So you've never lied yourself then? Or colored the truth? There's lots of reasons to vote or not vote for someone, but not voting because the candidates do something that *everyone* does? Doesn't compute.
A number of stores do this if they've been robbed often enough. I don't agree with it, but the thinking is if they don't have a hood, it makes it easier to identify them if they decide to rob you.
While all that's true, a browser is at it's most basic simply a platform to deliver someone else's content and design. It should be unobtrusive and as the parent pointed out, effort spent on putting functionality into the browser would be far more useful to both content consumers and designers - better CSS support, more efficient code execution, etc. should be a much higher priority than synchronizing bookmarks or in making a new interface.
"typical monitor" when this was written was a CRT. I'd hardly call a CRT a "typical" purchase for anyone anymore. I got rid of my last one four years ago, and I'm not even sure I know anyone who still has one. Hell, most non-gamers I know don't even own a desktop PC.
I'm not saying there aren't still hazardous materials in today's PC, I'm just saying its a hell of a lot less than "five to eight pounds."
Perhaps not, but I would like the damn thing to end -- and what could be more formulaic than the Wheel of Time series? The repeating cycle of good and evil that was touched on in Tolkien, explanded on by Eddings and others including Modesitt, is a pretty standard fantasy formula. Jordan came up with some interesting twists, but the whole thing is just on long twelve volume morality play -- I still think Modesitt would be a good pick.
Whomever gets the nod to complete it though -- I'm much more likely to read it than if Jordan had lived to complete it.
Yeah, I have to agree on his amateurish writing -- I'll put up with a lot from a book if the story is great and the writing is not, or the reverse, but his books lacked both. That's not to say the idea and concepts that were the basis of the story weren't great, he just didn't have the skills to bring off his vision. A number of my friends were fans of the first 3 or 4 books, and they harangued me into reading them, but like others who posted here, I basically read the last chapter of 9 and 10 and didn't read 11 at all.
Hopefully a good writer like L.E. Modesitt or someone else (please, no hack writers!) will be asked to complete the last book in the series and give it the treatment that Robert Jordan couldn't. I'm sorry he passed away without finishing it, not because I wanted to read it, but more so because he was obviously so invested in bringing it to completion.
So any guesses on how long it will take for some report to surface that the hard disks or printouts from this were stolen or lost after the close it down?
No, it's not, but even back in the days of the Vietnam War, the US military extended the protections of the Geneva Convention to Viet Cong guerrillas, despite the fact that the were not explicitly covered.
Who would have thought we had more moral clarity in the 60s and 70s than we do now?
They don't hate Firefox, they hate standards.
Any properly coded website based on open standards such as XHTML and CSS will render correctly in any browser (except IE of course), and as for web application support there simply is no excuse to use an IE-only solution.
"Net Applications collects its data from the browsers of visitors to its network of more than 40,000 Web sites."
Any statistics that purport to show "usage" based on browser hits is inherently suspect, especially if the stats are used to imply they have some larger meaning. If they can answer these questions, I'll believe them:
- How are the servers of these "40,000 webs sites" identifying unique users? (server logs, scripts, or both? How long are the sessions they are looking at?) - Are they looking at number of hits, unique user views, or what? - How well can they ensure that machines are not being counted multiple times? - Which sites are included? Are both microsoft.com and apple.com sites included? What about msn.com or mac.com? How many tech-savy sites are included and how many might-as-well-be-AOL newbie sites? - Are the results from some sites weighted above or below other sites?
I'm not saying they haven't taken all these things into account, but publishing them (or referencing them by a third-party) without including how the data was gathered makes this all just so much noise.
My first "real" job was working for a government agency back in 1988 doing desktop and network support. There I got to use the following (all of which became obsolete or were pushed aside by other technologies)
- Epson Equity III+ 386-based computers (yes, Epson actually used to make PCs) - IBM PS/2 486s with micro-channel architecture - Novell Netware 3.12 - OS/2 - Tektronix wax transfer color printers ("toner" was in the form of special little wax crayons" - Token ring network (w/ IBM hermaphroditic connectors) - Lotus 123 - WordPerfect 4.2
While some of these weren't "flops" per se, they all did fall by the wayside eventually. However, even with this inauspicious start, I did learn a lot from these flops that has served me well ever since.
The only problem with your argument is that most murders are committed by people who knew their victim, not random folks unknown to the victim. These folks are certainly not safe to be around if they just go to prison, do their time, and get out; but they also are not likely to kill again if they receive the intense sort of psychological treatment and medication they probably need, as well as getting clean from whatever drugs they may have been on [another major contributor to someone deciding to kill someone else].
Capital punishment in the U.S. is certainly viewed by many on both sides of the issue as "Hey you killed someone and it's not right so we're gonna kill you," and this view has also been historically representative of the general stance in the U.S. I've also heard many pro-death penalty folks ground their arguments in the idea of an "eye for an eye" type of justice, so I would disagree that it is carried out as a preventative measure, and is usually viewed as exactly as it is described: punishment.
Personally, I believe that not only is the system so imperfect that justice truly cannot be served by the death penalty, but I also believe that it demeans all of us to sink down to the level of the lowest elements in our society, who believe life is cheap, in some misguided effort to punish or "provide closure." The families of a number of murder victims have spoken out that the execution of their relative's murderer did not relieve their pain, it did not offer closure, and often just served as a prolonged farce of what justice is supposed to be.
The ad that got displayed when I viewed this article:
"Christ Centered Filtering Internet Filtering at its Best 14 Day Free Trial. Take Control! www.FamilyFellowship.com"
I can just picture the software saying "The power of Christ compels this website from your browser" or could I use it to filter out all the holy-roller references to Christ on websites?
Actually, that is not regarded as true anymore. As put forward in the book "Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity" by David W. Galenson, he notes that there are two classes of "genius." There are those who create at a very young age and don't do anything but revise those creations as they get older, and those who spend a lifetime building up experiences until finally in their later years they produce "masterworks." In terms of applicability to the original post, scientific research has room for both. His experience he cites would indeed be useful, and he could use it as a foundation for entering research.
I don't disagree, but it appears that you're not a fan of spelling either. Proprietary
Secondly, don't *follow* anyone! Choose, and then make yourself keep choosing. The biggest problem with Microsoft is not proprietary technology, unethical business practices, shoddy products or any of the other "obvious" issues -- its that their whole business model is built on people automatically accepting what MS dishes out. Mindless *following* any company, technology, or idea is just asking for more of the same.
"The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. And I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their products." - Steve Jobs
First let me set the stage -- I've been working with Microsoft products since the DOS and Windows 3.1 days, and up until NT 4.0 I still had a somewhat high opinion of them. Oh, I still liked the Mac, but if you wanted to get anything *done*, you used a PC. After some time spent knocking around network admin and tech support jobs, I got a job as a hardware/software reviewer for a trade publication. I got to meet the managers from Microsoft that were developing Office, Exchange, Windows 2K, and all the rest of it. I also talked to a number of other vendors. I then went into the lab, and per my job, started to try and break stuff. Microsoft's products were almost too easy to break, and there always seemed to be this huge disconnect between the products the Microsofties talked about and what actually got delivered. This is always true to some degree with any vendor, but MS was especially bad. I still remember that during my three years at that publication, we gave only one failing grade (an F - meaning it wouldn't work at all) and that was to MS Exchange 4.5. It was getting so that if you wanted to get anything *done*, you couldn't use Microsoft.
Since then, I've moved on to a number of other fields including graphic and web design -- and this is where Mr. Jobs quote comes in. Microsoft's stuff looks like crap, it acts like crap, and hell it even sounds like crap -- which I guess makes it crap. Add into that their boneheaded insistence on "embrace but extend" in terms of standards -- meaning they make up what they want to and to hell with everyone else -- and you have an OS and software that is difficult to use as you have to mouse with one hand and hold your nose with the other.
Microsoft had its moment in the sun (and an opportunity to really create revolutionary products), but they have allowed themselves to be outpaced in usability, innovation, and adoption of standards. Sure, they have a hell of a lot of inertia that will keep them going for years, but they ceased being a shaper of things to come sometime after NT 4 came out. Nowadays when someone asks me what to buy or what OS to run, I have to recommendations. If they're my parents, grandparents, or someone I might get a call from to provide them computer support, I tell them to buy an Apple. If it is someone who actually wants to tinker, customize, and otherwise be on their own, I tell them to get the Linux distro of their choosing (personally I think Ubuntu is a nice entry level one, but YMMV).
Banning images/executables/whatever you like may seem like a good idea, but is it really the cause of the problem? Hell no. The problem is that a spammer can send e-mails and be for all intensive purposes completely anonymous and untraceable. They take advantage of open mail servers, hijack IP address space, and always find another way around the problems.
The real cause of the problem is that there exists no trust relationship between the senders and receivers of e-mail. There's no accountability when spammers send something, and until that is addressed, they will always find a way around whatever protections are put in place.
I have no proposed solution in mind, other than a nebulous thought about ISPs providing digital keys to their customers, thus identifying them as not necessarily "legit", but at least accountable. After all, if you're an ISP customer, chances are they have a postal address/credit card/other info that can be used to identify you to the proper authorities should be do something stupid. Will this solve the problem? Not completely, but it would setup two classes of e-mail -- those from customers of ISPs that have been digitally signed providing some assurance of accountability, and those from everyone else. After that it makes it much easier to filter out the good from the bad.
As I said, the above idea is somewhat nebulous, but I think in the end that whatever problems it may have are preferable to cutting off our noses to spite our faces (i.e. crippling a technology to address a non-technological problem).
People (as a collective term), never stop being 'mindless cattle.' It's built into our little monkey brains to 'enjoy' being part of a group. That's not to say that there aren't those who also enjoy blazing trails, as that is also undoubtedly true -- the ability hold conflicting ideas, probably more than anything else, is what really makes us human. That said, humans seem to enjoy the inertia of a paradigm and shifts in that paradigm makes us uncomfortable.
That same maturity of both technology and its users you mentioned is actually the reason people will not want to switch to Vista or Office 2007. Other major format and interface changes for mainstream users (the Win XP crowd now, other MS OSes in the past) all occurred when the technology was rapidly growing. Actual new technologies are now relatively stagnate and we're busy pushing the envelope of what those technologies can do, but the same basic technology (by example TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTML) is pretty mundane now. People are now fairly satisfied with their computing experiences and they will resist change far more than they used to.
As an example, imagine an automotive technology that changed the fundamental way we use cars -- in the U.S. for example, imagine the uproar if automakers suddenly put the driver of the car on the right side or in the middle. They could back it up with studies showing how this was demonstrably a good thing, but no one would like them or buy the cars, because they were comfortable with the existing technology -- warts and all.
Slashdot Mirror
So you've never lied yourself then? Or colored the truth? There's lots of reasons to vote or not vote for someone, but not voting because the candidates do something that *everyone* does? Doesn't compute.
A number of stores do this if they've been robbed often enough. I don't agree with it, but the thinking is if they don't have a hood, it makes it easier to identify them if they decide to rob you.
While all that's true, a browser is at it's most basic simply a platform to deliver someone else's content and design. It should be unobtrusive and as the parent pointed out, effort spent on putting functionality into the browser would be far more useful to both content consumers and designers - better CSS support, more efficient code execution, etc. should be a much higher priority than synchronizing bookmarks or in making a new interface.
Yeah, the old LucasArts X-wing/Tie-Fighter games are still some of my favorites, as well as the WWII flight combat sims like Secrets of the Luftwaffe!
I think you answered the question with your usage of the term "web monkey" :)
And his synthesized voice tool should really be outfitted with an English accent :)
"typical monitor" when this was written was a CRT. I'd hardly call a CRT a "typical" purchase for anyone anymore. I got rid of my last one four years ago, and I'm not even sure I know anyone who still has one. Hell, most non-gamers I know don't even own a desktop PC. I'm not saying there aren't still hazardous materials in today's PC, I'm just saying its a hell of a lot less than "five to eight pounds."
And how many children do Mormon and Catholic bunnies have? Is is said the procreate like tribbles?
Perhaps not, but I would like the damn thing to end -- and what could be more formulaic than the Wheel of Time series? The repeating cycle of good and evil that was touched on in Tolkien, explanded on by Eddings and others including Modesitt, is a pretty standard fantasy formula. Jordan came up with some interesting twists, but the whole thing is just on long twelve volume morality play -- I still think Modesitt would be a good pick.
Whomever gets the nod to complete it though -- I'm much more likely to read it than if Jordan had lived to complete it.
Yeah, I have to agree on his amateurish writing -- I'll put up with a lot from a book if the story is great and the writing is not, or the reverse, but his books lacked both. That's not to say the idea and concepts that were the basis of the story weren't great, he just didn't have the skills to bring off his vision. A number of my friends were fans of the first 3 or 4 books, and they harangued me into reading them, but like others who posted here, I basically read the last chapter of 9 and 10 and didn't read 11 at all.
Hopefully a good writer like L.E. Modesitt or someone else (please, no hack writers!) will be asked to complete the last book in the series and give it the treatment that Robert Jordan couldn't. I'm sorry he passed away without finishing it, not because I wanted to read it, but more so because he was obviously so invested in bringing it to completion.
So any guesses on how long it will take for some report to surface that the hard disks or printouts from this were stolen or lost after the close it down?
No, it's not, but even back in the days of the Vietnam War, the US military extended the protections of the Geneva Convention to Viet Cong guerrillas, despite the fact that the were not explicitly covered.
Who would have thought we had more moral clarity in the 60s and 70s than we do now?
They don't hate Firefox, they hate standards. Any properly coded website based on open standards such as XHTML and CSS will render correctly in any browser (except IE of course), and as for web application support there simply is no excuse to use an IE-only solution.
FTA:
"Net Applications collects its data from the browsers of visitors to its network of more than 40,000 Web sites."
Any statistics that purport to show "usage" based on browser hits is inherently suspect, especially if the stats are used to imply they have some larger meaning. If they can answer these questions, I'll believe them:
- How are the servers of these "40,000 webs sites" identifying unique users? (server logs, scripts, or both? How long are the sessions they are looking at?)
- Are they looking at number of hits, unique user views, or what?
- How well can they ensure that machines are not being counted multiple times?
- Which sites are included? Are both microsoft.com and apple.com sites included? What about msn.com or mac.com? How many tech-savy sites are included and how many might-as-well-be-AOL newbie sites?
- Are the results from some sites weighted above or below other sites?
I'm not saying they haven't taken all these things into account, but publishing them (or referencing them by a third-party) without including how the data was gathered makes this all just so much noise.
My first "real" job was working for a government agency back in 1988 doing desktop and network support. There I got to use the following (all of which became obsolete or were pushed aside by other technologies)
- Epson Equity III+ 386-based computers (yes, Epson actually used to make PCs)
- IBM PS/2 486s with micro-channel architecture
- Novell Netware 3.12
- OS/2
- Tektronix wax transfer color printers ("toner" was in the form of special little wax crayons"
- Token ring network (w/ IBM hermaphroditic connectors)
- Lotus 123
- WordPerfect 4.2
While some of these weren't "flops" per se, they all did fall by the wayside eventually. However, even with this inauspicious start, I did learn a lot from these flops that has served me well ever since.
The only problem with your argument is that most murders are committed by people who knew their victim, not random folks unknown to the victim. These folks are certainly not safe to be around if they just go to prison, do their time, and get out; but they also are not likely to kill again if they receive the intense sort of psychological treatment and medication they probably need, as well as getting clean from whatever drugs they may have been on [another major contributor to someone deciding to kill someone else].
Capital punishment in the U.S. is certainly viewed by many on both sides of the issue as "Hey you killed someone and it's not right so we're gonna kill you," and this view has also been historically representative of the general stance in the U.S. I've also heard many pro-death penalty folks ground their arguments in the idea of an "eye for an eye" type of justice, so I would disagree that it is carried out as a preventative measure, and is usually viewed as exactly as it is described: punishment.
Personally, I believe that not only is the system so imperfect that justice truly cannot be served by the death penalty, but I also believe that it demeans all of us to sink down to the level of the lowest elements in our society, who believe life is cheap, in some misguided effort to punish or "provide closure." The families of a number of murder victims have spoken out that the execution of their relative's murderer did not relieve their pain, it did not offer closure, and often just served as a prolonged farce of what justice is supposed to be.
And my guess is that they wrote it in half the time it would have taken for a neatnik to do it :)
The ad that got displayed when I viewed this article:
"Christ Centered Filtering
Internet Filtering at its Best 14 Day Free Trial. Take Control!
www.FamilyFellowship.com"
I can just picture the software saying "The power of Christ compels this website from your browser" or could I use it to filter out all the holy-roller references to Christ on websites?
Yeah, like how the hell to get out of Jersey :)
Actually, that is not regarded as true anymore. As put forward in the book "Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity" by David W. Galenson, he notes that there are two classes of "genius." There are those who create at a very young age and don't do anything but revise those creations as they get older, and those who spend a lifetime building up experiences until finally in their later years they produce "masterworks." In terms of applicability to the original post, scientific research has room for both. His experience he cites would indeed be useful, and he could use it as a foundation for entering research.
Knowing the way MS counts, they probably consider your five attempts to validate as five invalid copies.
I don't disagree, but it appears that you're not a fan of spelling either. Proprietary
Secondly, don't *follow* anyone! Choose, and then make yourself keep choosing. The biggest problem with Microsoft is not proprietary technology, unethical business practices, shoddy products or any of the other "obvious" issues -- its that their whole business model is built on people automatically accepting what MS dishes out. Mindless *following* any company, technology, or idea is just asking for more of the same.
"The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. And I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their products." - Steve Jobs
First let me set the stage -- I've been working with Microsoft products since the DOS and Windows 3.1 days, and up until NT 4.0 I still had a somewhat high opinion of them. Oh, I still liked the Mac, but if you wanted to get anything *done*, you used a PC. After some time spent knocking around network admin and tech support jobs, I got a job as a hardware/software reviewer for a trade publication. I got to meet the managers from Microsoft that were developing Office, Exchange, Windows 2K, and all the rest of it. I also talked to a number of other vendors. I then went into the lab, and per my job, started to try and break stuff. Microsoft's products were almost too easy to break, and there always seemed to be this huge disconnect between the products the Microsofties talked about and what actually got delivered. This is always true to some degree with any vendor, but MS was especially bad. I still remember that during my three years at that publication, we gave only one failing grade (an F - meaning it wouldn't work at all) and that was to MS Exchange 4.5. It was getting so that if you wanted to get anything *done*, you couldn't use Microsoft.
Since then, I've moved on to a number of other fields including graphic and web design -- and this is where Mr. Jobs quote comes in. Microsoft's stuff looks like crap, it acts like crap, and hell it even sounds like crap -- which I guess makes it crap. Add into that their boneheaded insistence on "embrace but extend" in terms of standards -- meaning they make up what they want to and to hell with everyone else -- and you have an OS and software that is difficult to use as you have to mouse with one hand and hold your nose with the other.
Microsoft had its moment in the sun (and an opportunity to really create revolutionary products), but they have allowed themselves to be outpaced in usability, innovation, and adoption of standards. Sure, they have a hell of a lot of inertia that will keep them going for years, but they ceased being a shaper of things to come sometime after NT 4 came out. Nowadays when someone asks me what to buy or what OS to run, I have to recommendations. If they're my parents, grandparents, or someone I might get a call from to provide them computer support, I tell them to buy an Apple. If it is someone who actually wants to tinker, customize, and otherwise be on their own, I tell them to get the Linux distro of their choosing (personally I think Ubuntu is a nice entry level one, but YMMV).
Banning images/executables/whatever you like may seem like a good idea, but is it really the cause of the problem? Hell no. The problem is that a spammer can send e-mails and be for all intensive purposes completely anonymous and untraceable. They take advantage of open mail servers, hijack IP address space, and always find another way around the problems.
The real cause of the problem is that there exists no trust relationship between the senders and receivers of e-mail. There's no accountability when spammers send something, and until that is addressed, they will always find a way around whatever protections are put in place.
I have no proposed solution in mind, other than a nebulous thought about ISPs providing digital keys to their customers, thus identifying them as not necessarily "legit", but at least accountable. After all, if you're an ISP customer, chances are they have a postal address/credit card/other info that can be used to identify you to the proper authorities should be do something stupid. Will this solve the problem? Not completely, but it would setup two classes of e-mail -- those from customers of ISPs that have been digitally signed providing some assurance of accountability, and those from everyone else. After that it makes it much easier to filter out the good from the bad.
As I said, the above idea is somewhat nebulous, but I think in the end that whatever problems it may have are preferable to cutting off our noses to spite our faces (i.e. crippling a technology to address a non-technological problem).
People (as a collective term), never stop being 'mindless cattle.' It's built into our little monkey brains to 'enjoy' being part of a group. That's not to say that there aren't those who also enjoy blazing trails, as that is also undoubtedly true -- the ability hold conflicting ideas, probably more than anything else, is what really makes us human. That said, humans seem to enjoy the inertia of a paradigm and shifts in that paradigm makes us uncomfortable.
That same maturity of both technology and its users you mentioned is actually the reason people will not want to switch to Vista or Office 2007. Other major format and interface changes for mainstream users (the Win XP crowd now, other MS OSes in the past) all occurred when the technology was rapidly growing. Actual new technologies are now relatively stagnate and we're busy pushing the envelope of what those technologies can do, but the same basic technology (by example TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTML) is pretty mundane now. People are now fairly satisfied with their computing experiences and they will resist change far more than they used to.
As an example, imagine an automotive technology that changed the fundamental way we use cars -- in the U.S. for example, imagine the uproar if automakers suddenly put the driver of the car on the right side or in the middle. They could back it up with studies showing how this was demonstrably a good thing, but no one would like them or buy the cars, because they were comfortable with the existing technology -- warts and all.