To me it's separate from issues of tracking/privacy in public urban spaces. To me, a part of the reason I go out there (e.g. on multiday AT throughhikes) is to GET THE F*** AWAY from people, technology, complications, etc. I consciously risk certain things by exposing myself to the elements (and no, the AT is not extreme like rowing solo across the atlantic, I'm just stating the mildly obvious fact that being out of cellphone range and miles from a road inheres some degree of risk) and I dislike the idea of bringing into these areas more and more technology, surveillance, and general connection to the connected, overpeopled, oversanitized and overmanaged life of humans and cities.
PLEASE. LEAVE. WHAT'S. LEFT. ALONE.
Granted the major trails themselves require maintenance (ie, human intervention) to remain passable, and focusing human traffic in certain areas helps preserve other areas (natural resource management is a trickier subject than I aim to tackle here) -- and I'm highly grateful to the many volunteers who help provide this valuable service. However without presuming to speak for them, I get the sense they'd share my concern. Keep it clean, keep it simple, and keep it the way it was, as much as possible, for as long as possible./$0.05
This is the most insightful, cutting, relevant and outrageous (because apparently true) quote I've come across in any/. discussion on rights, the law, or justice.
I work from home roughly 1/2 the time, and drive in to the office the other half. It is *ideal*. When home, I get fewer interrupts, can multitask (e.g. catch up on email during phone conferences where my input is needed for only a portion of the meeting), and generally am about 1.5X more productive. Plus, coding with my music up and the dog curled at my feet makes for a happy me. OTOH when I do go in, I maintain social/personal relationships, get enough of the hallway chats and facetime w folks to preserve my "presence" in the workplace, and feel somewhat more connected to the office per se. I wouldn't want it any other way. My boss (tech director) feels the same way about my schedule, and everyone's happy./anecdote
general relativity solves *so* many problems that cannot be solved otherwise that it's preposterous at this point to consider anything else
while I agree that the case for GR is pretty compelling, this same line of thought is why it took so long for ptolemy's ridiculous (in hindsight) orbits to be debunked. "but they solve so many problems that cannot be solved otherwise that it's preposterous to consider anything else"... ditto for many other "givens" (sun circles the earth, etc) in history. my point is that a scientific mind is always prepared to be repeatedly shown completely wrong - and in fact delights in this process, as it moves understanding closer to fullness./$0.02
I absolutely agree. CD-R's are for daily/frequent use. For serious archiving, keep copies on multiple hard drives. Tools like rsync make this very easy.
it greatly increases the odds that the speeding driver will run an unexpected red light, potentially killing someone if the intersecting light turns green at the same time. lights should be consistent, always taking the same amount of time to turn from yellow to red, w the exception of an absence of traffic at one side causing the (same slow, consistent) shift to yellow to red.
in some ways this is like high-speed police chases. I just read a stat that 33% of such chases end in a bystander fatality. I bet a large number of those innocent deaths would be avoided if the cops wouldn't endanger *everyone* by making it many speeding vehicles instead of just 1. *
*I know many people will disagree w this 2nd point and I have mixed feelings on it myself... but the light seems even more obviously wrong to me
I may get flamed and modded down for this but I'm going to put forth my honest opinion on this anyway. In my opinion, the shift to employing Indian and other offshore workers is not, in the grand scheme of things, as big a deal as some would have it.
I work at a smallish company (around 250 employees including our offshore team) comprised of an engineering group split roughly 50/50 between our Boston-area (Mass., USA) office and our offshore contractors in Bangalore, India. Over the course of the last 2 years we've struggled with, and eventually found, a working balance between onshore and offshore talent. A 50/50 split (for most teams -- some are mostly offshore, and for others we can't find any good candidates outside the states) seems to work out best. More of the seniors/principals/architect roles are onshore, but we have some very senior people from india as well. Some of them come onshore for months at a time. In general they're treated just like regular employees. (In my personal experience I've actually preferred the personalities, dedication and skills of these workers on at least an equal basis with their local counterparts.)
It is a model that does more than allow our young business to keep costs down. If we hadn't moved our callcenter offshore, the increase cost per customer care call might well have bankrupted us, or forced a major extra round of financing we might not have been able to obtain. The whole thing could have tanked and we'd all be out of a job. As it is now, we're enabling a booming middle class in a poverty-stricken 3rd-world country (which in the long view is a very good thing for the world), at the same time that we've gradually improved the quality of our average developer (and CSR rep) and found a stable, economically viable, harmonious balance.
I know this is not the same experience many bitter recently-laid-off engineers have gone through, but it is *my* experience, and a perspective that doesn't get heard much.
I honestly believe there will always be a market for onshore talent. startups will never be able to immediately get a whole operation offshore from the get-go. fledgeling companies will need local people on local hours able to meet face to face at any time. my take is, I'm going to continue to train both on and offshore developers, do the best damn job I can, keep honing my own skills the best I can, and it ALL improves my situation -- and my resume.
working with people all over the world is a phenomenon that's not going to go away. so to the posters who suggest mis-training their potential replacements, I ask, which would you rather be: a whining dishonest saboteur who left a shambles behind in their position? or someone with solid experience working with international teams to create good software? to me the choice is clear. like anything in life, make the best of it, and of yourself.
ps perhaps in this case my.sig is actually somewhat relevant, at least to the angry majority. taken from dante, it translates: "The only road to paradise begins in hell." hope you're all on that road, headed in the right direction.
let's assume the article is correct and 60% of the world's spam is US-based. in and of itself this is meaningless. if > 60% of the net's total content originated in the US, that would make the US better than average for its spam production.
I thought my counterargument was clear, in the way of a more obvious example (repeating it here):
By this logic, "Clean air and water was an illusion, perpetuated by a lack of pollution."
It's the same thing. Privacy DID (and to some degree, still does) exist. Just because the application of certain technologies may undermine or eliminate this privacy, in no way makes the concept nor existence of such privacy an illusion. In the same skein, the existence of acid rain doesn't make the idea of pure/clean rainwater an illusion. How is this not clear?
To clarify further: I did not argue against the entire post (in a nutshell, "we all want faster computers and systems and high availability of [CERTAIN KINDS OF] informtation")... but I argue vehemently against his claim that privacy is an unimportant illusion.
So when he says it's "part of [my!] Plan" that this development of technology should entail a concomitant elimination of personal privacy, my response is "no fucking way", albeit in kinder terms. Not my plan. Not the EFF's plan. Not the plan of most intellectuals, coders, and other educated thinking people who are gravely concerned about the implications of this emerging age of transparency.
It's one thing to say "privacy is being threatened". It's completely different (and IMO wrong) to say "privacy never existed, and it doesn't matter anyway, since this [disappearance] is what you want".
This is so obvious to me, and in my experience so in line with the/. demographic's general sympathies, I took the original post as a joke -- a joke that went over the heads of the moderators who marked it "insightful" instead of funny.
Apparently (based on mods and your reply) it is being taken seriously, and agreed with. Which I find surprising and unfortunate.
"Privacy was an illusion, perpetuated for millenia by a lack of technology."
I'd just chuckle, shake my head and ignore this, except it got moderated Socre: 5, Insightful.
It's preposterous. By this logic, "Clean air and water was an illusion, perpetuated by a lack of pollution."
From the tone of the original post, it seems tongue-in-cheek, and it's kind of funny. But for the moderators and subsequent readers who take it seriously? Think hard before you shrug and decide that the concept of personal privacy is merely an illusion -- or else before long it will be.
ok I agree I need to amend my statement. I did mean to write "[IES is remarkably standards-compliant in comparison to earlier versions of IE".
it is now possible to write compliant web documents that validate and appear virtually the same in ie6, mozilla and opera. that didn't use to be the case, and the post I replied to implied this was still so.
IE no longer tries to introduce new proprietary tags, they support *most* doctypes, and at least some of the specific issues you describe are problems in other browsers too. (e.g. http1.1 preservation of request method in a 302 response is a problem in mozilla too, as is robust css2 support)
now this was never intended as flamebait. there's no excuse for png, and IE6 sucks on a number of levels, but compared to earlier versions of IE it is a large step in the right direction.
So I still contend it is completely false to say that IE6 makes no *attempt* to comply with web standards.
that said, I still don't recommend its use, as mozilla is safer, faster, much MORE standards-compliant, and better in every regard.
your post seems a mix of trollishness and insight. I agree that IE's security holes are a huge problem and a very good reason (among several others) to switch to mozilla. but you're completely wrong about IE support for web standards.
"[IE] never made any attempt at standards compliance"
this is simply not true. IE6 is remarkably web-standards-compliant (honoring doctypes, rendering valid markup appropriately, providing excellent CSS1 support, etc). the fact that its "quirks mode" (triggered by the absence of a doctype against which to validate the page) continues to backwards-support IE4x hacks does not change this mostly-standards-compliant status at all.
your pro-mozilla arguments will be stronger when you educate yourself and stick to the facts.
Here are some good places to start: http://www.zeldman.com/ http://webstandar ds.org/ http://www.w3c.org/
you can hang out, listen to the same music (within the game), "see" each other (3d representation of your avatar), chat, play various games (like dune buggy races), etc.
My brother and I were just emailing about this. His latest response was so interesting, I feel compelled to share it here:
XMPP is fascinating, and with a few (okay, quie a few) revisions could become an all-encompassing standard. Going through the IETF and an open process was absolutely the right way to make it happen and get the standard out.
Unfortunately, it may also be wholly irrelevant. AOL has won the IM battle, and unlike the web, where unknown browsers may be connecting to arbitrary unknown servers, with IM there are known clients (that AOL writes) going to known servers (that AOL runs). AOL really has absolutely no compelling interest to allow others to mess with this proven formula, and has case history of working to prevent it. And most people really don't care - they just want to say "hi" to their cousin however's easiest. Since that process is 1-to-1 instead of many-to-many, there's not a compelling standardization argument. Now there *are* non-official AOL clients. And wierd-ass proxies.;) But none of these are endorsed by or supported by AOL.
Other than the bastard merger between the AIM (TOC) and ICQ protocols to form the hellspawn OSCAR, there's been basically no motion to make the other protocols look like each other, unless you count the feature one-uppedness that has characterized the recent push for audio and video chat and such features. So it sure doesn't *feel* like a standards battle in the same way that both Microsoft and Netscape were raping / redefining the HTML standard according to their own whims in the mid-90's. It's more that there are four camps: AOL, with the dominant mindshare; Microsoft, with the platform advantage; Yahoo, with the newest features (and the cleanest protocol); and Jabber, with less than 0.1% of the market, but pretty spiffy interop.
Ah, well. Endgame? Here's my prediction:
* AOL continues to leak dialup (bread+butter) users, still can't make money, TW forced to disband AOL unit, is currently only really underperforming branch of TW, with no light shining at the end of the tunnel.
* Microsoft's failed MSN service reignites the corporate mantra of "We'll do it right the third time" - billg knows how to spot a good deal on the table, buys AOL from TW, finally gets his MSN-AOL interop (everyone at AOL gets a bobsmith42@aol.com Microsoft passport), and puts all of the ex-Netscape folks on deathmarches with nice golden handcuffs to leave them too tired to work on Mozilla. Mozilla development basically halts, since it's pretty much still the Netscapers driving ongoing development. Billg gets to kill two birds (and maybe more) with one stone - they are already acquiring AOL IP (e.g. Nullsoft) anyhow, testing the waters. (A flood of Open Source-related / anti-MS startups forms in the next few years from AOL+NS ex-employees, helping ignite the second boom.)
* Yahoo continues to valiantly fight its solution out in the market, has a brief edge over MS in features along with a surge of AOL members who actually care the MS now owns the network. Billg cracks knuckles, puts 300 developers to work on adding amazing new features, throws 2-3 full video games in for free, makes MSN IM an integral part of in-game messaging systems, added to DirectPlay standard (currently languishing) so all DirectX video games have easy in-game messaging and collaboration tied to MSN.
* Yahoo capitulates as investors and shareholders cry to rally around the core competency of search and rebuild Inktomi to be a worthy Google successor before Yahoo's basically not worth anything. Non-core properties like IM dumped by the wayside with no buyer. (Possible suprise acquisition of some of these properties by Carlyle Group, Friendster, Google, or Wierd European Companies.)
* Jabber continues to lag a few generations behind in features, but maintains hardcore grassroots audience of people wh
An interesting post... but you should credit your sources. Or didn't you get this concept of Protestant work ethic vs modern Hacker ethic from The Hacker Ethic? Which btw is an excellent read (w/ a forward by Linus).
...can still be forced to obverse freedom of speech
this transposition (obverse::observe) is so perfect, I almost wonder if it was intentional. in the context of the thread, it's a legitimate point that in some cases, private property owners' rights are indeed misappropriated, resulting in the obverse of freedom of speech being enforced.
Slashdot Mirror
To me it's separate from issues of tracking/privacy in public urban spaces. To me, a part of the reason I go out there (e.g. on multiday AT throughhikes) is to GET THE F*** AWAY from people, technology, complications, etc. I consciously risk certain things by exposing myself to the elements (and no, the AT is not extreme like rowing solo across the atlantic, I'm just stating the mildly obvious fact that being out of cellphone range and miles from a road inheres some degree of risk) and I dislike the idea of bringing into these areas more and more technology, surveillance, and general connection to the connected, overpeopled, oversanitized and overmanaged life of humans and cities.
/$0.05
PLEASE. LEAVE. WHAT'S. LEFT. ALONE.
Granted the major trails themselves require maintenance (ie, human intervention) to remain passable, and focusing human traffic in certain areas helps preserve other areas (natural resource management is a trickier subject than I aim to tackle here) -- and I'm highly grateful to the many volunteers who help provide this valuable service. However without presuming to speak for them, I get the sense they'd share my concern. Keep it clean, keep it simple, and keep it the way it was, as much as possible, for as long as possible.
This is the most insightful, cutting, relevant and outrageous (because apparently true) quote I've come across in any /. discussion on rights, the law, or justice.
Thank you, Hatta 162192, for sharing.
I work from home roughly 1/2 the time, and drive in to the office the other half. It is *ideal*. When home, I get fewer interrupts, can multitask (e.g. catch up on email during phone conferences where my input is needed for only a portion of the meeting), and generally am about 1.5X more productive. Plus, coding with my music up and the dog curled at my feet makes for a happy me. OTOH when I do go in, I maintain social/personal relationships, get enough of the hallway chats and facetime w folks to preserve my "presence" in the workplace, and feel somewhat more connected to the office per se. I wouldn't want it any other way. /anecdote
My boss (tech director) feels the same way about my schedule, and everyone's happy.
while I agree that the case for GR is pretty compelling, this same line of thought is why it took so long for ptolemy's ridiculous (in hindsight) orbits to be debunked. "but they solve so many problems that cannot be solved otherwise that it's preposterous to consider anything else"... ditto for many other "givens" (sun circles the earth, etc) in history. my point is that a scientific mind is always prepared to be repeatedly shown completely wrong - and in fact delights in this process, as it moves understanding closer to fullness.
this is an interesting theory, and imho may have some merit. it took a catalyst to bring the whole thing down....
browser: firefox
firewall: zonealarm
music: winamp
zip util: winzip
IM client: trillian
text editor: editplus
ssh client: putty
music utils: mkwact
images: photoshop
security: ad-aware
I absolutely agree.
CD-R's are for daily/frequent use.
For serious archiving, keep copies on multiple hard drives. Tools like
rsync make this very easy.
it greatly increases the odds that the speeding driver will run an unexpected red light, potentially killing someone if the intersecting light turns green at the same time. lights should be consistent, always taking the same amount of time to turn from yellow to red, w the exception of an absence of traffic at one side causing the (same slow, consistent) shift to yellow to red.
in some ways this is like high-speed police chases. I just read a stat that 33% of such chases end in a bystander fatality. I bet a large number of those innocent deaths would be avoided if the cops wouldn't endanger *everyone* by making it many speeding vehicles instead of just 1. *
*I know many people will disagree w this 2nd point and I have mixed feelings on it myself... but the light seems even more obviously wrong to me
I may get flamed and modded down for this but I'm going to put forth my honest opinion on this anyway. In my opinion, the shift to employing Indian and other offshore workers is not, in the grand scheme of things, as big a deal as some would have it.
.sig is actually somewhat relevant, at least to the angry majority. taken from dante, it translates: "The only road to paradise begins in hell." hope you're all on that road, headed in the right direction.
I work at a smallish company (around 250 employees including our offshore team) comprised of an engineering group split roughly 50/50 between our Boston-area (Mass., USA) office and our offshore contractors in Bangalore, India. Over the course of the last 2 years we've struggled with, and eventually found, a working balance between onshore and offshore talent. A 50/50 split (for most teams -- some are mostly offshore, and for others we can't find any good candidates outside the states) seems to work out best. More of the seniors/principals/architect roles are onshore, but we have some very senior people from india as well. Some of them come onshore for months at a time. In general they're treated just like regular employees. (In my personal experience I've actually preferred the personalities, dedication and skills of these workers on at least an equal basis with their local counterparts.)
It is a model that does more than allow our young business to keep costs down. If we hadn't moved our callcenter offshore, the increase cost per customer care call might well have bankrupted us, or forced a major extra round of financing we might not have been able to obtain. The whole thing could have tanked and we'd all be out of a job. As it is now, we're enabling a booming middle class in a poverty-stricken 3rd-world country (which in the long view is a very good thing for the world), at the same time that we've gradually improved the quality of our average developer (and CSR rep) and found a stable, economically viable, harmonious balance.
I know this is not the same experience many bitter recently-laid-off engineers have gone through, but it is *my* experience, and a perspective that doesn't get heard much.
I honestly believe there will always be a market for onshore talent. startups will never be able to immediately get a whole operation offshore from the get-go. fledgeling companies will need local people on local hours able to meet face to face at any time. my take is, I'm going to continue to train both on and offshore developers, do the best damn job I can, keep honing my own skills the best I can, and it ALL improves my situation -- and my resume.
working with people all over the world is a phenomenon that's not going to go away. so to the posters who suggest mis-training their potential replacements, I ask, which would you rather be: a whining dishonest saboteur who left a shambles behind in their position? or someone with solid experience working with international teams to create good software? to me the choice is clear.
like anything in life, make the best of it, and of yourself.
ps perhaps in this case my
According to Nielsen/NetRatings, Shopping.com is the No. 2 most-visited comparison-shopping site. estimating a $75 million take from the IPO.
dmnews.com article, 3/26/2004
"no cell phones for IT workers" is like "no keyboards for coders"
seriously this is really funny to see just how dumb corporate policymakers can be.
I think you need even more help:
CTRL-C is "copy" (not cut)
CTRL-X -s "cut"
CTRL-ALT-DEL + ALT-S is "secure your windows box"
Dude, the author is striving for humor.
stats are so easy to manipulate or misinterpret.
let's assume the article is correct and 60% of the world's spam is US-based. in and of itself this is meaningless. if > 60% of the net's total content originated in the US, that would make the US better than average for its spam production.
I thought my counterargument was clear, in the way of a more obvious example (repeating it here):
... but I argue vehemently against his claim that privacy is an unimportant illusion.
/. demographic's general sympathies, I took the original post as a joke -- a joke that went over the heads of the moderators who marked it "insightful" instead of funny.
By this logic, "Clean air and water was an illusion, perpetuated by a lack of pollution."
It's the same thing. Privacy DID (and to some degree, still does) exist. Just because the application of certain technologies may undermine or eliminate this privacy, in no way makes the concept nor existence of such privacy an illusion.
In the same skein, the existence of acid rain doesn't make the idea of pure/clean rainwater an illusion. How is this not clear?
To clarify further:
I did not argue against the entire post (in a nutshell, "we all want faster computers and systems and high availability of [CERTAIN KINDS OF] informtation")
So when he says it's "part of [my!] Plan" that this development of technology should entail a concomitant elimination of personal privacy, my response is "no fucking way", albeit in kinder terms. Not my plan. Not the EFF's plan. Not the plan of most intellectuals, coders, and other educated thinking people who are gravely concerned about the implications of this emerging age of transparency.
It's one thing to say "privacy is being threatened".
It's completely different (and IMO wrong) to say "privacy never existed, and it doesn't matter anyway, since this [disappearance] is what you want".
This is so obvious to me, and in my experience so in line with the
Apparently (based on mods and your reply) it is being taken seriously, and agreed with. Which I find surprising and unfortunate.
Thoughts?
I'd just chuckle, shake my head and ignore this, except it got moderated Socre: 5, Insightful.
It's preposterous.
By this logic, "Clean air and water was an illusion, perpetuated by a lack of pollution."
From the tone of the original post, it seems tongue-in-cheek, and it's kind of funny. But for the moderators and subsequent readers who take it seriously? Think hard before you shrug and decide that the concept of personal privacy is merely an illusion -- or else before long it will be.
ok I agree I need to amend my statement. I did mean to write "[IES is remarkably standards-compliant in comparison to earlier versions of IE".
it is now possible to write compliant web documents that validate and appear virtually the same in ie6, mozilla and opera. that didn't use to be the case, and the post I replied to implied this was still so.
IE no longer tries to introduce new proprietary tags, they support *most* doctypes, and at least some of the specific issues you describe are problems in other browsers too. (e.g. http1.1 preservation of request method in a 302 response is a problem in mozilla too, as is robust css2 support)
now this was never intended as flamebait.
there's no excuse for png, and IE6 sucks on a number of levels, but compared to earlier versions of IE it is a large step in the right direction.
So I still contend it is completely false to say that IE6 makes no *attempt* to comply with web standards.
that said, I still don't recommend its use, as mozilla is safer, faster, much MORE standards-compliant, and better in every regard.
this is simply not true.
IE6 is remarkably web-standards-compliant (honoring doctypes, rendering valid markup appropriately, providing excellent CSS1 support, etc). the fact that its "quirks mode" (triggered by the absence of a doctype against which to validate the page) continues to backwards-support IE4x hacks does not change this mostly-standards-compliant status at all.
your pro-mozilla arguments will be stronger when you educate yourself and stick to the facts.
Here are some good places to start:
http://www.zeldman.com/
http://webstanda
http://www.w3c.org/
there.com
you can hang out, listen to the same music (within the game), "see" each other (3d representation of your avatar), chat, play various games (like dune buggy races), etc.
His latest response was so interesting, I feel compelled to share it here:
XMPP is fascinating, and with a few (okay, quie a few) revisions could become
;) But none of these are
an all-encompassing standard. Going through the IETF and an open process was
absolutely the right way to make it happen and get the standard out.
Unfortunately, it may also be wholly irrelevant. AOL has won the IM battle, and
unlike the web, where unknown browsers may be connecting to arbitrary unknown
servers, with IM there are known clients (that AOL writes) going to known
servers (that AOL runs). AOL really has absolutely no compelling interest to
allow others to mess with this proven formula, and has case history of working
to prevent it. And most people really don't care - they just want to say "hi"
to their cousin however's easiest. Since that process is 1-to-1 instead of
many-to-many, there's not a compelling standardization argument. Now there
*are* non-official AOL clients. And wierd-ass proxies.
endorsed by or supported by AOL.
Other than the bastard merger between the AIM (TOC) and ICQ protocols to form
the hellspawn OSCAR, there's been basically no motion to make the other
protocols look like each other, unless you count the feature one-uppedness that
has characterized the recent push for audio and video chat and such features.
So it sure doesn't *feel* like a standards battle in the same way that both
Microsoft and Netscape were raping / redefining the HTML standard according to
their own whims in the mid-90's. It's more that there are four camps: AOL, with
the dominant mindshare; Microsoft, with the platform advantage; Yahoo, with the
newest features (and the cleanest protocol); and Jabber, with less than 0.1% of
the market, but pretty spiffy interop.
Ah, well. Endgame? Here's my prediction:
* AOL continues to leak dialup (bread+butter) users, still can't make money, TW
forced to disband AOL unit, is currently only really underperforming branch of
TW, with no light shining at the end of the tunnel.
* Microsoft's failed MSN service reignites the corporate mantra of "We'll do it
right the third time" - billg knows how to spot a good deal on the table, buys
AOL from TW, finally gets his MSN-AOL interop (everyone at AOL gets a
bobsmith42@aol.com Microsoft passport), and puts all of the ex-Netscape folks
on deathmarches with nice golden handcuffs to leave them too tired to work on
Mozilla. Mozilla development basically halts, since it's pretty much still the
Netscapers driving ongoing development. Billg gets to kill two birds (and maybe
more) with one stone - they are already acquiring AOL IP (e.g. Nullsoft)
anyhow, testing the waters. (A flood of Open Source-related / anti-MS startups
forms in the next few years from AOL+NS ex-employees, helping ignite the second
boom.)
* Yahoo continues to valiantly fight its solution out in the market, has a
brief edge over MS in features along with a surge of AOL members who actually
care the MS now owns the network. Billg cracks knuckles, puts 300 developers to
work on adding amazing new features, throws 2-3 full video games in for free,
makes MSN IM an integral part of in-game messaging systems, added to DirectPlay
standard (currently languishing) so all DirectX video games have easy in-game
messaging and collaboration tied to MSN.
* Yahoo capitulates as investors and shareholders cry to rally around the core
competency of search and rebuild Inktomi to be a worthy Google successor before
Yahoo's basically not worth anything. Non-core properties like IM dumped by the
wayside with no buyer. (Possible suprise acquisition of some of these
properties by Carlyle Group, Friendster, Google, or Wierd European Companies.)
* Jabber continues to lag a few generations behind in features, but maintains
hardcore grassroots audience of people wh
(chuckle)
yes, foreword.
thanks.
An interesting post... but you should credit your sources. Or didn't you get this concept of Protestant work ethic vs modern Hacker ethic from The Hacker Ethic? Which btw is an excellent read (w/ a forward by Linus).
this transposition (obverse::observe) is so perfect, I almost wonder if it was intentional.
in the context of the thread, it's a legitimate point that in some cases, private property owners' rights are indeed misappropriated, resulting in the obverse of freedom of speech being enforced.
chuckle.
I guess those poor fleas didn't have access to tartar control Crest, huh. pity.
no, it's outside hollywood. in the desert. here's the evidence:
nasa defrauded!