting my photography degree we were required to do sketches of nude models. Both male and female. I can assure you that when the model is on the stand you're not thinking, "Whoa! She's hot. Wonder if I can take her out to dinner or something else, hint, hint, wink, wink". Rather, you're thinking, "Holy shit, how am I supposed to draw her elbow in that position?", "Dammit! Why can't I get that shadow around her hip right?", "It would be nice if I didn't have to see her fingers in profile" Repeat for every session you drew a nude model.
For the record, in case you were wondering about getting a programming job for an adult website, check my journal for a lengthy article about what the reality is like. You may have to go back a bit to find it. It's called, 'Getting a tech job in the adult industry'. It was never accepted which is why it's in my journal. After all, why would the editors accept a story about programming and porn.
My copy of W2K came with my machine so it is legally purchased. The only thing I do to maintain it is to do the updates when they come out. By hand. None of this "We'll take a look to see if you have a legitimate copy of 2K before we let you patch your system" crap.
In fact, every piece of software I own was legally purchased except for x-chat which is freely distributed.
But you are correct in that I had no intention of upgrading to Vista anyway. This article merely gave me one more reason not to do so.
Want to try again?
Really, thank you. You have now given me the final reason NOT to upgrade.
As a poster in a previous article said, I'll keep my copy of W2K running as long as I can and when, for whatever reason, it is no longer useful I will devote my time and resources to learning how to use Linux though Apple might come first.
Thank you Microsoft. Your ineptness will be your undoing.
I can't wait to see what happens when businesses realize the cost to upgrade to your latest abomination and all the attendant problems that will occur.
Study explains evolution's molecular advance Friday April 07, @12:24PM Rejected
Way to go samzenpus, keep up the good work.
Ack! Yup, I misinterpreted the post.
Oh well, such is life.
There should be a phone number at the bottom of the fax which you can call to input your phone number and have it removed from their list.
Where I used to work (state government office) they had faxes on every floor and on those times I would be out and about if I saw a junk fax I'd take it with me, call the number and have the fax number removed. As far as I know junk faxes stopped coming to those machines.
If you talk to anyone who doesn't believe in evolution their usual remark is, "I'm not related to/descended from no ape." Thus my question: if we're not related then why do we share any DNA? If we're not related to/descended from there shouldn't be any relationship (as I stated above).
In other words, if God created us in his likeness we shouldn't share any genetic similarities with any other creature on the planet. If, however, we do share genetic similarities with other creatures, then we must be related to them. Which of course means we're not special and which in turn horrifies creationists. To suggest that we're not special in some way is anathema to their thought process and belief system.
Thank you. Since I got my account I ALWAYS post under it. I never post AC. I'll take whatever slings and arrows come my way.
So to the original AC poster, suck it.
As I said to the poster above you:
Thank you. From your posting I was missing something. Now it becomes more clear.
*waits the required 1 minute until he can post this*
*tick* *tick* *tick* *tick* *tick* (repeat 12 times)
Thank you. From your posting I was missing something. Now it becomes more clear.