If anything is an operating system, it's the kernel. The userland applications around it are just sauce. By the way, Windows XP comply with the POSIX standard in many respects. That does not make it a "true Unix".
Yeah I really do. The songs of the 90s are obsessed with technical aspects, and melody is not important anymore. When a 90s track has a good melody, it is usually a remix of a song from the 80s, 70s or 60s. Sure, in the 80s people remixed stuff too, but that was merely peripheral. Now remixing is the mainstream thing (and has been for at least 12 years). The problem is that remixing only masks the 90s "musician's" inability to write good and original music.
You are right, it's about the scripts. BUT, screenwriters are not the guilty ones, the producers who pick bad screenwriters are.
Other problems of todays movies:
1) Emphasis on money rather than artistic values (unlike in the 60s and 70s and even in 80s).
2) Emphasis on good-looking teenage and under-25 actors (because teenagers are the majority of cinema goers). This brings in shallow themes and shallow characters (by the way, I'm 29).
3) Emphasis on the visual FX. This again brings in shallow themes.
4) Something like "fluidum" (sorry can't find a better term) of the 90's which also affected music. There are virtually no new original ideas. Everyone just remakes or remixes old hits. Only a few new good hits have been written in the second half of the 90s. In the 80s there was one original hit written each week. Most of todays teenagers don't even know that 60% of today songs borrow themes from the 80s.
When I was a kid in the 80s I really enjoyed music. When 90s came I was like "what the hell is wrong with the song writers?" This happened in the movie industry too. We are just experiencing different eras with distinct characterists just like, say, there were differences between Renaissance and Baroque. Fortunately, in modern times the eras change every decade, rather than every century.
As for "why encourage", maybe you'd like to start to explain why Google's Summer of Code had zero women applicants
That's easy to explain (and already was in the OP). It's because nobody encouraged women explicitly. They let them choose naturally. And the result was that girls didn't want to participate. They weren't interested. Do you get the point?
Claiming women's "natural inclination" or interest is to not participate in free software projects is about as sexist a viewpoint as you can possibly achieve.
You do realize that there are differences between men and women? Biological and psychic. Women can give birth, men can't. Women also have different interests than men. Without any doubt, their interests and talents are given by thousands of years of evolution. Trying to "defeat" nature is ridiculous and actually a feminist approach.
Why do you encourage or even force them? Let them decide naturally what they want to do. Women don't force use men to breast-feed either. Respect people's natural inclinations and interests.
Actually, almost every site looks good in IE because webmasters preview/test their sites primarily in IE. Why? Because vast majority of people use IE. Quite simple and reasonable equations.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the tech-savvy (those who both know of adblocking and are capable of setting it up) aren't Google's main audience. If all of slashdot started adblocking google, we wouldn't make a dent.
Maybe you should read my post once again, but this time more carefully. I wrote: "if everyone started blocking Google/nonobtrusive ads". In other words, if all people did what some people do now, it might have negative impact on popular free sites, Google, etc.
PS - I also wonder where did the part "tech-savvy aren't Google's main audience" come from.
As I expected, the list blocks Google ads. If everyone downloaded this list and used AdBlock, Google would die. In case you did not know it, 99.99% of Google's income is from Google ads, based on their public reports for share holders, etc.
Blocking obtrusive ads is justified. Blocking any other ads is not. Did you ever stop to think who's going to pay the bandwidth costs of sites that depend on income from ads? The more popular a site is, the more incredible bandwidth fees they pay (popular sites can't use free hosting, mainly due to their bandwidth needs, etc). Without ads, sites like SourceForge.net or Slashdot.com would have to charge everyone for reading or die too. Think twice before blocking unobtrusive ads. Mass selfishness could bring many popular free sites to an end.
You can never be sure their database is complete. I mean come on, this is 2006. It's safer to do a Google search. I did that when I started my project. There was 0 results on Google for the keyword, so I was pretty sure it was a unique and original name. (Now, 3 years after the project launched, there are 400,000 results for the word;)
Well, if the mediator does not do refunds in case of cancellation of the purchase, then their system is flawed and they could be sued to oblivion. Google will apparently use their GBuy and I bet they will refund all money to the advertiser if the order is cancelled via GBuy.
The problem is that many counter count HITS, not UNIQUE VISITS. Firefox keeps requesting the favicon.ico file (site icon) on EVERY request (and due to some bug, even more than once, if our server returns a 404 error). In contrast, Internet Explorer requests the favicon.ico file only once and only if the site is in your Favorites. Hence, the number of hits from Firefox users is at least twice as high (and inflated).
> I don't see many groups getting up and arms over it.
Do you know when women in the US attained the right to vote? Do you know when women in the US attained the right for higher education? We all know that women were (or have been) discriminated by males (or male-controlled society). Not vice versa. That's why fields with small share of women are watched more closely than fields with small share of men.
Slashdot Mirror
If anything is an operating system, it's the kernel. The userland applications around it are just sauce. By the way, Windows XP comply with the POSIX standard in many respects. That does not make it a "true Unix".
It's a great OS and if you want a no-fuss desktop with true Unix under it, it's great.
In fact, Mac OS X is not "true Unix" (it is based on the Mach microkernel technology).
Yes, to refine and sum it all up:
The guilty ones are the producers, who pick (or order) bad or mediocre scripts from both good and bad writers.
And by the way, chord progression is only a "craft" that any non-gifted amateur can learn. But to write an original melody, that's a different matter.
Yeah I really do. The songs of the 90s are obsessed with technical aspects, and melody is not important anymore. When a 90s track has a good melody, it is usually a remix of a song from the 80s, 70s or 60s. Sure, in the 80s people remixed stuff too, but that was merely peripheral. Now remixing is the mainstream thing (and has been for at least 12 years). The problem is that remixing only masks the 90s "musician's" inability to write good and original music.
You are right, it's about the scripts. BUT, screenwriters are not the guilty ones, the producers who pick bad screenwriters are.
Other problems of todays movies:
1) Emphasis on money rather than artistic values (unlike in the 60s and 70s and even in 80s).
2) Emphasis on good-looking teenage and under-25 actors (because teenagers are the majority of cinema goers). This brings in shallow themes and shallow characters (by the way, I'm 29).
3) Emphasis on the visual FX. This again brings in shallow themes.
4) Something like "fluidum" (sorry can't find a better term) of the 90's which also affected music. There are virtually no new original ideas. Everyone just remakes or remixes old hits. Only a few new good hits have been written in the second half of the 90s. In the 80s there was one original hit written each week. Most of todays teenagers don't even know that 60% of today songs borrow themes from the 80s.
When I was a kid in the 80s I really enjoyed music. When 90s came I was like "what the hell is wrong with the song writers?" This happened in the movie industry too. We are just experiencing different eras with distinct characterists just like, say, there were differences between Renaissance and Baroque. Fortunately, in modern times the eras change every decade, rather than every century.
As for "why encourage", maybe you'd like to start to explain why Google's Summer of Code had zero women applicants
That's easy to explain (and already was in the OP). It's because nobody encouraged women explicitly. They let them choose naturally. And the result was that girls didn't want to participate. They weren't interested. Do you get the point?
Claiming women's "natural inclination" or interest is to not participate in free software projects is about as sexist a viewpoint as you can possibly achieve.
You do realize that there are differences between men and women? Biological and psychic. Women can give birth, men can't. Women also have different interests than men. Without any doubt, their interests and talents are given by thousands of years of evolution. Trying to "defeat" nature is ridiculous and actually a feminist approach.
> In fairness, he/she claimed no such thing. Please re-read.
Thanks.
Why do you encourage or even force them? Let them decide naturally what they want to do. Women don't force use men to breast-feed either. Respect people's natural inclinations and interests.
Ok, I stand corrected. Anyway, it is still a valid concern that any Firefox extension could actually be a Trojan horse.
> This is an Outlook/IE "virus"
No, it's a regular Firefox extension hosted on the official mozdev.org site. See http://numberedlinks.mozdev.org/
> Only 5% of a woman's body is different from a man's.
;-)
Maybe you should choose your girlfriend more carefuly next time.
Actually, almost every site looks good in IE because webmasters preview/test their sites primarily in IE. Why? Because vast majority of people use IE. Quite simple and reasonable equations.
> It's still in beta. While it's a GPL'd beta
Out of curiosity: How does a regular beta differ from a "GPL'd beta"?
I wonder whether I suffer from neophilia too when I fall in love with a new girl each week...
Sorry, but you still didn't get the point.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the tech-savvy (those who both know of adblocking and are capable of setting it up) aren't Google's main audience. If all of slashdot started adblocking google, we wouldn't make a dent.
Maybe you should read my post once again, but this time more carefully. I wrote: "if everyone started blocking Google/nonobtrusive ads". In other words, if all people did what some people do now, it might have negative impact on popular free sites, Google, etc.
PS - I also wonder where did the part "tech-savvy aren't Google's main audience" come from.
As I expected, the list blocks Google ads. If everyone downloaded this list and used AdBlock, Google would die. In case you did not know it, 99.99% of Google's income is from Google ads, based on their public reports for share holders, etc.
Blocking obtrusive ads is justified. Blocking any other ads is not. Did you ever stop to think who's going to pay the bandwidth costs of sites that depend on income from ads? The more popular a site is, the more incredible bandwidth fees they pay (popular sites can't use free hosting, mainly due to their bandwidth needs, etc). Without ads, sites like SourceForge.net or Slashdot.com would have to charge everyone for reading or die too. Think twice before blocking unobtrusive ads. Mass selfishness could bring many popular free sites to an end.
You can never be sure their database is complete. I mean come on, this is 2006. It's safer to do a Google search. I did that when I started my project. There was 0 results on Google for the keyword, so I was pretty sure it was a unique and original name. (Now, 3 years after the project launched, there are 400,000 results for the word ;)
Well, if the mediator does not do refunds in case of cancellation of the purchase, then their system is flawed and they could be sued to oblivion. Google will apparently use their GBuy and I bet they will refund all money to the advertiser if the order is cancelled via GBuy.
Your math does not make any sense. If the publisher pays $10, the mediator earns say $2 and gives $1 to the publisher. The publisher just lost $9.
The problem is that many counter count HITS, not UNIQUE VISITS. Firefox keeps requesting the favicon.ico file (site icon) on EVERY request (and due to some bug, even more than once, if our server returns a 404 error). In contrast, Internet Explorer requests the favicon.ico file only once and only if the site is in your Favorites. Hence, the number of hits from Firefox users is at least twice as high (and inflated).
> Do you consider switching channels when commercials come on as stealing as well ?
Actually, if nobody watched the commercials, the TV channels would have only two options:
1) Switch to pay TV model
2) Announce bankruptcy
PS - Or another example, if everybody blocked Google ads, Google would die (99% of their income is from ads, which is verifiable).
> I don't see many groups getting up and arms over it.
Do you know when women in the US attained the right to vote? Do you know when women in the US attained the right for higher education? We all know that women were (or have been) discriminated by males (or male-controlled society). Not vice versa. That's why fields with small share of women are watched more closely than fields with small share of men.
BTW, I'm not a feminist.