Not a 100% sure why everyone wants to be a monotheist. I mean, is it cooler to believe in 1 god than say 2 or 100 or something?
That being said, to claim that Christians are monotheists and Mormons are not is pretty disingenuous. Unless of course you are saying that Catholics aren't Christians too.
In order I would say their best options were: Partner with HP, adopt WebOS, combine stores Adopt Android, add Ovi music to default android, Add Qt to Android Crash course in MeeGo, fast track deployment, fire anyone that gets in the way.. pretend like the care about software etc... WP7 + Android, Let the market choose Enter the Tulip market.. no, shit that is the dutch WP7 with BING...
I don't follow browser development very closely but IE9 seems to be getting pretty nice reviews. Figured I would give it a whirl and....
"To install Internet Explorer 9 Release Candidate (RC), you need to upgrade to a more recent version of Windows."
So this is going to be a DX11 type excuse I am guessing? Oh well, would have been nice to play with but given the choice between having to upgrade my OS for a new browser and having to have chrome transparently upgrade in the background..
This is Security 101. Prompting should be default, and if it's to be allowed to be disabled at all, it should require some level of user acceptance.
This sounds like the Vista security policy. It is really, really wrong. Prompting always is pretty much the same as never prompting. If you prompt for the same action over and over people just accept the prompt as part of the action and stop reading them. It's just the way we work.
What you're really saying is that security is the same as no security. Why lock your door? You're just going to unlock it every time someone comes to it, right?
Nope, What I am saying and what I did say was that obtrusive warnings and no warnings are roughly the same. Which you agree with in your next paragraph.
This is Security 101. Prompting should be default, and if it's to be allowed to be disabled at all, it should require some level of user acceptance.
This sounds like the Vista security policy. It is really, really wrong. Prompting always is pretty much the same as never prompting. If you prompt for the same action over and over people just accept the prompt as part of the action and stop reading them. It's just the way we work.
I think they may very well have gotten all libertarian if google had tried, or indeed still does try, to involve the court system.
I think the way most of us, and at the very least I, view this as a simple case of dirty pool (think that may have been in one of the google posts) .
I think what is mostly being missed in all of the talk about this is the fact that if we take Microsoft assertion, that what google did was click fraud, at face value then we are left with the fact that one person manually clicking on a random string can push RIM's home page to the top slot in Bing's results for that string. Google went out of their way to say that they never use user clicks for ranking. I suspect this is because of how absurdly easy such a system is to game.
And of course this would be relevant aside from the definite article used. "The Standard" does not mean the same thing as "A Standard". And therefore saying "H.264 is the standard. Browsers should play it." implies that H.264 is somehow special. Which is why of course I asked for clarification on her point. English can be complicated:(
I have had the misfortune of being the go to IT guy at a couple of small firms. Getting called away from dev work to "fix" sales drones PCs is all to common. 90% of the time it involved killing the 50 or so open IE instances. They get stuck between not wanting to bookmark something and not wanting to lose it so they just minimize...
Hey, if Android could overtake Apple like that, I'm not going to bet against Microsoft... historically, they tend to always be behind Apple getting to the marketplace, but still somehow end up at the front of the line.
1) Because I wanted to see if other search engines could work as well
2) Primarily, because I differ too greatly with Google at this point philosophically on the killing of the video tag under the guise to move to an open codec, and I wanted to reduce support of Googles revenue stream, even if only a tiny fraction they will never notice - it just makes me feel better.
Mostly it doesn't matter much, but there are a few times a week at least I have to turn back to Google.
I couldn't agree more. The way google is forcing Apple and Microsoft to not support the open and non patent encumbered WebM makes me sick. It is amazing to me how many sheeple still support evil google over the icon of fair market practices that is Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a 100% sure why everyone wants to be a monotheist. I mean, is it cooler to believe in 1 god than say 2 or 100 or something?
That being said, to claim that Christians are monotheists and Mormons are not is pretty disingenuous. Unless of course you are saying that Catholics aren't Christians too.
The knee-jerk reaction to anything Microsoft is a survival instinct. Unless you develop exclusively for windows you would do well to learn it as well.
In order I would say their best options were:
Partner with HP, adopt WebOS, combine stores
Adopt Android, add Ovi music to default android, Add Qt to Android
Crash course in MeeGo, fast track deployment, fire anyone that gets in the way.. pretend like the care about software etc...
WP7 + Android, Let the market choose
Enter the Tulip market.. no, shit that is the dutch
WP7 with BING...
Gentoo is easily the most clever distro name.
I don't follow browser development very closely but IE9 seems to be getting pretty nice reviews. Figured I would give it a whirl and....
"To install Internet Explorer 9 Release Candidate (RC), you need to upgrade to a more recent version of Windows."
So this is going to be a DX11 type excuse I am guessing? Oh well, would have been nice to play with but given the choice between having to upgrade my OS for a new browser and having to have chrome transparently upgrade in the background..
Thanks for the explanation.
How are patent law and trust law related in this case?
To claim that it is not google specific is at best naive. In the US there are really only 2 players, Google and Microsoft.
There are tons of breakdowns of search size, I kinda picked this one at random.
http://www.seoconsultants.com/search-engines/
This is Security 101. Prompting should be default, and if it's to be allowed to be disabled at all, it should require some level of user acceptance.
This sounds like the Vista security policy. It is really, really wrong. Prompting always is pretty much the same as never prompting. If you prompt for the same action over and over people just accept the prompt as part of the action and stop reading them. It's just the way we work.
What you're really saying is that security is the same as no security. Why lock your door? You're just going to unlock it every time someone comes to it, right?
Nope, What I am saying and what I did say was that obtrusive warnings and no warnings are roughly the same. Which you agree with in your next paragraph.
This is Security 101. Prompting should be default, and if it's to be allowed to be disabled at all, it should require some level of user acceptance.
This sounds like the Vista security policy. It is really, really wrong. Prompting always is pretty much the same as never prompting. If you prompt for the same action over and over people just accept the prompt as part of the action and stop reading them. It's just the way we work.
I think they may very well have gotten all libertarian if google had tried, or indeed still does try, to involve the court system.
I think the way most of us, and at the very least I, view this as a simple case of dirty pool (think that may have been in one of the google posts) .
I think what is mostly being missed in all of the talk about this is the fact that if we take Microsoft assertion, that what google did was click fraud, at face value then we are left with the fact that one person manually clicking on a random string can push RIM's home page to the top slot in Bing's results for that string. Google went out of their way to say that they never use user clicks for ranking. I suspect this is because of how absurdly easy such a system is to game.
And of course this would be relevant aside from the definite article used. "The Standard" does not mean the same thing as "A Standard". And therefore saying "H.264 is the standard. Browsers should play it." implies that H.264 is somehow special. Which is why of course I asked for clarification on her point. English can be complicated :(
At the very least it can be entertaining.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/01/bing-google-fight/
de facto standard you mean?
I have had the misfortune of being the go to IT guy at a couple of small firms. Getting called away from dev work to "fix" sales drones PCs is all to common. 90% of the time it involved killing the 50 or so open IE instances. They get stuck between not wanting to bookmark something and not wanting to lose it so they just minimize...
You could just turn it off you know.
canada doesn't count :p
I assume because the year of linux may finally come but in a way that really wasn't what we were all thinking. But who knows what he meant...
Hey, if Android could overtake Apple like that, I'm not going to bet against Microsoft... historically, they tend to always be behind Apple getting to the marketplace, but still somehow end up at the front of the line.
Wow! I was just thinking about the zune too.
I switched for two reasons:
1) Because I wanted to see if other search engines could work as well
2) Primarily, because I differ too greatly with Google at this point philosophically on the killing of the video tag under the guise to move to an open codec, and I wanted to reduce support of Googles revenue stream, even if only a tiny fraction they will never notice - it just makes me feel better.
Mostly it doesn't matter much, but there are a few times a week at least I have to turn back to Google.
I couldn't agree more. The way google is forcing Apple and Microsoft to not support the open and non patent encumbered WebM makes me sick. It is amazing to me how many sheeple still support evil google over the icon of fair market practices that is Microsoft.
Not sure if you were going for teh funnies but:
This tweet from Dan Morrill, Android Open Source & Compatibility Tech lead, means more than meets the eye. This officially opens up all possibilities for custom ROM makers, as there aren't any minimum processor requirements for Honeycomb.
http://www.androidguys.com/2011/01/07/dan-morill-minimum-requirements-honeycomb/
The tweet referred to above:
http://twitter.com/morrildl/status/22845294886518785#
Ohhh!!!! There is a help system in windows? I did not know that.
This 0-day is an IE flaw so maybe ./ isn't worth the risk?
PS ./ works fine in Chrome too...
I like the new layout, but I want the old icons back
That wasn't gum.. ewwww...