I'm assuming they still followed it on order. So as they discussed topic A on the agenda, people could add notes and comments to that topic immediately. It wouldn't make sense to change the futher topics until you got to them in the flow of the meeting.
The browser has nice things going for it, and I still won't use it.
Microsoft has done this to themselves. They two have two groups. One are the enterprise environments who drank the Flavor-Aid way back in the day and wrote all their internal web apps to rely on IE6 specific features. Since Microsoft spurned compliant HTML/CSS rendering, their newer browsers have trouble handling IE6-specific sites. These shops refuse to upgrade to IE7/IE8/IE9, and thusly refuse to upgrade to Vista or 7. The only reason Microsoft hasn't really hurt themselves with this has been selling Vista and 7 licenses to these customers, but allowing them to downgrade to XP.
The second group of users care about web standards. They care about speed and security. They realize that IE is dead last in standards compliance, speed and security. So even when Microsoft rolls out some neat hardware acceleration features, they aren't worth all the other massive trade-offs involved.
Honestly, how many people are there that will want to use IE9 as their primary browser?
Flash 10 has been around for ages, and older versions of Flash are filled with known exploits. I can't think of a good reason why you'd want to keep an older version of Flash, unless you really want some malware.
You can make the argument that we should abandon Flash and go straight HTML5, except most people aren't running browsers with proper HTML5 support yet. If you think demanding people have Flash 10 is asking people to be needlessly up-to-date, requiring a HTML5 browser is even more so.
Yahoo wasn't the first search engine. And Google is still the king of the hill in returning relevant results. They innovate all the time with things like instant search, image search, etc.
You're trying to criticise Google for piggybacking on the innovation of others, and you're going to credit Apple for inventing the smartphone? Wow.
And Android as a smartphone OS blows the competition out of the water.
Google Maps blew MapQuest out of the water with innovative features, such as dragging the route to re-route, street view, etc.
And you're not honestly comparing Hotmail with Gmail are you? Labels, threaded conversation, massive storage, search that works, etc.
And Chrome is more than a basic WebKit browser. They created the V8 Javascript engine, seperated each process, put plugins in a sandbox, improved garbage collection, and started the trend of cleaned browser UIs. You'll note every major browser on the market is copying from Chrome these days.
You're suggesting Google has never done anything revolutionary. Either you're a troll, or you really don't pay attention.
I wouldn't say Nolan is conservative. He did push to film large sequences with IMAX cameras. I also think he has tried to reinvent the summer blockbuster as something with mass appeal, but also features an impressive cast of actors and has an intelligent script.
For far too long the assumption was that you could make a popcorn flick like Michael Bay, or you could make a film for the critics, but you couldn't do both.
3D did make sense for Avatar in that Cameron wanted the audience to sympathize with the Na'vi by selling them on Pandora. Immersion in the environment was key to the success of the film.
3D doesn't work well with fast-moving action, and can be a gimmick that detracts from other elements of the film. I think Nolan is correct in that it wouldn't benefit his Batman films. He doesn't want people staring off into the scenery when he wants his audience grounded in the familiar.
Except if it is proven that Paul Ceglia owns 84% of Facebook. Zuckerberg is handing out stock after a judge said he couldn't distribute or sell company assets. What if a judge rules the stock Zuckerberg gave you, he didn't have a right to hand out?
Supposedly Google used it internally for meetings.
Someone would create a wave of the meeting agenda and invite the people who were going to attend.
As the meeting went along, everyone could edit the wave in realtime collobaterion. The agenda evolved into the meeting notes.
And if you missed the meeting, you can re-play the wave and see the steps of every comment and note as it went along.
The failure of wave as I see it isn't that it couldn't provide killer new features, or a failure to boost productivity.
The problem was that if I want to email or IM someone, I can do so through Gmail and every contact I need is there. With Wave, only so many people had it, so I couldn't colloberate with the people I needed to.
In most cases they won't. They will still push 3D. And as more consumers buy 3D enabled BluRay players and TVs, they will demand content to justify the purchase.
3D isn't right for every movie, and it certainly doesn't turn out well as a forced post-production conversion. But isn't exactly the devil either, so I don't understand this massive backlash either.
Contest costs money to produce. And bandwidth costs money. I get the need for internet advertising, but so much of it is intrusive and annoying. To top if off, that is how a large percentage of malware is spread. I block everything but Google ads largely because they are text based and safe.
Instead of really annoying ads that will just drive me away from your sites, how about you agree to show text only ads that don't spread malware, and then ad blockers might agree to exclude your ads from the ones they block.
Google has the company policy where 10% of every employee's hours are to be spent on projects of their choosing. They're known for providing their employees tons of flexibility to explore new ideas.
Lars is suggesting he is jumping ship to Facebook so he can have the freedom to see what happens. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with money.
Your logic is insisting that when a person registers to vote, that no verification is done.
But if a person gets a non-provisional ballot by was of someone attesting for them, that a verification process is then done and they will go to prison.
Your logic is a bit flawed here as you must provide identification to register to vote in advance, and thusly there is a greater risk of being exposed. When registering the day of without identification, there is less risk to you.
You also insist no one would ever dare break the law because they would risk jail time. I hate to break it to you, but people break the law all the time despite the risks. And in countries around the world, people vote even it means risking their lives.
My point wasn't that illegals are dying to vote however, rather that some states are trying to enable illegals to vote, which you think isn't happening. I've asked probably 5 times for a reasonable explanation why you need to go out of your way to allow people to vote without registering in advance, or providing identification. When the debate happened in Iowa, I was privy to the debate as I live on the border and work with people from Iowa. Maybe people directly cited enabling illegal aliens as the only reason they were pushing for it.
And if you still have doubt beyond reason (and I suspect you are beyond reason) Arizona just ruled specifically that you can't ask for illegals to provide identification to vote.
I've found surprisingly that I game more on my iPhone than anything else. I don't have hours to game on my PC or on a console, but I can find 5-10 minutes here or there on my phone. The games are often designed to be picked up for a few minutes here and there. I do find myself wanting an analog joystick for certain games, but a mix of touch and tilt works surprisingly well. I also like having it with me everywhere I go.
Why block the Android market? If I could install Android apps, then it would be a cheap tablet and I'd gladly buy it. Without Android market, it is a one-off gadget and overpriced. Why intentionally limit a feature that would otherwise be a selling point?
Let me let you in on a little secret. Google respects your privacy a hell of a lot more than the government. If the government wants any info on you for any purpose it wants, it pretty much takes it. Note when Bush called for search data linked to IP addresses of users. The government said screw privacy.
Google fought back and said no way. And now they anonymize their logs sooner. Google is also extremely upfront about what they do with your private data. No one sees it personally. They just use an algorithm to do targeted advertising.
Google has fought court orders to protect your privacy, and is literally building off-shore data centers to make sure no government body can get to it.
Not to mention that Google can't touch one bit of your private data without you opting in. You can't say the same thing about the government.
Do you really want to insist the government respects your privacy more than Google?
I wasn't aware it was relicensed, but the GPL has allowed for additional restrictions for what they consider GPL-compatible licenses before. If they really want to make a stink about no other restrictions, then they need to basically say no license on the planet is GPL-compatible.
Most people are already paying for cell phone service. AT&T's data plans now start at $15 a month. For internet in your hand anywhere you go, really that isn't much. And the phone starts at $99. But feel free to lie about the numbers all you want. Two years of cell and data don't add up to $2,000, and it isn't like most people have no cell phone bill currently and would jump into that.
And if you're including the length of the contract, then you can't quote the out-of-contract price. So you're lying either way.
And gaming console is going to have a cost to purchase it before you can play games on it.
The iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch is actually a great gaming value in that games are often really cheap on it compared to other platforms.
For instance, Plants vs Zombies is $20 on the PC, or $3 on the iPhone.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never suggested a tax to vote. I pointed out that there is a location where you can register to vote for free.
You insist the poor are being penalized. A state id costs something like $15 and is good for something like 8 years here. There are multiple DMV locations around town, near bus routes. I can't imagine there is a location here in Omaha that doesn't have a DMV within 10 miles.
I last got a new license 5 years ago, and when I registered to vote then, it remains valid until I move again. So asking someone once every five years to go to a location and registering for free is this horrific burden than specifically excludes the poor? Let me repeat this again. REGISTERING TO VOTE IS FREE.
You then suggest that poor people have less free time? Judging from my friends and family, those with money can afford to do more with their free time and have more going on. Those who can't afford to do anything in turn have more free time. And time isn't even an issue when it takes a few minutes to register, and it lasts for years.
You've established that:
* You prefer a system where people can get a non-provisional ballot with no ID an without registering to vote. * You prefer that people be able to register same-day, even if that means more less-informed voters dilluting the effects of people who planned to vote in advance. * You believe no one has attempted to vote fraudently in 30 years despite record examples that it does occur. * You said one side is obessed with conspiracy theories while the other hasn't, when both parties in reality has committed and accused the other side of voter fraud. * You prefer hyperbole and flames over reasonable discourse. * You're a hypocrite accusing others of being conspiracy theorist while assigning far-fetched conspiracy motives to others.
You've called me about 10 names while really stretching for ridiculous arguments, all the while ignoring facts. Please don't waste my time again.
They tend to hire youth, and they are often based out of California. Youth tend to lean liberal, and Calfornia is often seen as the most liberal state. This is a shocking correlation!
I assume it is more that someone assumed 3 was a fair number, and they associated it with a common existing phrase. If they had decided you went to jail for life on your fourth offense, they could have called it four downs and referenced football.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm assuming they still followed it on order. So as they discussed topic A on the agenda, people could add notes and comments to that topic immediately. It wouldn't make sense to change the futher topics until you got to them in the flow of the meeting.
The browser has nice things going for it, and I still won't use it.
Microsoft has done this to themselves. They two have two groups. One are the enterprise environments who drank the Flavor-Aid way back in the day and wrote all their internal web apps to rely on IE6 specific features. Since Microsoft spurned compliant HTML/CSS rendering, their newer browsers have trouble handling IE6-specific sites. These shops refuse to upgrade to IE7/IE8/IE9, and thusly refuse to upgrade to Vista or 7. The only reason Microsoft hasn't really hurt themselves with this has been selling Vista and 7 licenses to these customers, but allowing them to downgrade to XP.
The second group of users care about web standards. They care about speed and security. They realize that IE is dead last in standards compliance, speed and security. So even when Microsoft rolls out some neat hardware acceleration features, they aren't worth all the other massive trade-offs involved.
Honestly, how many people are there that will want to use IE9 as their primary browser?
Flash 10 has been around for ages, and older versions of Flash are filled with known exploits. I can't think of a good reason why you'd want to keep an older version of Flash, unless you really want some malware.
You can make the argument that we should abandon Flash and go straight HTML5, except most people aren't running browsers with proper HTML5 support yet. If you think demanding people have Flash 10 is asking people to be needlessly up-to-date, requiring a HTML5 browser is even more so.
Yahoo wasn't the first search engine. And Google is still the king of the hill in returning relevant results. They innovate all the time with things like instant search, image search, etc.
You're trying to criticise Google for piggybacking on the innovation of others, and you're going to credit Apple for inventing the smartphone? Wow.
And Android as a smartphone OS blows the competition out of the water.
Google Maps blew MapQuest out of the water with innovative features, such as dragging the route to re-route, street view, etc.
And you're not honestly comparing Hotmail with Gmail are you? Labels, threaded conversation, massive storage, search that works, etc.
And Chrome is more than a basic WebKit browser. They created the V8 Javascript engine, seperated each process, put plugins in a sandbox, improved garbage collection, and started the trend of cleaned browser UIs. You'll note every major browser on the market is copying from Chrome these days.
You're suggesting Google has never done anything revolutionary. Either you're a troll, or you really don't pay attention.
I wouldn't say Nolan is conservative. He did push to film large sequences with IMAX cameras. I also think he has tried to reinvent the summer blockbuster as something with mass appeal, but also features an impressive cast of actors and has an intelligent script.
For far too long the assumption was that you could make a popcorn flick like Michael Bay, or you could make a film for the critics, but you couldn't do both.
3D did make sense for Avatar in that Cameron wanted the audience to sympathize with the Na'vi by selling them on Pandora. Immersion in the environment was key to the success of the film.
3D doesn't work well with fast-moving action, and can be a gimmick that detracts from other elements of the film. I think Nolan is correct in that it wouldn't benefit his Batman films. He doesn't want people staring off into the scenery when he wants his audience grounded in the familiar.
I'm not faulting or judging him. I'm just saying that money probably played a larger factor for his leaving than the story he gave.
Except if it is proven that Paul Ceglia owns 84% of Facebook. Zuckerberg is handing out stock after a judge said he couldn't distribute or sell company assets. What if a judge rules the stock Zuckerberg gave you, he didn't have a right to hand out?
Supposedly Google used it internally for meetings.
Someone would create a wave of the meeting agenda and invite the people who were going to attend.
As the meeting went along, everyone could edit the wave in realtime collobaterion. The agenda evolved into the meeting notes.
And if you missed the meeting, you can re-play the wave and see the steps of every comment and note as it went along.
The failure of wave as I see it isn't that it couldn't provide killer new features, or a failure to boost productivity.
The problem was that if I want to email or IM someone, I can do so through Gmail and every contact I need is there. With Wave, only so many people had it, so I couldn't colloberate with the people I needed to.
In most cases they won't. They will still push 3D. And as more consumers buy 3D enabled BluRay players and TVs, they will demand content to justify the purchase.
3D isn't right for every movie, and it certainly doesn't turn out well as a forced post-production conversion. But isn't exactly the devil either, so I don't understand this massive backlash either.
Contest costs money to produce. And bandwidth costs money. I get the need for internet advertising, but so much of it is intrusive and annoying. To top if off, that is how a large percentage of malware is spread. I block everything but Google ads largely because they are text based and safe.
Instead of really annoying ads that will just drive me away from your sites, how about you agree to show text only ads that don't spread malware, and then ad blockers might agree to exclude your ads from the ones they block.
Google has the company policy where 10% of every employee's hours are to be spent on projects of their choosing. They're known for providing their employees tons of flexibility to explore new ideas.
Lars is suggesting he is jumping ship to Facebook so he can have the freedom to see what happens. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with money.
Email + IM/Chat + Wiki Functionality all rolled into one.
Your logic is insisting that when a person registers to vote, that no verification is done.
But if a person gets a non-provisional ballot by was of someone attesting for them, that a verification process is then done and they will go to prison.
Your logic is a bit flawed here as you must provide identification to register to vote in advance, and thusly there is a greater risk of being exposed. When registering the day of without identification, there is less risk to you.
You also insist no one would ever dare break the law because they would risk jail time. I hate to break it to you, but people break the law all the time despite the risks. And in countries around the world, people vote even it means risking their lives.
My point wasn't that illegals are dying to vote however, rather that some states are trying to enable illegals to vote, which you think isn't happening. I've asked probably 5 times for a reasonable explanation why you need to go out of your way to allow people to vote without registering in advance, or providing identification. When the debate happened in Iowa, I was privy to the debate as I live on the border and work with people from Iowa. Maybe people directly cited enabling illegal aliens as the only reason they were pushing for it.
And if you still have doubt beyond reason (and I suspect you are beyond reason) Arizona just ruled specifically that you can't ask for illegals to provide identification to vote.
I've found surprisingly that I game more on my iPhone than anything else. I don't have hours to game on my PC or on a console, but I can find 5-10 minutes here or there on my phone. The games are often designed to be picked up for a few minutes here and there. I do find myself wanting an analog joystick for certain games, but a mix of touch and tilt works surprisingly well. I also like having it with me everywhere I go.
http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/plans/data-plans.jsp
Why block the Android market? If I could install Android apps, then it would be a cheap tablet and I'd gladly buy it. Without Android market, it is a one-off gadget and overpriced. Why intentionally limit a feature that would otherwise be a selling point?
Let me let you in on a little secret. Google respects your privacy a hell of a lot more than the government. If the government wants any info on you for any purpose it wants, it pretty much takes it. Note when Bush called for search data linked to IP addresses of users. The government said screw privacy.
Google fought back and said no way. And now they anonymize their logs sooner. Google is also extremely upfront about what they do with your private data. No one sees it personally. They just use an algorithm to do targeted advertising.
Google has fought court orders to protect your privacy, and is literally building off-shore data centers to make sure no government body can get to it.
Not to mention that Google can't touch one bit of your private data without you opting in. You can't say the same thing about the government.
Do you really want to insist the government respects your privacy more than Google?
I wasn't aware it was relicensed, but the GPL has allowed for additional restrictions for what they consider GPL-compatible licenses before. If they really want to make a stink about no other restrictions, then they need to basically say no license on the planet is GPL-compatible.
Most people are already paying for cell phone service. AT&T's data plans now start at $15 a month. For internet in your hand anywhere you go, really that isn't much. And the phone starts at $99. But feel free to lie about the numbers all you want. Two years of cell and data don't add up to $2,000, and it isn't like most people have no cell phone bill currently and would jump into that.
And if you're including the length of the contract, then you can't quote the out-of-contract price. So you're lying either way.
And gaming console is going to have a cost to purchase it before you can play games on it.
The iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch is actually a great gaming value in that games are often really cheap on it compared to other platforms.
For instance, Plants vs Zombies is $20 on the PC, or $3 on the iPhone.
It depends if they're leaning to the left for financial or social reasons. I consider myself socially liberal and financially conservative.
I find it odd that Democrats want social freedoms, but heavy regulation on business. Republicans want financial freedoms, but social/moral regulation.
I have this crazy idea that I'd prefer less government and less regulation in general. I don't want the government overseeing my bedroom or my wallet.
The App Store has no problem with Battle for Wesnoth as a GPL app. Apple doesn't have a problem with the GPL. The FSF has a problem with Apple.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never suggested a tax to vote. I pointed out that there is a location where you can register to vote for free.
You insist the poor are being penalized. A state id costs something like $15 and is good for something like 8 years here. There are multiple DMV locations around town, near bus routes. I can't imagine there is a location here in Omaha that doesn't have a DMV within 10 miles.
I last got a new license 5 years ago, and when I registered to vote then, it remains valid until I move again. So asking someone once every five years to go to a location and registering for free is this horrific burden than specifically excludes the poor? Let me repeat this again. REGISTERING TO VOTE IS FREE.
You then suggest that poor people have less free time? Judging from my friends and family, those with money can afford to do more with their free time and have more going on. Those who can't afford to do anything in turn have more free time. And time isn't even an issue when it takes a few minutes to register, and it lasts for years.
You've established that:
* You prefer a system where people can get a non-provisional ballot with no ID an without registering to vote.
* You prefer that people be able to register same-day, even if that means more less-informed voters dilluting the effects of people who planned to vote in advance.
* You believe no one has attempted to vote fraudently in 30 years despite record examples that it does occur.
* You said one side is obessed with conspiracy theories while the other hasn't, when both parties in reality has committed and accused the other side of voter fraud.
* You prefer hyperbole and flames over reasonable discourse.
* You're a hypocrite accusing others of being conspiracy theorist while assigning far-fetched conspiracy motives to others.
You've called me about 10 names while really stretching for ridiculous arguments, all the while ignoring facts. Please don't waste my time again.
They tend to hire youth, and they are often based out of California. Youth tend to lean liberal, and Calfornia is often seen as the most liberal state. This is a shocking correlation!
I assume it is more that someone assumed 3 was a fair number, and they associated it with a common existing phrase. If they had decided you went to jail for life on your fourth offense, they could have called it four downs and referenced football.
But you can still register for free at the DMV whether you own a car or not.
I don't believe that Nebraska mandates a photo id the way that Calfornia does, but paying $15 for id that lasts you several years is trivial.