Not only are they aware, they did it together! Since the fields are intertwined I think it is only logical, but I suggest we wait until we see an article in Science.
Actually, he was not detained under the anti-terrorism law for shouting nonsense, but for trying to enter the conference without a pass which was removed from him because of shouting nonsense. Implication maybe:-), but not the whole truth. RTFA:-).
This is just what we need. Another "temporary solution". The next thing that's going to happen is that everyone will start complaining how a browser doesn't respect some standard. I think that there should be no "intermediate" solution for this. Either you do it like you should have done it, or you don't!
P.S: I'm sorry, I had to say this, I'm the first one, I hope:-). In Soviet Union, the web pages retrofit you.
You could fool this by using balistics gel. It has almost the same properties as the human body, including conductivity. Although it's tougher to make, but you could use play-doh to create the first mold, than harden it, put it in a vacuuform and create the perfect finger mold.
Seeing this now, makes me think what the future of gaming will be like. Good god where are we going. BTW: do you think you can remote desktop on this one?
Re:All this dynamic stuff requires a server
on
The Future of HTML
·
· Score: 1
Declarative forms are good - the browser may be able to fill in fields.
Yes, this is really smart. I can see Phishing 2.0 standard being defined already.
Actually competition almost got this world wiped out. And it was, I'm sure helped by the space race. I hope you all know why the space even became interesting? It's because everybody new it's the closest and fastest race to launch nuclear missiles. So... I would rather see that it takes 5 years longer for them to do something than to not see those 5 years at all. And yourself?
Obviously the correct answer is so that we can have more marketing material to make postcards. So next time you visit Langley you too, can buy a moon rock, yours for only 9,99$ and send it to your friends. Next possible step is to put them in cerial boxes, oh, no, wait, they've done that already. Well...
True. But you still have to take into account that the market gets saturated. Even though the chips are small I don't think they'll fit in an overcrowded market:-). Sorry, had to be sarcastic. Anywho, this already happened at the mobile phone market, so now its all getting service-orientated.
So, my point is, that it does raise the production cost which decreases significantly over time, but also increases the risk of overcrowding the market by lowering the cost. So it's a vicious circle and re-taking a common sense 101 class ain't gonna do you no good. If you want to learn how it's done, look at monopolies (M$ etc.)
However you must know that, WordPad does not offer nearly all the functionality that Word does. I know you know that, but I need to restate my point here:-). Developing new features, ones that sell the product, is what costs more money -- and the features in Word, that sell it, is mostly the track changes feature:-). I highly doubt anybody would consider purchasing Word because of Clippy (and he's gone with 2003...).
What I'm trying to say is that most advanced programs MS is offering are getting included in a cheap version -- for example Visual Studio Express, it is called Express right, I don't use it, I've just heard of it? Some of these things are getting bundled in the OS. Which in turn is great for the consumer. He gets more, for "free". Or is it? That means less choice and more integration with OS. But, that's a different story.
Anyway, what talk about a different revenue paradigm?
Me too, and that's why I know it's not simple:-). Oh, And I hope you didn't use anything like a rich edit box:-), cause that kills the fun.
I can't believe you actually said that. I think Hell would freeze over and Billy Boy would be using Linux before Microsoft bundled one of their main income sources for free. Yo DO realize I hope, that Windows is not considered something from which they get the revenue? IT's stuff like Office, SQL server, Exchange...
So no, even if they felt threatened they will not do it. And still, Open Office 2 is a good improvment, but as long as it keeps messing up my documents I won't use it. Neither will my company and our official OS is Scientific Linux... so go figure. (oh, so ther won't be any misunderstandings, we're running VmWare with XP images on the boxes that need Office).
Anywho, IE is a small piece of software compared to Office. Try to write a friggin word processor for yourself and you'll see what I mean. Ok, admitingly, writing a HTML render engine isn't a piece of cake either, but it's easier. And thus, cheaper. That's why they can afford to bundle it - but to think it's free, is an illusion. Microsoft itself is broadly boasting how IE is a core part of Windows, which is probably true (HTML engine is the key point here, not the shell around it), therefore it was developed WITH WINDOWS and you pay for it when you pay for Windows.
If I stray of the topic for a moment, what I find interesting is that people don't get it that those employed at a software firm NEED TO BE PAYED. Therefore the software must be sold. People developing Linux are (mostly) not payed or have other jobs and code in the free time / or don't do what they're suppose to, but that's a different story. If you want to develop/test something suitable for a production environment you need people working on it, and they need to be payed. And if you want to pay you have to charge for something -- LICENCE. Ok, they could charge only for support but... I wouldn't call them. Nor will my friend, he will call me, and I will help him. Ok, so I can also give him a pirated copy of Windows, but you get my drift. It's harder for a company to be using illegal software and paying for support for Exchange would not be an option (they rather hire a new IT guy:-)).
It's interesting to me how all the children drew the TM mark in the upper right corner of the image. I wonder...:-) Starting young I see...
Maybe it's so we can say "In soviet Russia, the TM draws you in the upper right corner":-), or "imagine a beowulf cluster of thesee"
It strikes me as the whole world is playing Siedler from Catan. Once a company actually makes it big, with a product that obviously is accepted well by the consumer (sorry, but people would not buy Windows (in the beginning) if it wasn't a good product and help them do things easier than anything else -- point me one business executive who has time to type some 20 commands so he can share it with someone... He'll rather have the option to click something.) it gets attacked from all directions -- but in the end, I think Microsoft is just satisfying the consumer's needs. Everyone wants out-of-the-box solutions. Linux just won't do here (for now). Windows works when you install it on a PC... Simple as that, on a Unix based system you have to goof around for 5 days to find the right friggin drivers not in beta for the latest graphical card. It's a cold harsh reality that too-devoted Linux users won't admit - Microsoft saw the market first, had the cash and positioned itself to where they are now. By adding new features they are simply moving the consumer to be more inclined on buying their solution than to install Linux and have a hard time. The Regular Joe doesn't have time to play around with different config files to set the resolution of the LCD screen... But anyway, by forcing to remove something as "important" as WMP I think the EC is going in the wrong direction, in one that will eventually hurt one thing that matters the most -- the consumer. But that's just my 2 cents...
You have to understand that what I meant was also installing applications on the image, and deploy it on the company wokrstations. I'll be glad to prove this, as soon as I find the tool -- I have to check with our IT deparment in the company:-).
So? Roll your own distro. Can you do that with Windows? No. Can I tweak XP and sell it as my own? No. Better yet, can I tweak the codebase for Windows Server 2003 so that I have a company wide distro for our internal systems? Hell no.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but yes, you can. And Microsoft offers the tools to do this. While it's not as "full" as the Linux Distribution modification it allows you to create one standard image for all internal systems. However it's more applicable to XP than 2003 -- you generally don't install Servers on 50 machines or more (but it's still possible).
And while I'm on this topic, I think it's also possible to modify the source. Not only that, but if you're an MVP, you get to do if for free[eweek.com].
Has anbody here thought that Microfost cut AV support for Linux because they don't have enough knowledge on this field - ok, so they hire a few guys who know about it - but still, what makes us think that they'll let any software to be sold under their name which they can't understand?
Maybe they've cut this to eliminate av on the *nix server once and for all, even for mail and file-servers and so on. We all know that Microsoft plans on shipping anti-virus technology for free (or very very cheap) with Windows (or download for "legal customers"-- like that's gonna do any good).
Maybe this is a way to deal with piracy? Ok,ok, it's a conspiracy theory but look, if they offer anti-virus software for clients only, then the clients in big corporations (who don't use Win2k3 server) will simply have to have AV software installed. If they go for Microsoft (which, in a large firm is usually an obvious choice, although I fail to see the point, why) they'll have to insure every machine is legal. If a home windows user wants to download it, it won't let him, thus spreading viruses only on pirated Windows. Oh yeah, and then they'll write their own viruses:-).
Slashdot Mirror
Not only are they aware, they did it together! Since the fields are intertwined I think it is only logical, but I suggest we wait until we see an article in Science.
Actually, he was not detained under the anti-terrorism law for shouting nonsense, but for trying to enter the conference without a pass which was removed from him because of shouting nonsense. Implication maybe :-), but not the whole truth. RTFA :-).
This is just what we need. Another "temporary solution". The next thing that's going to happen is that everyone will start complaining how a browser doesn't respect some standard. I think that there should be no "intermediate" solution for this. Either you do it like you should have done it, or you don't! P.S: I'm sorry, I had to say this, I'm the first one, I hope :-). In Soviet Union, the web pages retrofit you.
Try it yourself: here.
:-).
Let me know how it works out
You could fool this by using balistics gel. It has almost the same properties as the human body, including conductivity. Although it's tougher to make, but you could use play-doh to create the first mold, than harden it, put it in a vacuuform and create the perfect finger mold.
How about: this one?
Will this do you any good?
Seeing this now, makes me think what the future of gaming will be like. Good god where are we going. BTW: do you think you can remote desktop on this one?
Declarative forms are good - the browser may be able to fill in fields.
Yes, this is really smart. I can see Phishing 2.0 standard being defined already.
Actually competition almost got this world wiped out. And it was, I'm sure helped by the space race. I hope you all know why the space even became interesting? It's because everybody new it's the closest and fastest race to launch nuclear missiles. So ... I would rather see that it takes 5 years longer for them to do something than to not see those 5 years at all. And yourself?
Obviously the correct answer is so that we can have more marketing material to make postcards. So next time you visit Langley you too, can buy a moon rock, yours for only 9,99$ and send it to your friends. Next possible step is to put them in cerial boxes, oh, no, wait, they've done that already. Well...
I think you messed up the joke. It should go:
In Soviet Russia, Kliper funds ESA!
Or should it?
True. But you still have to take into account that the market gets saturated. Even though the chips are small I don't think they'll fit in an overcrowded market :-). Sorry, had to be sarcastic. Anywho, this already happened at the mobile phone market, so now its all getting service-orientated.
So, my point is, that it does raise the production cost which decreases significantly over time, but also increases the risk of overcrowding the market by lowering the cost. So it's a vicious circle and re-taking a common sense 101 class ain't gonna do you no good. If you want to learn how it's done, look at monopolies (M$ etc.)
Glad to see we agree.
:-). Developing new features, ones that sell the product, is what costs more money -- and the features in Word, that sell it, is mostly the track changes feature :-). I highly doubt anybody would consider purchasing Word because of Clippy (and he's gone with 2003 ...).
:-). Oh, And I hope you didn't use anything like a rich edit box :-), cause that kills the fun.
However you must know that, WordPad does not offer nearly all the functionality that Word does. I know you know that, but I need to restate my point here
What I'm trying to say is that most advanced programs MS is offering are getting included in a cheap version -- for example Visual Studio Express, it is called Express right, I don't use it, I've just heard of it? Some of these things are getting bundled in the OS. Which in turn is great for the consumer. He gets more, for "free". Or is it? That means less choice and more integration with OS. But, that's a different story.
Anyway, what talk about a different revenue paradigm?
Me too, and that's why I know it's not simple
I can't believe you actually said that. I think Hell would freeze over and Billy Boy would be using Linux before Microsoft bundled one of their main income sources for free. Yo DO realize I hope, that Windows is not considered something from which they get the revenue? IT's stuff like Office, SQL server, Exchange...
:-)).
So no, even if they felt threatened they will not do it. And still, Open Office 2 is a good improvment, but as long as it keeps messing up my documents I won't use it. Neither will my company and our official OS is Scientific Linux... so go figure. (oh, so ther won't be any misunderstandings, we're running VmWare with XP images on the boxes that need Office).
Anywho, IE is a small piece of software compared to Office. Try to write a friggin word processor for yourself and you'll see what I mean. Ok, admitingly, writing a HTML render engine isn't a piece of cake either, but it's easier. And thus, cheaper. That's why they can afford to bundle it - but to think it's free, is an illusion. Microsoft itself is broadly boasting how IE is a core part of Windows, which is probably true (HTML engine is the key point here, not the shell around it), therefore it was developed WITH WINDOWS and you pay for it when you pay for Windows.
If I stray of the topic for a moment, what I find interesting is that people don't get it that those employed at a software firm NEED TO BE PAYED. Therefore the software must be sold. People developing Linux are (mostly) not payed or have other jobs and code in the free time / or don't do what they're suppose to, but that's a different story. If you want to develop/test something suitable for a production environment you need people working on it, and they need to be payed. And if you want to pay you have to charge for something -- LICENCE. Ok, they could charge only for support but... I wouldn't call them. Nor will my friend, he will call me, and I will help him. Ok, so I can also give him a pirated copy of Windows, but you get my drift. It's harder for a company to be using illegal software and paying for support for Exchange would not be an option (they rather hire a new IT guy
Well, thanks for reading.
It's interesting to me how all the children drew the TM mark in the upper right corner of the image. I wonder... :-) Starting young I see...
Maybe it's so we can say "In soviet Russia, the TM draws you in the upper right corner" :-), or "imagine a beowulf cluster of thesee"
It strikes me as the whole world is playing Siedler from Catan. Once a company actually makes it big, with a product that obviously is accepted well by the consumer (sorry, but people would not buy Windows (in the beginning) if it wasn't a good product and help them do things easier than anything else -- point me one business executive who has time to type some 20 commands so he can share it with someone... He'll rather have the option to click something.) it gets attacked from all directions -- but in the end, I think Microsoft is just satisfying the consumer's needs. Everyone wants out-of-the-box solutions. Linux just won't do here (for now). Windows works when you install it on a PC... Simple as that, on a Unix based system you have to goof around for 5 days to find the right friggin drivers not in beta for the latest graphical card. It's a cold harsh reality that too-devoted Linux users won't admit - Microsoft saw the market first, had the cash and positioned itself to where they are now. By adding new features they are simply moving the consumer to be more inclined on buying their solution than to install Linux and have a hard time. The Regular Joe doesn't have time to play around with different config files to set the resolution of the LCD screen... But anyway, by forcing to remove something as "important" as WMP I think the EC is going in the wrong direction, in one that will eventually hurt one thing that matters the most -- the consumer. But that's just my 2 cents...
You have to understand that what I meant was also installing applications on the image, and deploy it on the company wokrstations. I'll be glad to prove this, as soon as I find the tool -- I have to check with our IT deparment in the company :-).
So? Roll your own distro. Can you do that with Windows? No. Can I tweak XP and sell it as my own? No. Better yet, can I tweak the codebase for Windows Server 2003 so that I have a company wide distro for our internal systems? Hell no. Sorry to burst your bubble, but yes, you can. And Microsoft offers the tools to do this. While it's not as "full" as the Linux Distribution modification it allows you to create one standard image for all internal systems. However it's more applicable to XP than 2003 -- you generally don't install Servers on 50 machines or more (but it's still possible). And while I'm on this topic, I think it's also possible to modify the source. Not only that, but if you're an MVP, you get to do if for free[eweek.com].
"In Soviet Russia the string theory understands you." or maybe "In soviet Russia the classroom beowulfs you"?
Has anbody here thought that Microfost cut AV support for Linux because they don't have enough knowledge on this field - ok, so they hire a few guys who know about it - but still, what makes us think that they'll let any software to be sold under their name which they can't understand? Maybe they've cut this to eliminate av on the *nix server once and for all, even for mail and file-servers and so on. We all know that Microsoft plans on shipping anti-virus technology for free (or very very cheap) with Windows (or download for "legal customers"-- like that's gonna do any good). Maybe this is a way to deal with piracy? Ok,ok, it's a conspiracy theory but look, if they offer anti-virus software for clients only, then the clients in big corporations (who don't use Win2k3 server) will simply have to have AV software installed. If they go for Microsoft (which, in a large firm is usually an obvious choice, although I fail to see the point, why) they'll have to insure every machine is legal. If a home windows user wants to download it, it won't let him, thus spreading viruses only on pirated Windows. Oh yeah, and then they'll write their own viruses :-).