Re:I liked Internet Explorer 7 the first time...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 1
Interesting.
Left just as Firefox came on the scene.
Additionally Opera has been debatably more polished than IE for most of its existence.
I highly recommend you try some of the other browsers. Aside from the fact that you may realize just how polished some of the other browsers are you will also gain the benfit of getting familiar with IE7 before its even out!
-ME®
Re:I liked Internet Explorer 7 the first time...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 1
"This is not IE 6 with a few features borrowed from the competition, but rather a clear step in the evolution of user-centric design."
LOL
:D
No borrowed features!!! *legs kicking, body thrashing with uncontrollable laughter*
EVOLUTION!!!! LOL *face turning blue, eyes tearing up, wailing guffaws through the cube farm* -ME®
Microsoft has a lot of money, hires a lot of lawyers, and has a long history of suing as soon as they can damage a potential competitor.
Lindows (Linspire) didn't give up their name because a US court told them they had to. They couldn't afford the legal fees of beating Microsoft in court for every* frivolous lawsuit Microsoft perused.
In fact it would be quite interesting to know the lawsuit ratio of a company. The measurement could be number of lawsuits by size of company during a given time frame listed. Also quite interesting would be a variant of this analysis which displays the same data organized by whether the company initiated the lawsuit.
Microsoft, I'm fairly certain, would end up very near the top of the list.
-ME®
*If I understand correctly they lost once in a South American country, so they didn't actual win every time. 1 out of 10 plus countries isn't really losing when most of the powerful countries agreed with Lindows.
This is interesting for 2 reasons: 1. The music industry is wasting a fairly impressive amount of resources on seemingly frivolous lawsuits. I would think they would have a better use for the exorbitant amounts of money charged for CDs. Such as marketing, or maybe even lowering prices, (hell I'd settle for slowing the amazing rate the prices are increasing). 2. Linking to someone else's site may now be legally incriminating. I suppose the next step is to start suing people who have heard pirated music played.
As Dr. Evil has outlined, if precautions are not taken to make it clear that a particular entity does not want reproduction of their website, then by right of standard excepted practice, the website is public domain.
Additionally, my understanding of copyrights, is that works of art of some type are automatically copyrighted material. This includes images, code, written works.
OK, now we're all in trouble, I did a little research.
Here is the likely reason there is not a copyright for the material on this website:
"1. Is the work protected?
Copyright does not protect, this Policy does not apply to, and anyone may freely use*:
* Works that lack originality
o logical, comprehensive compilations (like the phone book)
o unoriginal reprints of public domain works
* Works in the public domain
* Freeware (not shareware, but really, expressly, available free of restrictions-ware -- this may be protected by law, but the author has chosen to make it available without any restrictions)
* US Government works
* Facts
* Ideas, processes, methods, and systems described in copyrighted works"(reference: The University of Texas System)
Listing of information, from my understanding, does not grant a copywright to the entity listing the information.
One additional note: Libraries are free to copy and reproduce copyrighted material within certain bounds. I believe the internet archive should legally be considered a library of webpages.
Ah, but theres a difference, your not a law firm to whom it is effectively free (or a whole lot cheaper), to prosecute frivolously. So maybe their point is: any lawsuit is worth persuing, no matter how rediculous, so long as you can afford it.
Its interesting to hear Microsoft talking heads frequently claiming that they M$ is innovative. I suppose if innovation is what Micosoft does then IBM hasn't done a good job. To 'inovate' IBM needs to do 2 things, take top talent from Borland and write an 'innovative' new programming language and environment which is a lot like Borlands product. Then IBM needs to go back a few years and create 'innovation' with java by making their own additions to ummm 'improve' while making no visible improvements.
M$ innovation= controling market share. Normally innovation="a creation (a new device or process) resulting from study and experimentation [syn: invention]"
Do rules matter more than concepts?
Writing is a form of communication. Communication is an interchange of ideas.
In order for me to communicate most effectively with another person it is important that I do it in a manner which they understand.
In order for me to understand someone else's communication it is most effective if I adjust to their method of communication.
Language is a standardized way of communicating.
If I know the standard for English then I can communicate well with others that know the standardization. If I can match the level the other person understands the standardization I can communicate even more effectively. If I am speaking to someone who doesn't understand English well I will likely have more success communicating with them if I use words that they are using. This will remain true even when those words are not 100% correct, so long as the words capture the meaning, or concept of the ideas they are communicating.
If I am in a non English speaking country and I do not know the language well will communication be benefited if the person to whom I am speaking doesn't attempt to communicate at my level of understanding? Let us assume that I have enough of a vocabulary that I can communicate nouns and verbs but not tense. I will not understand them if they use tense, however it is very likely they will understand the concepts with which I am communicating.
Therefore, I submit that the concepts behind communication are vastly more important than keeping track of the finer points of the rules of standardization.
Additionally, some 'finer points' are arbitrary, illogical, and hinder communication because of the tendency we feel to focus on them instead of the ideas being communicated.
It is important, however, to follow the standard so long as those with whom you are communicating know it, and as long as the standard does not hinder communication.
I am attempting to avoid an answer that is too strong to this.
Do rules matter more than concepts?
Writing is a form of communication. Communication is an interchange of ideas.
In order for me to communicate most effectively with another person it is important that I do it in a manner which they understand.
In order for me to understand someone else's communication it is most effective if I adjust to their method of communication.
Language is a standardized way of communicating.
If I know the standard for English then I can communicate well with others that know the standardization. If I can match the level the other person understands the standardization I can communicate even more effectively. If I am speaking to someone who doesn't understand English well I will likely have more success communicating with them if I use words that they are using. This will remain true even when those words are not 100% correct, so long as the words capture the meaning, or concept of the ideas they are communicating.
If I am in a non English speaking country and I do not know the language well will communication be benefited if the person to whom I am speaking doesn't attempt to communicate at my level of understanding? Let us assume that I have enough of a vocabulary that I can communicate nouns and verbs but not tense. I will not understand them if they use tense, however it is very likely they will understand the concepts with which I am communicating.
Therefore, I submit that the concepts behind communication are vastly more important than keeping track of the finer points of the rules of standardization.
Additionally, I submit that some 'finer points' are arbitrary, illogical, and hinder communication because of the tendency we feel to focus on them instead of communication.
Communication is the interchange of information, knowledge, and emotion. Many of the finer points of written English do not actually enhance these functions of communication. This suggests that their generally accepted necessity may be validly in question. Spelling is important as is punctuation so long as they either: don't detract from, or enhance the communication for which they are being used.
OK the above has spawned one additional thought: I believe the reality is that the arbitrary and illogical manner the 'finer' points of written & spoken English have been structured have lost respect. If these points are exposed to many minds who deal with logical structure on a regular basis and they are rejected perhaps the failure is not on the part of those who are misusing the structure; perhaps the failure is on the part of those who originally structured it.
MORE ON USING JUST HARD DRIVES
I like and agree with arete's backup scheme.
Hard drives are a flexible fast and powerful method of backing up. With enough redundancy you should, theoretically, be able to extend the life of the data fairly indefinitely.
Here are a few methodologies which may compliment this backup scheme:
1. Local backup
It may lower costs and simplify your backup strategies if you backup to a second drive in your working system. I would recommend sticking with automated scripts as recommended and I would recommend still having one (or more) backup servers.
2. Offsite backup
A few thoughts in this area. It might make sense to find a friend who lives reasonably far away who would like to swap offsite backups. If you setup FTP or a VPN connection you could automate backups to a backup server you bring to your friends (going along with arete's suggestion of using a very inexpensive system with the appropriate amount of hard drive space). If bandwidth is not sufficient you could store a hdd at the friends house once a week etc...
3. Local Redundancy
I would recommend using a RAID locally if your current data is difficult and/or expensive to replace if lost. The most recommended RAID solution currently is 1+0 or 10 (same thing). This is a non-redundant array of disks which is mirrored. It is fast but very redundant (unlike stright mirroring)
The reason for backups is to avoid the loss of data. This type of RAID (as well as normal striping or RAID 5 and mirroring which is either RAID 1 or 0[I always forget which is which]), is designed to avoid the loss of data.
Backups are great but never having to use them is even better.
Good Luck!
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting.
Left just as Firefox came on the scene.
Additionally Opera has been debatably more polished than IE for most of its existence.
I highly recommend you try some of the other browsers. Aside from the fact that you may realize just how polished some of the other browsers are you will also gain the benfit of getting familiar with IE7 before its even out!
-ME®
"This is not IE 6 with a few features borrowed from the competition, but rather a clear step in the evolution of user-centric design."
:D
LOL
No borrowed features!!! *legs kicking, body thrashing with uncontrollable laughter*
EVOLUTION!!!! LOL *face turning blue, eyes tearing up, wailing guffaws through the cube farm*
-ME®
Excellent comment.
/. readers who appear to be M$ fanatics.
Unfortunately the truth that the business model of M$ is to maintain a monopoly will likely never be accepted by the general public.
As unlikely as it seems there are a number of
Not much hope for the rest of the world.
-ME®
Microsoft has a lot of money, hires a lot of lawyers, and has a long history of suing as soon as they can damage a potential competitor.
Lindows (Linspire) didn't give up their name because a US court told them they had to. They couldn't afford the legal fees of beating Microsoft in court for every* frivolous lawsuit Microsoft perused.
In fact it would be quite interesting to know the lawsuit ratio of a company. The measurement could be number of lawsuits by size of company during a given time frame listed. Also quite interesting would be a variant of this analysis which displays the same data organized by whether the company initiated the lawsuit.
Microsoft, I'm fairly certain, would end up very near the top of the list.
-ME®
*If I understand correctly they lost once in a South American country, so they didn't actual win every time. 1 out of 10 plus countries isn't really losing when most of the powerful countries agreed with Lindows.
This is interesting for 2 reasons:
1. The music industry is wasting a fairly impressive amount of resources on seemingly frivolous lawsuits.
I would think they would have a better use for the exorbitant amounts of money charged for CDs. Such as marketing, or maybe even lowering prices, (hell I'd settle for slowing the amazing rate the prices are increasing).
2. Linking to someone else's site may now be legally incriminating. I suppose the next step is to start suing people who have heard pirated music played.
As Dr. Evil has outlined, if precautions are not taken to make it clear that a particular entity does not want reproduction of their website, then by right of standard excepted practice, the website is public domain.
Additionally, my understanding of copyrights, is that works of art of some type are automatically copyrighted material. This includes images, code, written works.
OK, now we're all in trouble, I did a little research.
Here is the likely reason there is not a copyright for the material on this website:
"1. Is the work protected?
Copyright does not protect, this Policy does not apply to, and anyone may freely use*:
* Works that lack originality
o logical, comprehensive compilations (like the phone book)
o unoriginal reprints of public domain works
* Works in the public domain
* Freeware (not shareware, but really, expressly, available free of restrictions-ware -- this may be protected by law, but the author has chosen to make it available without any restrictions)
* US Government works
* Facts
* Ideas, processes, methods, and systems described in copyrighted works"(reference: The University of Texas System)
Listing of information, from my understanding, does not grant a copywright to the entity listing the information.
One additional note: Libraries are free to copy and reproduce copyrighted material within certain bounds. I believe the internet archive should legally be considered a library of webpages.
Ah, but theres a difference, your not a law firm to whom it is effectively free (or a whole lot cheaper), to prosecute frivolously.
So maybe their point is: any lawsuit is worth persuing, no matter how rediculous, so long as you can afford it.
Its interesting to hear Microsoft talking heads frequently claiming that they M$ is innovative.
I suppose if innovation is what Micosoft does then IBM hasn't done a good job. To 'inovate' IBM needs to do 2 things, take top talent from Borland and write an 'innovative' new programming language and environment which is a lot like Borlands product. Then IBM needs to go back a few years and create 'innovation' with java by making their own additions to ummm 'improve' while making no visible improvements.
M$ innovation= controling market share.
Normally innovation="a creation (a new device or process) resulting from study and experimentation [syn: invention]"
Do rules matter more than concepts? Writing is a form of communication. Communication is an interchange of ideas. In order for me to communicate most effectively with another person it is important that I do it in a manner which they understand. In order for me to understand someone else's communication it is most effective if I adjust to their method of communication. Language is a standardized way of communicating. If I know the standard for English then I can communicate well with others that know the standardization. If I can match the level the other person understands the standardization I can communicate even more effectively. If I am speaking to someone who doesn't understand English well I will likely have more success communicating with them if I use words that they are using. This will remain true even when those words are not 100% correct, so long as the words capture the meaning, or concept of the ideas they are communicating. If I am in a non English speaking country and I do not know the language well will communication be benefited if the person to whom I am speaking doesn't attempt to communicate at my level of understanding? Let us assume that I have enough of a vocabulary that I can communicate nouns and verbs but not tense. I will not understand them if they use tense, however it is very likely they will understand the concepts with which I am communicating. Therefore, I submit that the concepts behind communication are vastly more important than keeping track of the finer points of the rules of standardization. Additionally, some 'finer points' are arbitrary, illogical, and hinder communication because of the tendency we feel to focus on them instead of the ideas being communicated. It is important, however, to follow the standard so long as those with whom you are communicating know it, and as long as the standard does not hinder communication.
I am attempting to avoid an answer that is too strong to this. Do rules matter more than concepts? Writing is a form of communication. Communication is an interchange of ideas. In order for me to communicate most effectively with another person it is important that I do it in a manner which they understand. In order for me to understand someone else's communication it is most effective if I adjust to their method of communication. Language is a standardized way of communicating. If I know the standard for English then I can communicate well with others that know the standardization. If I can match the level the other person understands the standardization I can communicate even more effectively. If I am speaking to someone who doesn't understand English well I will likely have more success communicating with them if I use words that they are using. This will remain true even when those words are not 100% correct, so long as the words capture the meaning, or concept of the ideas they are communicating. If I am in a non English speaking country and I do not know the language well will communication be benefited if the person to whom I am speaking doesn't attempt to communicate at my level of understanding? Let us assume that I have enough of a vocabulary that I can communicate nouns and verbs but not tense. I will not understand them if they use tense, however it is very likely they will understand the concepts with which I am communicating. Therefore, I submit that the concepts behind communication are vastly more important than keeping track of the finer points of the rules of standardization. Additionally, I submit that some 'finer points' are arbitrary, illogical, and hinder communication because of the tendency we feel to focus on them instead of communication.
I agree with Bewire.
Communication is the interchange of information, knowledge, and emotion. Many of the finer points of written English do not actually enhance these functions of communication. This suggests that their generally accepted necessity may be validly in question.
Spelling is important as is punctuation so long as they either: don't detract from, or enhance the communication for which they are being used.
OK the above has spawned one additional thought:
I believe the reality is that the arbitrary and illogical manner the 'finer' points of written & spoken English have been structured have lost respect. If these points are exposed to many minds who deal with logical structure on a regular basis and they are rejected perhaps the failure is not on the part of those who are misusing the structure; perhaps the failure is on the part of those who originally structured it.
Man I'm wordy at times.
MORE ON USING JUST HARD DRIVES
I like and agree with arete's backup scheme. Hard drives are a flexible fast and powerful method of backing up. With enough redundancy you should, theoretically, be able to extend the life of the data fairly indefinitely. Here are a few methodologies which may compliment this backup scheme:
1. Local backup
It may lower costs and simplify your backup strategies if you backup to a second drive in your working system. I would recommend sticking with automated scripts as recommended and I would recommend still having one (or more) backup servers.
2. Offsite backup
A few thoughts in this area. It might make sense to find a friend who lives reasonably far away who would like to swap offsite backups. If you setup FTP or a VPN connection you could automate backups to a backup server you bring to your friends (going along with arete's suggestion of using a very inexpensive system with the appropriate amount of hard drive space). If bandwidth is not sufficient you could store a hdd at the friends house once a week etc...
3. Local Redundancy
I would recommend using a RAID locally if your current data is difficult and/or expensive to replace if lost. The most recommended RAID solution currently is 1+0 or 10 (same thing). This is a non-redundant array of disks which is mirrored. It is fast but very redundant (unlike stright mirroring) The reason for backups is to avoid the loss of data. This type of RAID (as well as normal striping or RAID 5 and mirroring which is either RAID 1 or 0[I always forget which is which]), is designed to avoid the loss of data. Backups are great but never having to use them is even better. Good Luck!