Up the above comment - dot on. Providing "optimal testing conditions" will be the gist of MS's excuse should they ever feel obliged to make one. Of course the "free gift" is a secondary enticement to "write good", but the outcome of this little "option" on the final review, in their reasoning, will depend solely upon the the discretion (morals) of the reviewer. No, no, no: MS can't be held accountable for creating the conditions for a corrupt and non-objective review. We did it for the conditions, see? Really.
MS owes every cent it has to its understanding of consumer behaviour (weaknesses) - and this is certainly not a break in that tradition.
I think you either mis-read or misundrstood my writ; your answer is not at all on the same topic thus "way off" mine. Plus in the bargian you're talking about but a smidgen of the workforce;there are certainly not "two types" of employee.
There are those who trade (knowledge or labour) and those who take (who today have often neither knowledge nor a like for work). Conniving is not trading.
You're onto something when you cut office politics down to "technical" and "business" folks, but lets cut'em off at the ankles instead of at the b***s : There's "work" folks and there's "money" folks. The former think of their trade before the money it generates; for the latter it's the other way around. Some of the latter don't even have a trade to fall back on, which makes them the most ruthless bastards existing in the workforce, and why your business will fail should they make it to the 'top'.
Actually you can apply this to everything, even government. There you've found an easy explanation for the present day situation: spinnin' and lyin' to keep the economy from evolving past today's biggest "easy buck" schemes.
Hey, and when I take off from in front of my garage every morning the neighbours better say goodbye to any stray balls, toys, wigs or pets they're not hanging on to.
Isn't "MSG" capitalized? T'aint for nothing they sell that crap; for sure there's capital in that can.
I do find it odd that it's coming out here (France) before the US though. What do the French look for? More than 99% same as you, but through the keywords "Cul" and "Nue". And we all know that if you do a search for "Paris" you'll more than likely end up finding a member of the Hilton family. In short, French content is crap (way behind) so we are obliged to look at yours : )
Cable as lightning rod... attached to earth... um, wouldn't it be, like, grounded? I suppose at worst static electricity will become a real problem on earth (imagine crowds of people, hair stuck out at all angles, crackling and loud "Eeeeks!" at every body contact)... nah, just being far-fectched like the rest : )
Dead on for the "end of the line" weight though. It would be needed for inertial stability. I think an asteroid would be a bit much... but hey, it would be nice to have something to step out onto when you get to the top floor.
And I got the tags right this time - rather I didn't accidently hit the "HTML tags to text" before publishing. Now how about comin' over here to try something that I'm sure you're "new" at and I'll make fun of you. : )
But ah beg to diffah. To be honest I can't think of anything safer than an elevator for 'point-to-point' space travel. If we can make a hair-thin cable strong enough to lift a car, imagine what weight a thousand of those strung together - say in five separate cables (not unlike today's elevators) - can assure. The cable's heaviest load, though, would be itself, and that towards its centre where Earth's gravity and the cable's own extra-gravitational circumferential pull meet up. Not to mention the additional stress caused by the cable's movements around its earth-fixed tether. But I'm sure that it's more than managable. <br/><br/>
Another plus would be the long-term costs - Once built a space elevator would cost its maintenance and the energy to get it up there - yes there are other costs but I'm sure you all get the picture. In fact, who says we have to get up there <i>quickly</i>? For humans to get up to that orbital satellite-maintenance station, sure, but what about the satellites themselves? These could use "slower" energy - and why not solar power - to take their sweet time getting up there. Things would speed up towards the top anyways. We already have freight elevators, don't we?
Google will not charge for access to this library because it will be yet another (and possibly their biggest and most concentrated) content base on which they can tack their ad programs.
I wouldn't mind this at all if the Google "reference" venture turns out to be what it says it will be - but perhaps they should "reign in" on the timeline of what they choose to publish. I know of an already-existing example of an online library, http://gallica.bnf.fr/, that is a result of an exhaustive effort to scan and publish documents from France's "Free of Rights" (meaning older than 75 years) works, plans and photos. Why must Google dig towards the "modern"? Because folks just aren't interested in all that ol' history stuff - or at least not interested in enough numbers to further fluff their ad program?
...the same sort of article could be written about "bad politics" and "bad economy" and all those other dumbed-down "you, mere mortal, could never understand (But we have a knowing air)" stories we read every day. But yes, I do agree that most everything in its most analytic form could be considered as science.
Re:Easy Solution to Spam
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
The simplest solution I have found to block spam, one applicable to a larger business scale (but unfortunately not e-commerce), is to, upon reception, store the message in a database 'grey' box and send an automatic 'did you send this mail? Please confirm here' answer if it is the first mail the server has recieved from that address. Upon authentification the sender would be white-listed and can send mail normally. I know this model will only work at perhaps a corporate scale - but could it not be adapted ISP side as well?
E-commerce is a stickler though, as almost every mail is a first. I have yet to think this out completely but the only solution I see for now is forms sent to off-page scripts. But on the other hand, would clicking on a confirmation link in a mail (or answering it if HTML is off) be such a tedious thing for a user?
I get 'confirmation' mails every time I write to my server's technical team, but not ones I have to click on, these just say "we got your mail, thanks!". They are even almost comforting in a way because I know my mail got through. Would it be so bothersome? This could also be an opportunity for addtional identity, advertising... but I digress...
No matter the techique used, spam will slow when it becomes hard to 'get to' that one-in-every-six-hundred-thousandsth customer. Also, here's hoping for laws concerning unsolicited solicitation that aren't a pile of mush like the ones 'in effect' today.
PUBLICLY electrocuting animals. And DC current won't hold its power through any wire longer than 500 feet! He also shafted many of his 'associate inventors' and appropriated their ideas. Nice guy for sure.
No, it doesn't make sense. Or rather, it's besides the point. You can say an application is anything you want, but it's what it is used for that counts. If your application reads web pages, that is what it should do to the best of its ability. If it doesn't, or wants to read in a language other than that the rest of the world has decided to write, it had best create a "world" of its own instead of disrupting ours.
...almost what I was thinking! The nagging question that was going through my mind in reading the article was "why aren't these guys talking about the final goal of the program being made?
If you take it one further you'll see that the Unix progammer programs to make "the most concisely coded kick-ass program", and the Windows programmer programs something sellable to the widest end-user audience possible. The former thinks to the quality of his work; he is an artisan. The latter thinks of "customer habits" even during the production process: he is a salesman.
There is a world of difference between the two, and it's not only a question of "culture".
Slashdot Mirror
Up the above comment - dot on. Providing "optimal testing conditions" will be the gist of MS's excuse should they ever feel obliged to make one. Of course the "free gift" is a secondary enticement to "write good", but the outcome of this little "option" on the final review, in their reasoning, will depend solely upon the the discretion (morals) of the reviewer. No, no, no: MS can't be held accountable for creating the conditions for a corrupt and non-objective review. We did it for the conditions, see? Really.
MS owes every cent it has to its understanding of consumer behaviour (weaknesses) - and this is certainly not a break in that tradition.
Just don't ask him what 'dress pants' are. Let's just say you'd look odd wearing them at a cocktail : )
I think you meant "Bushwhacked".
God is ignorance.
Some are happier in god; some argue vehemently to defend their position in him.
I think you either mis-read or misundrstood my writ; your answer is not at all on the same topic thus "way off" mine. Plus in the bargian you're talking about but a smidgen of the workforce;there are certainly not "two types" of employee.
There are those who trade (knowledge or labour) and those who take (who today have often neither knowledge nor a like for work). Conniving is not trading.
You're onto something when you cut office politics down to "technical" and "business" folks, but lets cut'em off at the ankles instead of at the b***s : There's "work" folks and there's "money" folks. The former think of their trade before the money it generates; for the latter it's the other way around. Some of the latter don't even have a trade to fall back on, which makes them the most ruthless bastards existing in the workforce, and why your business will fail should they make it to the 'top'.
Actually you can apply this to everything, even government. There you've found an easy explanation for the present day situation: spinnin' and lyin' to keep the economy from evolving past today's biggest "easy buck" schemes.
Hey, and when I take off from in front of my garage every morning the neighbours better say goodbye to any stray balls, toys, wigs or pets they're not hanging on to.
Just mmmmmmmmaybe google had a good idea, that's why Microsoft's a-apin'. Wanna trade a gMail invite for an MSN?
Isn't "MSG" capitalized? T'aint for nothing they sell that crap; for sure there's capital in that can.
I do find it odd that it's coming out here (France) before the US though. What do the French look for? More than 99% same as you, but through the keywords "Cul" and "Nue". And we all know that if you do a search for "Paris" you'll more than likely end up finding a member of the Hilton family. In short, French content is crap (way behind) so we are obliged to look at yours : )
Up here we call them the "border Patrol".
Cable as lightning rod... attached to earth... um, wouldn't it be, like, grounded? I suppose at worst static electricity will become a real problem on earth (imagine crowds of people, hair stuck out at all angles, crackling and loud "Eeeeks!" at every body contact)... nah, just being far-fectched like the rest : )
Dead on for the "end of the line" weight though. It would be needed for inertial stability. I think an asteroid would be a bit much... but hey, it would be nice to have something to step out onto when you get to the top floor.
And I got the tags right this time - rather I didn't accidently hit the "HTML tags to text" before publishing. Now how about comin' over here to try something that I'm sure you're "new" at and I'll make fun of you. : )
Your post is a funny : )
But ah beg to diffah. To be honest I can't think of anything safer than an elevator for 'point-to-point' space travel. If we can make a hair-thin cable strong enough to lift a car, imagine what weight a thousand of those strung together - say in five separate cables (not unlike today's elevators) - can assure. The cable's heaviest load, though, would be itself, and that towards its centre where Earth's gravity and the cable's own extra-gravitational circumferential pull meet up. Not to mention the additional stress caused by the cable's movements around its earth-fixed tether. But I'm sure that it's more than managable. <br/><br/>
Another plus would be the long-term costs - Once built a space elevator would cost its maintenance and the energy to get it up there - yes there are other costs but I'm sure you all get the picture. In fact, who says we have to get up there <i>quickly</i>? For humans to get up to that orbital satellite-maintenance station, sure, but what about the satellites themselves? These could use "slower" energy - and why not solar power - to take their sweet time getting up there. Things would speed up towards the top anyways. We already have freight elevators, don't we?
Google will not charge for access to this library because it will be yet another (and possibly their biggest and most concentrated) content base on which they can tack their ad programs.
I wouldn't mind this at all if the Google "reference" venture turns out to be what it says it will be - but perhaps they should "reign in" on the timeline of what they choose to publish. I know of an already-existing example of an online library, http://gallica.bnf.fr/, that is a result of an exhaustive effort to scan and publish documents from France's "Free of Rights" (meaning older than 75 years) works, plans and photos. Why must Google dig towards the "modern"? Because folks just aren't interested in all that ol' history stuff - or at least not interested in enough numbers to further fluff their ad program?
Almost: you're an ohm-boy.
Any more voltage-induced cantankerisms?
...the same sort of article could be written about "bad politics" and "bad economy" and all those other dumbed-down "you, mere mortal, could never understand (But we have a knowing air)" stories we read every day. But yes, I do agree that most everything in its most analytic form could be considered as science.
Wrong-o. See above.
Righo. And the right references.
The simplest solution I have found to block spam, one applicable to a larger business scale (but unfortunately not e-commerce), is to, upon reception, store the message in a database 'grey' box and send an automatic 'did you send this mail? Please confirm here' answer if it is the first mail the server has recieved from that address. Upon authentification the sender would be white-listed and can send mail normally. I know this model will only work at perhaps a corporate scale - but could it not be adapted ISP side as well?
E-commerce is a stickler though, as almost every mail is a first. I have yet to think this out completely but the only solution I see for now is forms sent to off-page scripts. But on the other hand, would clicking on a confirmation link in a mail (or answering it if HTML is off) be such a tedious thing for a user?
I get 'confirmation' mails every time I write to my server's technical team, but not ones I have to click on, these just say "we got your mail, thanks!". They are even almost comforting in a way because I know my mail got through. Would it be so bothersome? This could also be an opportunity for addtional identity, advertising... but I digress...
No matter the techique used, spam will slow when it becomes hard to 'get to' that one-in-every-six-hundred-thousandsth customer. Also, here's hoping for laws concerning unsolicited solicitation that aren't a pile of mush like the ones 'in effect' today.
Mobs attacking spammers should only be armed with plastic spoons.
Cue chant: "Go for the eyes! Go for the eyes!"
PUBLICLY electrocuting animals. And DC current won't hold its power through any wire longer than 500 feet! He also shafted many of his 'associate inventors' and appropriated their ideas. Nice guy for sure.
No, it doesn't make sense. Or rather, it's besides the point. You can say an application is anything you want, but it's what it is used for that counts. If your application reads web pages, that is what it should do to the best of its ability. If it doesn't, or wants to read in a language other than that the rest of the world has decided to write, it had best create a "world" of its own instead of disrupting ours.
Wow, that wouldn't be "edging", that would be "furious elbowing" : )
...I think Apple was more concerned about finding another "Cat" name than edging someone else's market.
Perhaps you're not that kind of girl then : )
...almost what I was thinking! The nagging question that was going through my mind in reading the article was "why aren't these guys talking about the final goal of the program being made?
If you take it one further you'll see that the Unix progammer programs to make "the most concisely coded kick-ass program", and the Windows programmer programs something sellable to the widest end-user audience possible. The former thinks to the quality of his work; he is an artisan. The latter thinks of "customer habits" even during the production process: he is a salesman.
There is a world of difference between the two, and it's not only a question of "culture".