I've been using Firefox as my main browser since it was Phoenix 0.5...loved it then, love it now. I'm concerned however that as its popularity grows, so does the backlash. MS didn't use to be evil. If I remember correctly, MS was the rising, new, exciting thing ten years ago.
But may Firefox 1.1 come out very soon. CSS3 outline is coming with it, I've heard, and I cannot WAIT to test that out.
I have concerns that trustrank will limit the variety of news we get from Google News search, but I'm wondering if it will get rid of parody search results at the top. A few weeks ago, I did a google news search on John Kerry, and got several parody articles near the top...with all due respect to their sense of humor, I think there are more important articles than that.
Instead of only selecting news from the top 200 or so sources, wouldn't it be better if Google did the opposite and filtered out known unreliable sources? I think it's a given that we surf at our own risk and take information presented to us (even on trusted sites) with a grain of salt...why trustrank?
Same lesson as TFA: throwing money at something doesn't fix it or make it work.
Not all projects will turn out successful, but you can be sure none are getting off the ground without money. Throwing money at something doesn't make it work, but take money away, and it falls flat on its face.
While the money invested in open source is a lot, I'd venture to say it's but a fraction of total venture capitalist investment? correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, what's the point of this article? It's good, right, that open source is being given this attention? Why the complaints about the power of venture capitalists? They are keeping these open source projects alive.
No, you're doing that vague implying argument where you get to have it anyway you want. I'm calling bullsh*t on you because, well, I think you're full of sh*t.
I admit I'm not an expert; simply stating my opinion. If you'd care to correct it, then good for you.
Perhaps the argument was not well made, but does not our educational system need improvement? Can it not be improved? Never mind, it's not the point of this thread.
Importing skills is how the US became a world leader in technology in the first place, what with all Jewish and other European scientists around the time of WWII. There's nothing wrong with that - it's good both for the US and for talented people around the world who couldn't develop to their full potential in their native countries.
Good points. However, wouldn't it be optimal to have more highly skilled workers coming from our own schools? I agree, it's especially good for the talented people who would not have succeeded in their own home countries, which is why I think Gates has the right idea. But does it make a difference if more of the most qualified personell are homegrown or not? If not, what is the need for an outstanding k-12 educational system?
Tried to access CNN today, and while I'm sitting here tapping the mousepad, the darndest thing happens! Snail leaps in through the window, god knows how he got up there, delivers me a stack of the latest articles...good snail...this new snaip is dynamite.
I think he does have a point. We've come to a point where our workforce sometime cannot compete with the brightest that come from other nations. I think Gates has point here, in the interests of keeping the US a leader in technology - but at the same time, I don't think this is the long-term solution. We need to do a better job of education, revamping the public school system because it isn't working across the board the way it should.
THEN we can talk about staying a world technology leader.
How is safeguarding the names of two students who are accused of illegal file-sharing justified in any way? Is this what you would call a technicality? "Oh, we're sorry. They might have broken the law, but...hey! privacy! yeahh!"
I don't have a cellphone and nor do I plan to have one in the near future, but I find it...erm, interesting, that "Nokia reckons it has an iPod killer." I would imagine that competition for the iPod would be limited to, well, mp3 players, and that this phone would simply be competition for...other...phones.
I think the general consensus is that we buy phones for the talking-to-other-people quirks? I highly doubt I would want digital camera or mp3 features, as long as it can connect me to other people without me having to say "can you hear me now? hello?...hello?"
If NASA is throwing $11 million behind this project, is it safe to assume it'll be around before the end of the century? How soon can we expect it to be implemented more practically, such as making spacecraft lighter and increasing the speed of computers, as the linked article suggests?
Slashdot Mirror
And I just saw an article about how Microsoft's profits rose....
I've been using Firefox as my main browser since it was Phoenix 0.5...loved it then, love it now. I'm concerned however that as its popularity grows, so does the backlash. MS didn't use to be evil. If I remember correctly, MS was the rising, new, exciting thing ten years ago.
But may Firefox 1.1 come out very soon. CSS3 outline is coming with it, I've heard, and I cannot WAIT to test that out.
I have concerns that trustrank will limit the variety of news we get from Google News search, but I'm wondering if it will get rid of parody search results at the top. A few weeks ago, I did a google news search on John Kerry, and got several parody articles near the top...with all due respect to their sense of humor, I think there are more important articles than that.
Instead of only selecting news from the top 200 or so sources, wouldn't it be better if Google did the opposite and filtered out known unreliable sources? I think it's a given that we surf at our own risk and take information presented to us (even on trusted sites) with a grain of salt...why trustrank?
While the money invested in open source is a lot, I'd venture to say it's but a fraction of total venture capitalist investment? correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, what's the point of this article? It's good, right, that open source is being given this attention? Why the complaints about the power of venture capitalists? They are keeping these open source projects alive.
Tried to access CNN today, and while I'm sitting here tapping the mousepad, the darndest thing happens! Snail leaps in through the window, god knows how he got up there, delivers me a stack of the latest articles...good snail...this new snaip is dynamite.
I think he does have a point. We've come to a point where our workforce sometime cannot compete with the brightest that come from other nations. I think Gates has point here, in the interests of keeping the US a leader in technology - but at the same time, I don't think this is the long-term solution. We need to do a better job of education, revamping the public school system because it isn't working across the board the way it should.
THEN we can talk about staying a world technology leader.
How is safeguarding the names of two students who are accused of illegal file-sharing justified in any way? Is this what you would call a technicality? "Oh, we're sorry. They might have broken the law, but...hey! privacy! yeahh!"
I don't have a cellphone and nor do I plan to have one in the near future, but I find it...erm, interesting, that "Nokia reckons it has an iPod killer." I would imagine that competition for the iPod would be limited to, well, mp3 players, and that this phone would simply be competition for...other...phones.
I think the general consensus is that we buy phones for the talking-to-other-people quirks? I highly doubt I would want digital camera or mp3 features, as long as it can connect me to other people without me having to say "can you hear me now? hello?...hello?"
If NASA is throwing $11 million behind this project, is it safe to assume it'll be around before the end of the century? How soon can we expect it to be implemented more practically, such as making spacecraft lighter and increasing the speed of computers, as the linked article suggests?