You're not going to stay well rounded by doing all of that bike riding and weight lifting. Well, unless the weight is a particularly heavy donut maybe;o)
Please do not confuse "good/evil" with "legal/illegal". They are completely different scales which unfortunately correlate a lot less often than they should.
That said, yes, Google's actions do seem to be legally questionable at best.
If I understand the Google advertising system correctly, advertisers (such as Microsoft) just state how much they're willing to spend on the advertising, whilst some Google code looks at the content of a page which has signed up for advertising and decides which ads would be most suitable.
In this case, we have a webpage which is talking about Microsoft, so Google's code has probably determined that it would be a good place for a Microsoft advert.
I've always disliked it when all programs of the same type roll into a single taskbar tab as it makes it harder to get to the window I'm wanting to deal with. On the other hand, if I had a separate taskbar tab for every single webpage I'm on, it would both overload the taskbar (making it useless to look for the tab I'm after), and means that all the tabs for browser windows dealing with the same subject are scattered all over the place.
My prefered method of browsing is to open a separate window for each subject or website I'm browsing on, and then opening child pages as tabs of that window. This way, as I jump around from subject to subject, all I need to do it locate the appropriate window on the taskbar (of which I may now only have half a dozen), and then jump to the appropriate tab of that window (which again would probably average half a dozen).
This method, and tabbed browsing, is ideal for me seeing as I'm capricious enough that I'm often jumping around several different subjects at a certain time, leaving the "subject window" open for sometimes days at a time until I feel I've finished with it. I usually have a couple of windows open over an extended period of time dedicated to certain sites which I read daily (so that I can just walk in from work and hit refresh). Maybe my scatty nature isn't "ideal computer usage", but the computer should be my tool after all, rather than something that dictates how I live my life;o)
In short, I hate being in a position now where I'm forced to use IE. It just doesn't work the way I do, and I suspect that that's the reason why a lot of people are getting excited about the new IE (although that energy would probably be better off going into getting Firefox;o)).
I live in the UK, and whilst it's not impossible to buy a new prebuilt computer without Windows installed, it's pretty much the standard for retailers to offer "a computer with windows preinstalled" rather than just "a computer".
This is pretty much a moot point for me personally on the desktop front seeing as I build all my computer's from components, but on the laptop front there's only been a couple of places I've found where I can buy laptops without Windows preinstalled, and they have been web-based retailers only with a pretty limited selection. Pretty much everywhere I've found with a halfway decent selection of laptops uses the principle of "You will buy Windows, and we won't give you a copy of the Windows CD, and you'll damn well like it! Oh, and if we find out that you've put an alternative OS on your laptop, the warrenty is void even if the problem is that we've supplied you with shoddy hardware rather than the software causing a problem."
How I wish building your own laptop was as easy as building your own desktop...
Depending on the exact wording of the bill, that's similar to what I was thinking.
I'd be hoping that a bill would be worded in such a way that computer retail must offer to sell a customer a computer without Windows preinstalled if the customer so wishes. After all, that copy of Windows would then have been installed without the customer's informed approval.
Yep, it's probably just wishful thinking on my part, but I would like to see it made easier to buy computers without being forced to buy Windows, and if the law in question does so by classifying Windows as spyware, then that's just icing on the cake;o)
Meanwhile...
Google suggests that for porn in my area, my first priority should be the local college. I guess those cute college girls have to pay for their education somehow;o)
I have the same problem, although given time I can usually work through the source of the site to work out the URL. (I fear for the day that the US government decides to make the "View Source" command illegal - I just know the UK will blindly follow suit)
It would be common sense to reach the widest possible audiance for something like this, so these tricks go against all common sense. Then again, common sense is rarely that common isn't it:o/
Big brother is watching, and to make things worse he's storing all his data on windows -.-
I certainly hope they're going to be putting extra hardening on those machines...
AFAIK, all decent email clients have an option to not load images when you open an email. Once you've decided that the email is from a sender that you're happy with, you just need to click a button to load the images. I know that this option is set by default on both my Evolution and Thunderbird installs.
Our politicians have learnt from the folly of America. Unfortunately, the lesson they've learnt is that if you pamper the corporations, you'll get a big fat christmas bonus:o/
</cynic>
Slashdot Mirror
You're not going to stay well rounded by doing all of that bike riding and weight lifting. Well, unless the weight is a particularly heavy donut maybe ;o)
Please do not confuse "good/evil" with "legal/illegal". They are completely different scales which unfortunately correlate a lot less often than they should.
That said, yes, Google's actions do seem to be legally questionable at best.
If I understand the Google advertising system correctly, advertisers (such as Microsoft) just state how much they're willing to spend on the advertising, whilst some Google code looks at the content of a page which has signed up for advertising and decides which ads would be most suitable.
In this case, we have a webpage which is talking about Microsoft, so Google's code has probably determined that it would be a good place for a Microsoft advert.
You don't need to see my ID.
...
*spray spray*
Now you don't need to see my ID.
After all, Bluetooth isn't meant to have a range of over 1 mile either. ;o)
I'd hazard that it's just a matter of time, so I think I'd prefer to play it safe on this one
I've always disliked it when all programs of the same type roll into a single taskbar tab as it makes it harder to get to the window I'm wanting to deal with. On the other hand, if I had a separate taskbar tab for every single webpage I'm on, it would both overload the taskbar (making it useless to look for the tab I'm after), and means that all the tabs for browser windows dealing with the same subject are scattered all over the place.
;o)
;o)).
My prefered method of browsing is to open a separate window for each subject or website I'm browsing on, and then opening child pages as tabs of that window. This way, as I jump around from subject to subject, all I need to do it locate the appropriate window on the taskbar (of which I may now only have half a dozen), and then jump to the appropriate tab of that window (which again would probably average half a dozen).
This method, and tabbed browsing, is ideal for me seeing as I'm capricious enough that I'm often jumping around several different subjects at a certain time, leaving the "subject window" open for sometimes days at a time until I feel I've finished with it. I usually have a couple of windows open over an extended period of time dedicated to certain sites which I read daily (so that I can just walk in from work and hit refresh). Maybe my scatty nature isn't "ideal computer usage", but the computer should be my tool after all, rather than something that dictates how I live my life
In short, I hate being in a position now where I'm forced to use IE. It just doesn't work the way I do, and I suspect that that's the reason why a lot of people are getting excited about the new IE (although that energy would probably be better off going into getting Firefox
Alternatively, how about a script that puts the CowboyNeal option back into the /. polls ;o)
I live in the UK, and whilst it's not impossible to buy a new prebuilt computer without Windows installed, it's pretty much the standard for retailers to offer "a computer with windows preinstalled" rather than just "a computer".
This is pretty much a moot point for me personally on the desktop front seeing as I build all my computer's from components, but on the laptop front there's only been a couple of places I've found where I can buy laptops without Windows preinstalled, and they have been web-based retailers only with a pretty limited selection.
Pretty much everywhere I've found with a halfway decent selection of laptops uses the principle of "You will buy Windows, and we won't give you a copy of the Windows CD, and you'll damn well like it! Oh, and if we find out that you've put an alternative OS on your laptop, the warrenty is void even if the problem is that we've supplied you with shoddy hardware rather than the software causing a problem."
How I wish building your own laptop was as easy as building your own desktop...
That's why it would depend a lot on the wording of the new law, and involves a fair bit of wishful thinking ;o)
Don't worry, you made sense.
Depending on the exact wording of the bill, that's similar to what I was thinking.
;o)
I'd be hoping that a bill would be worded in such a way that computer retail must offer to sell a customer a computer without Windows preinstalled if the customer so wishes. After all, that copy of Windows would then have been installed without the customer's informed approval.
Yep, it's probably just wishful thinking on my part, but I would like to see it made easier to buy computers without being forced to buy Windows, and if the law in question does so by classifying Windows as spyware, then that's just icing on the cake
Am I the only one wanting a large feline to wander in midway through the court case to show who really has prior usage of the name?
I for one will welcome spending 5 minutes rebooting to windows just to call the emergancy services -.-
I guess this also calls for the obligatory "All your ambulance are belong to MS" too <.<;;
Meanwhile... ;o)
n ear=taunton&btnG=Search&sc=1
Google suggests that for porn in my area, my first priority should be the local college. I guess those cute college girls have to pay for their education somehow
http://local.google.co.uk/local?hl=en&lr=&q=porn&
In short then, you only have to pay for a license if it's for commercial use, right?... I'm sure there's prior art on this concept ;o)
I have the same problem, although given time I can usually work through the source of the site to work out the URL. (I fear for the day that the US government decides to make the "View Source" command illegal - I just know the UK will blindly follow suit)
:o/
It would be common sense to reach the widest possible audiance for something like this, so these tricks go against all common sense. Then again, common sense is rarely that common isn't it
Big brother is watching, and to make things worse he's storing all his data on windows -.-
I certainly hope they're going to be putting extra hardening on those machines...
Shoddy American workmanship. In Soviet Russia we make our blimps from CAST IRON!!!!
AFAIK, all decent email clients have an option to not load images when you open an email. Once you've decided that the email is from a sender that you're happy with, you just need to click a button to load the images.
I know that this option is set by default on both my Evolution and Thunderbird installs.
A redundancy score? :oO
Is someone trying to say that the redundancy in XP is in the form of redundant bugs?
"Ha, you may have squashed one bug, but we have 10 more in there doing exactly the same job!"
Our politicians have learnt from the folly of America. Unfortunately, the lesson they've learnt is that if you pamper the corporations, you'll get a big fat christmas bonus :o/
</cynic>