Sure, that'll get you Windows.exe files, but most of the ones I see with that query are common downloads like Cygwin's setup.exe or the Perl installer or FileZilla's installer.
What other sorts of keywords would you add?
That is true, but I would argue simply that an encyclepedia that is 100% correct cannot exist I don't think
You could say that about any non-fiction literary work, and you'd be right. Even the most thoroughly researched research paper is likely to have a few innaccuracies. That's why when you're conducting research for the writing scholarly material, or for any other purpose, it is considered good practice to have a good variety of sources from well-known authorities on the subject. The more diverse these sources are, the better. Any human endeavor is going to imperfect. Especially when we're talking about getting facts right. We all see the world through our own biases and filters. We might do our best to be objective, but we're imperfect beings by our very nature. And as a result, our work is imperfect. But that's okay -- the important thing is to understand that no one can be taken as a 100% authority on anything. Heck, even Albert Einstein has been proven wrong before. And he was a genius! Should we expect those with lower IQs to be better on average?
Well, as far as failure rates go, there are different types -- For example, in terms of failures that cause downtime -- with a decent and appropriately setup RAID system hard drives are damn near 0. Reliability is pretty good even on a single drive system (I average about 1 failure / 3 years on each of my desktops for the last 15 years or so), but these will become increasingly rare as more and more motherboards are coming with built-in RAID controllers and hard drive prices have plummeted so low, that most folks who need that type of reliabiility you can afford to throw two, three or, better yet, 5 into a system.
Performance almost doesn't matter. How often do you REALLY sit waiting for the disk on your day to day productivity? With sufficient RAM for the OS to build a significant enough cache and an OS with very little downtime, you'll spend almost no time actually waiting on disk for most day-to-day type apps (Web browsing, e-mail, office apps, etc.)
The key isn't even speed, capacity or size... it's economics. To be a hard drive replacement, it needs to be as cheap as hard drives. Your 4GB USB drive may be 'cheap' in your mind, but if it were as cheap as any current PATA or SATA hard drive, it would have cost $4, not $40-80... IOW, your USB drive is at least 10x and as much as 20x more expensive than a hard drive. For MRAM to become a viable replacement for HDDs, it has to become as cheap as HDDs.
Only time will tell if the economies of scale kick in and make this economically viable.
Linux always is, by default (I don't know if you can make it otherwise without a LOT of hacking).
Linux is case retentive (not sensitive) when operating on mounted VFAT, ISO9660, CIFS and (I think) UMSDOS volumes by default (this can be changed).
It might even be possible to run Linux with a VFAT root, but I've never tried it. There are various distros that are designed to run on UMSDOS partitions, though. Anyway, Linux behaves similar to Cygwin when operating on VFAT partitions.
Because Microsoft itself seems to imply that the COA will be your guarantee that you are using a non-pirated version of Windows. If you want to make sure that your software is licensed properly and not pirated, you need to check your COA, according to Microsoft.
IETab is truly one of the most valuable extensions for Web developers that actually care what their pages look like in IE vs. Firefox, Makes it nice and easy to quickly compare and see where things break down.
Umm...I'm not sure which religion you are talking about but there are at least two prominent religions that proselyte extensively in the US: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.
As if they were two different, distinct religions instead of two different sects of the same religion.
Don't create a movement to get people to abandon religion. That is just subversive.
And to create a movement to get people to join a church by proselytizing on the street, door-to-door, in the malls, in the restauruants, in the supermarket, in people's snail mail, in their e-mail, on TV/radio, on the Net, in the newspapers and magazines, and even in ^*(*^&*() public restrooms, for crying out loud is just so much better, isn't it?
I won't be mentioning which religious organizations tend to do this, but they all seem to belong to one religion, at least in the U.S.
(For those that don't get: AOL will just keep charging your credit card, no matter how many times you try to "cancel." I've seen this happen to a LOT of people.)
GWT does have a couple of fairly significant flaws. First among them is its lack of provision for graceful degradation.
In other words, if you want to make sure your site "just works", GWT isn't a good technology to use. If your management team is paying attention, that should pretty much stick a fork in this technology.
Why? You can still do graceful degradation -- Google does this with it's own properties. Turn off Javascript and go visit Google Maps or Gmail. You'll get a 'non-interactive' version of the Web page. They just develop it two different ways, detect JavaScript, and then go to the appropriate version. What's wrong with that? It's a perfectly valid development approach.
I had a similar problem with AT&T Wireless a long time ago (ca. 1998), when they first introduced their "one-rate" service (no extra charges for long distance or roaming, a major innovation back then).
Nitpick: that wasn't new in 1998, either. Sprint had that at least as early as 1996, when I signed up with them.
The very end of the saga -- eight months later - was that I finally managed to talk to a manager who agreed there was a problem, told me that many others had experienced it, and canceled all the excess charges, just like that. So, basically, they'd known all along that there was a problem. and just kept stonewalling in the hopes that I'd break down and pay them.
Sure. Because there is a very large contingent of the population who will not dispute the bill. Heck, there's a bunch who won't even read it. (No, I'm not making this up, people really are this stupid.) They just open up their mail and say "Doh! AT&T says I owe them $1000! Guess I'll just have to pay it!"
It's about how you presented it. Don't present it as 'free software'. Become a Red Hat channel partner and SELL the stuff. People equate free with "cheesy". But when they pay for it (even if it is something they could have acquired for free) they get a warm fuzzy feeling that they are being supported and, more importantly, there's someone to sue.
It's the approach I've used and I've actually sold people 'free' software solutions, they just didn't know they were free software.
Maybe we need to go back to good-old fashioned text files. It was good enough back in the days of wood-burning computers; it should be good enough now.
Definitely! Then we can redact things with fancy ANSI terminal codes ^[[30;40mlike this super secret hidden message[[m!
Anecdotal evidence to support this assertion is my own business. It languished on the edge of bankruptcy while trying to "sell" free software and services. I was never able to get anyone interested in free software. However, as soon as I removed the free software references from my website and started pitching Microsoft centric solutions two things happened.
As if it mattered whether or not it was a Microsoft-centric approach.
Most customers don't actually care as much what the solution consists of -- Microsoft, Open Source, "Free" Software, whatever -- what they want are the following:
It solves the problem. It does what the customer needs it to do, meeting all of the customer's functionality requirements.
Performance is adequate for the task at hand. Performance isn't top of the list for most customers, but they also don't want to spend too much time waiting on the system, either.
The system has good usability and minimizes the cost of training.
Compatbility with the customer's existing systems and infrastructure. If it doesn't work with what they've already got, they won't touch it.
The solution comes with good support for every aspect of the system. If they can't get it fixed by someone other than you, the solution is useless to them.
The cost to install and maintain the system is within their budget. If they can't afford it, they just won't do it.
The consultant designing or implementing the system demonstrates that he or she is knowledgeable and has good business communication skills. The consultant needs to understand the customer's project, budget, and business requirements on a deep level.
If you have these things covered, it won't matter to the vast majority of customers what vendor(s) you use. Linux, Windows, Mac, whatever -- as long as it does what the customer needs and fits the above criteria, customers will flock to your solutions and pay you well.
Well, there's probably a few reasons in this case.
They don't want to get sued by Linus over the use of the 'Linux trademark.
They don't want to get pigeonholed into doing just 'Linux' support. They're probably already doing some level of application support, and they might want to expand into *BSD, OpenSolaris, etc. later.
To a suit, 'Levanta' probably just sounds cooler than 'LinuxCare.' LinuxCare sounds utilitarian, while 'Levanta' sounds like it could be the next acid blocker medication, right along side Nexium, Zantac, Pecid and Tazac.
As mentioned earlier, the book has a definite "Indie" aesthetic, and neither the presentation nor the layout is polished to a perfect shine. To say "beauty is only skin deep" is only to get halfway to the point; with no graphics to speak of (but for a few tables) and a very spartan design, you can see right through the skin, down to the bone. The book's bones are solid, however, and they provide a good foundation for any Indie game developer to build upon.
The largest issue is probably the book's price. Although I feel that the information within is certainly worth it, some readers might balk at the price tag for the 153-page book ($34.95 for a Paperback, and $27.95 for a PDF, at the time of this review). The author also apparently intends to include some form of downloadable updates for portions of the book; at one point, he explains that a list will "eventually go out of date, but like ALL of the resources in the book you can purchase a new copy of only the resources section (in E-Book form), fully up to date!" The frequency and price points for these updates remains to be seen, as the book is new and there are no updates available at this time.
Overall, the book provides a game designer with a solid foundation of several key marketing principles, with an excellent discussion of Search Engine Optimization and Advertising terminology standing out as highlights. Its Indie aesthetic may turn some potential readers off, but for those who can look beyond appearances, this may be a worthwhile investment for those who don't have the luxury of a Marketing department down the hall.
Everything in bold in the last three paragraphs looks like opinion to me. A good review has little opinion points scattered throughout the review, with a summary at the end. That's what the author of the review seems ot have done.
Maybe, but what is my cost per year on the usher, and what is my actual cost per year on making the faraday cage? Will a rude usher hurt my attendance? Will the faraday cage?
These are the questions the movie theater owner wants to know. I'm guessing that the faraday cage is probably a bit cheaper and that the faraday cage won't harm attendance one bit.
Lets use an example. I'm looking at Toogle from the east coast. My ISP is Comcast, and (for sake of argument, I have no idea who it really is) Toogle is hosted on a west coast provider, say, Covad. My HTTP request is sent from my system to my ISP's node. The ISP's node then routes the packet to it's next hop, which might be on an AT&T network. The AT&T node then routes the packet to another node, which might be in a completely different network, and so on and so forth, until the packet reaches Covad. The response is performed in much the same way, until it reaches my system. Now, yes, both Comcast and Covad are paid for this transaction, from me in my ISP contract, and from Toogle in the hosting agreement. AT&T's complaint is that they have to carry this traffic for free across their network, and get nothing from this particular transaction.
But Comcast and Covad are paying for their upstream connections to AT&T. Do you think Comcast and Covad connect to the Internet for free? Everybody who connects pays their upstream provider. It's not like either Comcast or Covad are one of the big backbone providers.
It's designed to spec, the APIs are public and the source code is out there. Step 1) Microsoft freeze and publish their APIs under a GPL compatible license so that existing interop OSS projects such as Samba can polish the last couple of percent into their products. Step 2) Microsoft adapt their software to work with established standards such as PDF, ODF, OpenGL, HTML etc etc etc. Step 3) There is no step 3. OSS stuff *already* interoperates with anything written to open standards, as well as rather a lot of closed standards. I fail to see what more they need to do.
Remember this: Microsoft's goal is to win. For Microsoft to win, everyone else has to lose. You need to learn Microsoft lingo: 'Interoperability' for Microsoft means 'embrace and extend'. 'Truce' means no more Samba, no more OpenLDAP, no more WINE, no more Exchange connectors, no more Linux, etc. See 'everybody wins'! ('Everybody' meaning 'everybody with stock options at Microsoft').
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, that'll get you Windows .exe files, but most of the ones I see with that query are common downloads like Cygwin's setup.exe or the Perl installer or FileZilla's installer.
What other sorts of keywords would you add?
You could say that about any non-fiction literary work, and you'd be right. Even the most thoroughly researched research paper is likely to have a few innaccuracies. That's why when you're conducting research for the writing scholarly material, or for any other purpose, it is considered good practice to have a good variety of sources from well-known authorities on the subject. The more diverse these sources are, the better. Any human endeavor is going to imperfect. Especially when we're talking about getting facts right. We all see the world through our own biases and filters. We might do our best to be objective, but we're imperfect beings by our very nature. And as a result, our work is imperfect. But that's okay -- the important thing is to understand that no one can be taken as a 100% authority on anything. Heck, even Albert Einstein has been proven wrong before. And he was a genius! Should we expect those with lower IQs to be better on average?
Well, as far as failure rates go, there are different types -- For example, in terms of failures that cause downtime -- with a decent and appropriately setup RAID system hard drives are damn near 0. Reliability is pretty good even on a single drive system (I average about 1 failure / 3 years on each of my desktops for the last 15 years or so), but these will become increasingly rare as more and more motherboards are coming with built-in RAID controllers and hard drive prices have plummeted so low, that most folks who need that type of reliabiility you can afford to throw two, three or, better yet, 5 into a system. Performance almost doesn't matter. How often do you REALLY sit waiting for the disk on your day to day productivity? With sufficient RAM for the OS to build a significant enough cache and an OS with very little downtime, you'll spend almost no time actually waiting on disk for most day-to-day type apps (Web browsing, e-mail, office apps, etc.)
The key isn't even speed, capacity or size ... it's economics. To be a hard drive replacement, it needs to be as cheap as hard drives. Your 4GB USB drive may be 'cheap' in your mind, but if it were as cheap as any current PATA or SATA hard drive, it would have cost $4, not $40-80 ... IOW, your USB drive is at least 10x and as much as 20x more expensive than a hard drive. For MRAM to become a viable replacement for HDDs, it has to become as cheap as HDDs.
Only time will tell if the economies of scale kick in and make this economically viable.
Linux is case retentive (not sensitive) when operating on mounted VFAT, ISO9660, CIFS and (I think) UMSDOS volumes by default (this can be changed).
It might even be possible to run Linux with a VFAT root, but I've never tried it. There are various distros that are designed to run on UMSDOS partitions, though. Anyway, Linux behaves similar to Cygwin when operating on VFAT partitions.
Because Microsoft itself seems to imply that the COA will be your guarantee that you are using a non-pirated version of Windows. If you want to make sure that your software is licensed properly and not pirated, you need to check your COA, according to Microsoft.
And, furthermore, if you are a Web developer, why bother?
You can get , and you can even switch between the .
IETab is truly one of the most valuable extensions for Web developers that actually care what their pages look like in IE vs. Firefox, Makes it nice and easy to quickly compare and see where things break down.
Oh, yeah, sure... you're just part of it aren't you?? AREN'T YOU??? Tell us! Tell us what you KNOW!!! Or we'll KILL YOU!!!!
thistextforthelamenessfilter
I just read an essay on the importance of Dadaism in modern art, hence part of the tone of my posts about the AAFFLACCC, Ltd.
*groan* Why didn't I see that acronymn before?
Umm...I'm not sure which religion you are talking about but there are at least two prominent religions that proselyte extensively in the US: Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.
As if they were two different, distinct religions instead of two different sects of the same religion.
Don't create a movement to get people to abandon religion. That is just subversive.
And to create a movement to get people to join a church by proselytizing on the street, door-to-door, in the malls, in the restauruants, in the supermarket, in people's snail mail, in their e-mail, on TV/radio, on the Net, in the newspapers and magazines, and even in ^*(*^&*() public restrooms, for crying out loud is just so much better, isn't it?
I won't be mentioning which religious organizations tend to do this, but they all seem to belong to one religion, at least in the U.S.
AOL would ignore it anyway! ;)
(For those that don't get: AOL will just keep charging your credit card, no matter how many times you try to "cancel." I've seen this happen to a LOT of people.)
Nitpick: that wasn't new in 1998, either. Sprint had that at least as early as 1996, when I signed up with them.
Sure. Because there is a very large contingent of the population who will not dispute the bill. Heck, there's a bunch who won't even read it. (No, I'm not making this up, people really are this stupid.) They just open up their mail and say "Doh! AT&T says I owe them $1000! Guess I'll just have to pay it!"
No, I'm still not wrong.
It's about how you presented it. Don't present it as 'free software'. Become a Red Hat channel partner and SELL the stuff. People equate free with "cheesy". But when they pay for it (even if it is something they could have acquired for free) they get a warm fuzzy feeling that they are being supported and, more importantly, there's someone to sue.
It's the approach I've used and I've actually sold people 'free' software solutions, they just didn't know they were free software.
Maybe we need to go back to good-old fashioned text files.
It was good enough back in the days of wood-burning computers;
it should be good enough now.
Definitely! Then we can redact things with fancy ANSI terminal codes ^[[30;40mlike this super secret hidden message[[m!
w00t! No one will EVER figure how to defeat that!
As if it mattered whether or not it was a Microsoft-centric approach.
Most customers don't actually care as much what the solution consists of -- Microsoft, Open Source, "Free" Software, whatever -- what they want are the following:
If you have these things covered, it won't matter to the vast majority of customers what vendor(s) you use. Linux, Windows, Mac, whatever -- as long as it does what the customer needs and fits the above criteria, customers will flock to your solutions and pay you well.
Cool! I learned something new.
Alt+D and F6 both work in Firefox and IE.
F4 opens the dropdown list, but interestingly enough in Firefox, you have to hit F6 then F4, whereas in IE you can go straight there with F4.
Maybe, but what is my cost per year on the usher, and what is my actual cost per year on making the faraday cage? Will a rude usher hurt my attendance? Will the faraday cage?
These are the questions the movie theater owner wants to know. I'm guessing that the faraday cage is probably a bit cheaper and that the faraday cage won't harm attendance one bit.
I think you left out the words 'drive' and 'sideways' and the phrase 'with no lubricant' after the word 'CD-ROM.' ;-)
But Comcast and Covad are paying for their upstream connections to AT&T. Do you think Comcast and Covad connect to the Internet for free? Everybody who connects pays their upstream provider. It's not like either Comcast or Covad are one of the big backbone providers.
And they can track p2p downloads how?
Oh, right. They can't.
It's designed to spec, the APIs are public and the source code is out there. Step 1) Microsoft freeze and publish their APIs under a GPL compatible license so that existing interop OSS projects such as Samba can polish the last couple of percent into their products. Step 2) Microsoft adapt their software to work with established standards such as PDF, ODF, OpenGL, HTML etc etc etc. Step 3) There is no step 3. OSS stuff *already* interoperates with anything written to open standards, as well as rather a lot of closed standards. I fail to see what more they need to do.
Remember this: Microsoft's goal is to win. For Microsoft to win, everyone else has to lose. You need to learn Microsoft lingo: 'Interoperability' for Microsoft means 'embrace and extend'. 'Truce' means no more Samba, no more OpenLDAP, no more WINE, no more Exchange connectors, no more Linux, etc. See 'everybody wins'! ('Everybody' meaning 'everybody with stock options at Microsoft').