I've heard this kind of microsoft (or rather balmer) bashing a thousand times and those posts always get modded up as funny. I guess geeks really find it difficult to think new ways to be funny.
"I realise its Web 2.0 and all that, but is RSS really important enough to put into the OS?!"
RSS nowadays is important for a "greater" web experience. I don't have to go to the source of information to get data that matters to me. The information come to me. So it would really be nice if RSS is integrated in my web browser. And since almost all OSes comes with a web browser, go figure.
Well, Google is a company that loves to experiment and do new things. Maybe they see something "positive" in their investment in AOL. We, the internet "surfers", are still the judge in this move. When Yahoo decided to put up a lot of stuff into their main page, it pushed web surfers to turn to google. Now if this move will really make google "evil", we can still hail a "less" evil search engine.
So i guess there's no point being afraid of Google's move. The force is always with us (lol).
The point is; with Google Base (you ever noticed how much gBase sounds like eBay?), books, maps, and goodness knows whatever else, the capability exists that the more you reply on it, the more they know about you whether you like it or not. And while you may say that the information about searches is anonymous, other services like chat and gmail pin an identifier on you.
Actually, the problem is not on Google but on people who would make ludicrous conclusions based on web search patterns. Google just stores the information, people make the interpretations.
We don't mean a splinter group from a larger dev house, but an agile, self-contained team, who enjoy working together and have an existing practice.
How would you know that the team enjoy working together? Anyone can form a group and say "Hey! You know what, we enjoy each other's company and we work good together"
So I guess it would really be difficult to find a group with that criteria. What can be done though is to find a team that has produced a reputable piece of work and infer that the team "enjoy working together"
Microsoft has threatened to withdraw its Windows software from South Korea if the country's antitrust agency orders it to unbundle its instant-messaging and media player software from the operating system.
Why? Because evolution is a philosophy that has crawled its way into science classrooms.
I saw the arguments that ID can never be proven scientifically but guess what, i believe that evolution can't be proven too. Even if we get millions of thousands evidences linking one animal to another, we can easily "speculate" that they might belong to one family but we will never get a valid conclusion.
It's like being able to get thousands of millions of portraits of people that are 90% similar in features but still we cannot make a conclusion that they belong to one family.
So all in all, this evolution thing is just a philosophy. We claim we're getting links when we get evidences but we only actually acquire several beautiful stones and speculate that those stones belong to one necklace.
what if you are just another schizo telling me there's no God just because you are not hearing anything?
If you are going to dictate to me that there's no God, i wouldn't just believe you just because you told me so. Give me a proof.
Why? because even if you have thousands and millions of evidences, no one can make a sound conclusion that one form evolved into another. We don't have the capacity to recreate/test those "predictions" to see if the evidences are really linked to each other. It's like lining up thousands and millions of faces that have "great similarities" or are "80%/90% similar" to each other and conclude that the people who own those faces belong to one family.
So this evolution thing is just another religion or philosophy being taught in a science classroom.
because studies have shown that? what studies? i don't think this is a fair conclusion. just because something is happening to a lot of people doesn't mean the same thing wil surely happen to you.
Newspaper is still the option for poor individuals who doesn't have access to cheap internet connection/computer (like in our country).
If i don't own an internet connected computer, it would cost me, let's say, 1$ to read online for an hour in an internet cafe. But after i go out of the cafe, if in case i wanna go back to read a news article, it would cost me again to re-read the same stuff.
So my take on it is as long there is poverty in this world, newspaper is still the best/practical/cheap option for the poor and common people.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard this kind of microsoft (or rather balmer) bashing a thousand times and those posts always get modded up as funny. I guess geeks really find it difficult to think new ways to be funny.
"I realise its Web 2.0 and all that, but is RSS really important enough to put into the OS?!"
RSS nowadays is important for a "greater" web experience. I don't have to go to the source of information to get data that matters to me. The information come to me. So it would really be nice if RSS is integrated in my web browser. And since almost all OSes comes with a web browser, go figure.
Well, Google is a company that loves to experiment and do new things. Maybe they see something "positive" in their investment in AOL. We, the internet "surfers", are still the judge in this move. When Yahoo decided to put up a lot of stuff into their main page, it pushed web surfers to turn to google. Now if this move will really make google "evil", we can still hail a "less" evil search engine.
So i guess there's no point being afraid of Google's move. The force is always with us (lol).
I wonder how ancient people who have those genes behaved during stone age.
The point is; with Google Base (you ever noticed how much gBase sounds like eBay?), books, maps, and goodness knows whatever else, the capability exists that the more you reply on it, the more they know about you whether you like it or not. And while you may say that the information about searches is anonymous, other services like chat and gmail pin an identifier on you.
Actually, the problem is not on Google but on people who would make ludicrous conclusions based on web search patterns. Google just stores the information, people make the interpretations.
Can anyone explain the idea behind dark matter and dark energy?
Ask Luke Skywalker He got amputated because of those things.
We don't mean a splinter group from a larger dev house, but an agile, self-contained team, who enjoy working together and have an existing practice.
How would you know that the team enjoy working together? Anyone can form a group and say "Hey! You know what, we enjoy each other's company and we work good together"
So I guess it would really be difficult to find a group with that criteria. What can be done though is to find a team that has produced a reputable piece of work and infer that the team "enjoy working together"
maybe it's because of the lighting. no, maybe because of the beautiful windows.
1. install OO in workstations
2. buy:
* big whiteboard - $35
* whiteboard marker - $5
3. then write the instructions on the white board on how to configure OO
total expenses: $40
Are they going to build rehab centers for game addicts where patients can only play super mario brothers or galaxia?
Microsoft has threatened to withdraw its Windows software from South Korea if the country's antitrust agency orders it to unbundle its instant-messaging and media player software from the operating system.
Spooky.
if you are paranoid that Google will do that, you can just pull out the javascript code anytime.
it's a free service. if you don't like/trust it, then don't put it in your site. no one is forcing you to put it in your site anyway.
While Microsoft may be right in enforcing its trademark, the question that is important is "why Window needs a defender?"
Maybe because someone out there is making a software called 'Windows Attacker'
Why? Because evolution is a philosophy that has crawled its way into science classrooms.
I saw the arguments that ID can never be proven scientifically but guess what, i believe that evolution can't be proven too. Even if we get millions of thousands evidences linking one animal to another, we can easily "speculate" that they might belong to one family but we will never get a valid conclusion.
It's like being able to get thousands of millions of portraits of people that are 90% similar in features but still we cannot make a conclusion that they belong to one family.
So all in all, this evolution thing is just a philosophy. We claim we're getting links when we get evidences but we only actually acquire several beautiful stones and speculate that those stones belong to one necklace.
what if you are just another schizo telling me there's no God just because you are not hearing anything? If you are going to dictate to me that there's no God, i wouldn't just believe you just because you told me so. Give me a proof.
Why? because even if you have thousands and millions of evidences, no one can make a sound conclusion that one form evolved into another. We don't have the capacity to recreate/test those "predictions" to see if the evidences are really linked to each other. It's like lining up thousands and millions of faces that have "great similarities" or are "80%/90% similar" to each other and conclude that the people who own those faces belong to one family. So this evolution thing is just another religion or philosophy being taught in a science classroom.
he will grow up to be socially retarded.
because studies have shown that? what studies? i don't think this is a fair conclusion. just because something is happening to a lot of people doesn't mean the same thing wil surely happen to you.
Newspaper is still the option for poor individuals who doesn't have access to cheap internet connection/computer (like in our country).
If i don't own an internet connected computer, it would cost me, let's say, 1$ to read online for an hour in an internet cafe. But after i go out of the cafe, if in case i wanna go back to read a news article, it would cost me again to re-read the same stuff.
So my take on it is as long there is poverty in this world, newspaper is still the best/practical/cheap option for the poor and common people.