I can feel my buttons because they have a finger shaped depression in them. If I just put my hand back on the mouse after typing my left finger often ends on the scroll wheel and I slide it to the left. From what I could see of that mouse it was just completely smooth. Fine for a one-button mouse, stupid for a multi-button mouse.
Two of the most used web development platforms on the planet are obviously shite, huh? An object data store? Wow, you're even too l33t for a crummy old RDBMS. You know, the standard used by everyone up to international conglomerates for storing data. Yup, just not cool to use anything standard and easy to back up.
And if you're not concerned about javascript you're not using it to its potential.
So after a year you realize you can turn on these features and you do so. Then you still have the problem of not being able to tell where the buttons are or where the scroll is. Sorry, but those need to be visually and tactilely apparent to the user while using the mouse. Even with buttons, when I click on something and nothing seems to be happening I wonder 'Did I actually click it?' and often click again. I would be doing that all the time with no tactile feedback.
You click on the left side of the mouse, in some vague area not represented visually on the mouse, for a left click. To scroll, you slide your finger around in a cross shape, again on a vague area not visually represented on the mouse.
Tell me - isn't that a ton more confusing than a two button mouse with a scroll wheel? Two buttons - left and right. Clearly visible to the user. Tactile feedback when you click. A scroll wheel - an obvious choice for scrolling, again with tactile feedback as you move up and down.
This is not a mouse for beginners. Squeezing on the left or right of the mouse causes applications to suddenly open? This is for looking cool while sipping latte in Starbuck's.
There are tons of commercial SEO software products. They probably spend a half hour putting in some keyword lists that match their website name and then run a check on how that site would rank on google, yahoo, etc. Figuring a certain (very low) percentage of people will click an ad, and ballparking how many visitors they will get based on search ranking, they can tell how much the site is likely to make.
That will help a lot when they're getting details for their maps with pictures from satellite. And I'm sure everyone would love to list fake phone numbers - after all, you don't need to ever actually use your phone right?
Is that relevant? Without the Sherman Act, they would have had no grounds to file a civil suit.
Think OJ or Kobe Bryant. The criminal prosecution failed. The civil prosecution won (or led to settlement). OJ was being accused of being liable for the death of Ron Goldman, Kobe Bryant of rape. If rape and murder weren't illegal, I don't think you could file a civil case for it (or at least win). You can file a civil case against me for having bad fashion sense, but since that's not a crime you won't win. If you file a civil case against me for damaging your car, which is illegal, you can win.
They requested to look at Go's code so that Windows could 'support it better'. After that, they announced a vaporware version of Go, and as soon as Go was out of business dropped their own pen product.
So they clearly used their OS monopoly (you needed your pen to work on windows) to feed their application group code to make at least a rough version of the same product. Definitely abusing their os monopoly to further extend their application monopoly. Those are the facts of the case I'm interested, not a message from Bill Gates, but the actions of many separate divisions in MS consipiring against a potential competitor.
Trusts and monopolies are concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few. Such conglomerations of economic resources are thought to be injurious to the public and individuals because such trusts minimize, if not obliterate normal marketplace competition, and yield undesirable price controls. These, in turn, cause markets to stagnate and sap individual initiative.
To prevent trusts from creating restraints on trade or commerce and reducing competition, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. The Sherman Act was designed to maintain economic liberty, and to eliminate restraints on trade and competition. The Sherman Act is the main source of Antitrust law.
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
The definition of monopoly in anti-trust suits in the US comes from US law on the matter, not the Webster definition that applies to general situations.
It's not that simple. England was occupied at various times by the French. The patois that came out of that sometimes applies french rules to anglo-saxon words, and vice versa.
There are actually at least 3 or 4 somewhat incompatible variations on french: france's french, canadian french, african french, and asian french. Far and away the most numerous in speakers are african french speakers, so i don't really care about the acadamie.
Several years ago, people stopped using periods in acronyms. I posted on several forums, including here, and was told unanimously that it was because the Chicago manual of style said to do it, and I should shut up about it. N.A.S.A. was no longer correct, instead we should pretend that NASA was a word. This has, IMHO, led to a total degneration in our language, where we now routinely use acronyms as nouns or verbs interchangeably. "Why don't you UPS it?" What? Why don't you united postal service it? What the hell does that mean?
The problem is that spelling is completely arbitrary. America obsessed about spelling in post-colonial times and came up with standard dictionaries. Britain didn't care.
We should throw out the old spelling. Knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced kuh-nig-it (yes, just like monty python). All it does is confuse everyone. With its odd mix of Latin and Anglo-Saxon words and grammar rules it's complicated enough as it is without weirdo spellings that are unrelated to pronunciation.
That being said though, the above sentence made me cry as well.
Here's one of many articles I found in a very cursory google search. The gov't wants the frequencies back mostly to auction off, with a very small slice for new gov't uses.
TV's Spectrum Showdown
In a deal originally made in 1996, broadcasters may soon be forced to return airwaves now used to transmit analog signals.
For nearly a decade, the nation's 1,700 TV stations have been promising to broadcast crystal-clear digital signals to viewers across the country. But somehow, rushing toward that end never seemed to be entirely in their best interest.
Those promises go back to a deal broadcasters made with the federal government under the 1996 Telecommunications Act and a follow-up congressional bill a year later. Broadcasters received free electronic airwaves -- which are technically owned by the public and controlled by the federal government -- for digital transmissions. In return, they had to give back the airwaves they now use for their old analog broadcasts, which had been doled out over several decades. But they didn't have to return it until 85% of U.S. households receive digital signals or the year 2006, whichever came later.
Now patience is running out for the broadcasters to turn in that valuable piece of the sky. The year 2006 is just around the corner, and carriers are now sending digital signals that reach 85% of households in just about all of the nation's 210 TV markets (even though not all those households have digital-ready TVs).
OPENING SALVO? What's more, with the explosion of wireless technologies -- from cell phones to newer forms of wireless broadband -- demand is growing for other uses of those airwaves. "A more rapid end to the digital TV transition is important to the economy," says Michael Calabrese, a vice-president at New America Foundation, a Washington (D.C.) think tank. Yet regulators and lawmakers have lacked the political will so far to boot the powerful broadcasters out of their analog space.
Next year, the wheels in Washington could finally start turning. The opening salvo is likely to be an informal proposal circulating from the Federal Communications Commission staff to end analog TV broadcasts by 2009. It's modeled after a similar plan by regulators in Germany to cut off all analog TV broadcasts there, cold-turkey, last August. Even if the FCC doesn't vote on the proposal this year, it could end up spurring Congress to push a version of it in 2005.
The basic idea of the FCC's Media Bureau plan is simple, though it comes with some bells and whistles. It calls for all analog TV broadcasts to end on Jan. 1, 2009. At that time, broadcasters would return their analog airwaves, also called spectrum, to Uncle Sam to be auctioned off for other uses.
CRYING FOUL. Since most Americans still won't have digital-ready TVs by then to receive those signals, FCC staffers suggest that cable and satellite companies, which deliver TV to the majority of U.S. households, could convert those signals into analog ones. But their customers would still count toward the number of households capable of receiving digital over-the-air signals. When 85% of U.S. households get their TV via cable or satellite, that would instantly trigger the broadcaster's spectrum giveback.
Predictably, TV station owners say that's a dirty trick. But they could get a sweetener. Broadcasters long have wanted cable companies to carry all of local TV stations' digital signals, and the FCC or lawmakers could require the cable industry to do so. Today, cable must deliver the stations' one analog, over-the-air channel. But when stations start digital broadcasts, they'll be able to create up to six channels. The cable guys say carrying that volume could crowd out some cable networks.
When lawmakers take up the digital TV issue next year, one main concern will be how to continue delivering programs to the estimated 17 million U.S. households who rely solely on over-the-air signals for their TV news and entertainment. In Germany,
I'll bet a large amount of that 12% are elderly who are living on a fixed income. They might have a 20 year old set sitting around from when they were working. Do you really think the gov't should just shut them off? Other countries have made very low cost or free adapters available to anyone who couldn't get a new set. That certainly boosts the adoption rate. For the amount of money the spectrum auction will bring in, and considering that the public DOES own the airwaves, I think our gov't should make these adapters available free to everyone who is affected by this. Remember that it's mostly corportations who are going to profit from this whole deal - why shouldn't some of that money subsidize making the switchover happen already?
Why are we switching to digital? To be able to sell off more spectrum in the public airwaves to huge companies. I suppose it's in the public's interest to allow congress to get some money from those companies rather than from taxes, but that amount of money is a drop in the bucket in our budget.
So, 12% of the public will be negatively affected by this. In a direct, personal way. So that corporations can use our spectrum for their own gain. Somehow this does not seem to be serving the public.
Slashdot Mirror
I can feel my buttons because they have a finger shaped depression in them. If I just put my hand back on the mouse after typing my left finger often ends on the scroll wheel and I slide it to the left. From what I could see of that mouse it was just completely smooth. Fine for a one-button mouse, stupid for a multi-button mouse.
Two of the most used web development platforms on the planet are obviously shite, huh? An object data store? Wow, you're even too l33t for a crummy old RDBMS. You know, the standard used by everyone up to international conglomerates for storing data. Yup, just not cool to use anything standard and easy to back up.
And if you're not concerned about javascript you're not using it to its potential.
So after a year you realize you can turn on these features and you do so. Then you still have the problem of not being able to tell where the buttons are or where the scroll is. Sorry, but those need to be visually and tactilely apparent to the user while using the mouse. Even with buttons, when I click on something and nothing seems to be happening I wonder 'Did I actually click it?' and often click again. I would be doing that all the time with no tactile feedback.
You click on the left side of the mouse, in some vague area not represented visually on the mouse, for a left click. To scroll, you slide your finger around in a cross shape, again on a vague area not visually represented on the mouse.
Tell me - isn't that a ton more confusing than a two button mouse with a scroll wheel? Two buttons - left and right. Clearly visible to the user. Tactile feedback when you click. A scroll wheel - an obvious choice for scrolling, again with tactile feedback as you move up and down.
This is not a mouse for beginners. Squeezing on the left or right of the mouse causes applications to suddenly open? This is for looking cool while sipping latte in Starbuck's.
There are tons of commercial SEO software products. They probably spend a half hour putting in some keyword lists that match their website name and then run a check on how that site would rank on google, yahoo, etc. Figuring a certain (very low) percentage of people will click an ad, and ballparking how many visitors they will get based on search ranking, they can tell how much the site is likely to make.
Read the article. That's the entire frickin' point of the article.
That will help a lot when they're getting details for their maps with pictures from satellite. And I'm sure everyone would love to list fake phone numbers - after all, you don't need to ever actually use your phone right?
What about associates of hers from when she did work oversees as a spy? If any of them are also clandestine agents, then they're compromised.
"EA is not saying to install the game"
Wow. Is that like reverse psychology marketing?
yeah but it sucked when you could uninstall the IP stack remotely over the IP connection.
Is that relevant? Without the Sherman Act, they would have had no grounds to file a civil suit.
Think OJ or Kobe Bryant. The criminal prosecution failed. The civil prosecution won (or led to settlement). OJ was being accused of being liable for the death of Ron Goldman, Kobe Bryant of rape. If rape and murder weren't illegal, I don't think you could file a civil case for it (or at least win). You can file a civil case against me for having bad fashion sense, but since that's not a crime you won't win. If you file a civil case against me for damaging your car, which is illegal, you can win.
They requested to look at Go's code so that Windows could 'support it better'. After that, they announced a vaporware version of Go, and as soon as Go was out of business dropped their own pen product.
So they clearly used their OS monopoly (you needed your pen to work on windows) to feed their application group code to make at least a rough version of the same product. Definitely abusing their os monopoly to further extend their application monopoly. Those are the facts of the case I'm interested, not a message from Bill Gates, but the actions of many separate divisions in MS consipiring against a potential competitor.
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/topics/antitrus
The emphasis is mine.
The definition of monopoly in anti-trust suits in the US comes from US law on the matter, not the Webster definition that applies to general situations.
Maybe we can redefine ad0gg to jackass.
pwer 2 teh peeples, yo
It's not that simple. England was occupied at various times by the French. The patois that came out of that sometimes applies french rules to anglo-saxon words, and vice versa.
There are actually at least 3 or 4 somewhat incompatible variations on french: france's french, canadian french, african french, and asian french. Far and away the most numerous in speakers are african french speakers, so i don't really care about the acadamie.
I agree.
Here's my favorite totally conservative spellings:
Quik, Kwik, KwikE Mart
lo-carb
drive-thru
stop-n-go, stop-n-gulp
gas 'n shop, gas 4 less
get 'n go
han-dee mart
Clearly I am unable to read any of these phonetic spellings and find them totally confusing.
Several years ago, people stopped using periods in acronyms. I posted on several forums, including here, and was told unanimously that it was because the Chicago manual of style said to do it, and I should shut up about it. N.A.S.A. was no longer correct, instead we should pretend that NASA was a word. This has, IMHO, led to a total degneration in our language, where we now routinely use acronyms as nouns or verbs interchangeably. "Why don't you UPS it?" What? Why don't you united postal service it? What the hell does that mean?
You think this makes sense:
"company for cleaning commission members' cars' tax declaration deadline"
What kind of freakin' tax structure do you have in your country?
Klingon.
Sadly, there are now more klingon speakers than there are for many native american languages.
How in the world is spelling properly oppressive to minorities?
Tin foil hat time, man.
The problem is that spelling is completely arbitrary. America obsessed about spelling in post-colonial times and came up with standard dictionaries. Britain didn't care.
We should throw out the old spelling. Knight is spelled the way it is because it used to be pronounced kuh-nig-it (yes, just like monty python). All it does is confuse everyone. With its odd mix of Latin and Anglo-Saxon words and grammar rules it's complicated enough as it is without weirdo spellings that are unrelated to pronunciation.
That being said though, the above sentence made me cry as well.
I'll bet a large amount of that 12% are elderly who are living on a fixed income. They might have a 20 year old set sitting around from when they were working. Do you really think the gov't should just shut them off? Other countries have made very low cost or free adapters available to anyone who couldn't get a new set. That certainly boosts the adoption rate. For the amount of money the spectrum auction will bring in, and considering that the public DOES own the airwaves, I think our gov't should make these adapters available free to everyone who is affected by this. Remember that it's mostly corportations who are going to profit from this whole deal - why shouldn't some of that money subsidize making the switchover happen already?
Why are we switching to digital? To be able to sell off more spectrum in the public airwaves to huge companies. I suppose it's in the public's interest to allow congress to get some money from those companies rather than from taxes, but that amount of money is a drop in the bucket in our budget.
So, 12% of the public will be negatively affected by this. In a direct, personal way. So that corporations can use our spectrum for their own gain. Somehow this does not seem to be serving the public.
I did all kinds of searches. Got many results. Zero of them were playable videos.