For those who can't wait for MIT to stop playing with their death rays and cure this painful addiction, there is hope at http://www.civanon.org/home.shtml
Because what'd the headlines be: "New MS OS: Windows Vista puts Microsoft only three years behind Apple!" "Internet Explorer to match nearest competitor in some areas"? "Hotmail and MSN Search may reduce Google's functional/features lead"?
Microsoft's "next-generation" stuff just puts them on or just below par in most areas. Assuming it isn't bug-ridden, and comes out before OS X.6 or so. Really, I don't want those headlines.
Not to mention, exactly none of the stuff you mentioned is coming out this year. Why should the media cover stuff that won't come out for another six months at best, and isn't set in stone as far as features?
The decent reality is that Apple don't do much, but when they concentrate on improving a product they do produce a good result. (As does any company that focuses their efforts on a sole product.)
On the contrary, the special thing about Apple is that it just improved the majority of their product lines in the last 6 weeks, with significant functional upgrades (while keeping prices mostly constant). I mean, iMac, PowerMac, iBook, PowerBook, iPod Nano, iPod w/ video? Most companies could pick two, but Apple is doing all of them. Not to mention introducing new products that may be cool (Front Row, Apenture, the widescreen monitors). I bet we'll get 10.4.3 this year too. And 10.5 (Leopard) by mid-next year.
We'll be getting all of this before Vista even hits shelves. And Vista will probably be a bug-ridden, first-generation mess. I mean, we'll probably be getting OS Y before they release the fixes for Vista. And I haven't seen unambiguous evidence that IE7 is going to be a trendsetter (sure, it may catch Firefox/Opera, but beat them?). And the new Word looks like it'll be hit-or-miss with the new interface.
That's why Steve Jobs is on the cover of Time this week.
Ok, I personally like what you're saying. If I had more than 2k dollars (american), I might bite. But the majority of Americans would never think of going to a bank outside the US. I mean, maybe we'd think about it, but even if we liked the idea (doubtful), we're still pretty lazy (I'm no exception). I generally don't rely on any sort of expectations that involve any voluntary action from an average American. Especially if it's that complex. I mean, it's an option for a multimillionare's accounts, but for John and Jane Public's college savings fund? Or grocery money? I doubt it.
if FEMA/Fed Govt would of moved before hand the people bitching now would be bitching about "Oh noes! States' Rights!" instead. Maybe, but if so, then a few hundred people might still be alive. That's worth a lot.
What I've heard is that if you know for certain that you aren't drunk, take the blood test, because it is the most reliable and you can have it re-tested if you don't like the answer. If you aren't sure, take the breath test because it's easier to challenge in court. See, I'd go with the breathalyzer in all cases. It's quicker. If I'm not drunk, I want to get going. I mean, what's a blood test? Half an hour to station or ER, then getting the test taken, then getting back on the road? Heck of a lot time to waste.
Personally, I'd like it if they had their own section. Like there is an Apple section, a Linux section, etc, how about a New Toys section? I mean, I'm all for reading about good new products, therefore I don't think ad posts are defacto bad, but it would be nice to distinguish them as biased towards the manufacturer.
::Braces for the inevitable "What, slashdot biased?" joke::
I have both Opera and Firefox, and I use Firefox more. I like the extensions mostly. But I suppose it is a matter of personal taste.
However, I've got to say that I love the shadow effect on the Opera icon. It looks pretty sweet when I zoom in to it on the Dock. Yes, I'm easily amused.
I'm talking about internet communities in general, not any type in specific. The trend seems to be towards spamming increasing with growth. And it isn't just spamming, a tiered system could prevent people who don't know what they're talking about from messing with major issues.
My comments should not be construed as negative towards Wikipedians. I have deep respect for people who volunteer for good causes, and I commend them on a overall good job.
Which may be happening here: the Cingulars and Nextels may start getting annoyed enough by the absurdities of patent law and the effect on their bottom line that they start to lobby for a change. Unfortunately, the change is not likely to make things any easier for the bulk of us.
Yeah, and when they do, it'll be couched in terms that sound like something we'd like, until we read the fine print or amendments. And everyone in America will think the problem is solved, and Joe Average, if he even understood the problem, will be happy, but it'll just be worse. Bit of a gloomy mood I suppose.
It seems like this is sort of a trend. I mean, didn't vandalism and trolling force the introduction of the moderation system here? And didn't that happen nearly everywhere on the web as discussion boards increased in size? Anyone see a trend? It seems that once it goes from a clubhouse to a gym, you start to get bad apples.
Another poster suggested a leveling system, and I agree. I think that wikipedia should establish a system whereby articles are ranked, i.e. culture - specialized - mainstream or something. That way, as you start out, you can work on culture articles, then work your way up. Or maybe base it on page views and specialization. People who just joined can make new articles (to fill the missing ones) or can work on general articles that are rarely viewed, then work their way up.
Or, on the same note, while I am confident 99.9 percent of the people here have done nothing illegal of this severity, but couldn't a lot of innocent searchs be misconstrued if desired? I mean, if ever the gov't decided they didn't like somebody? How hard would it be to find 5 things out of about a million we searched for, and tie them together into something that looks troublesome?
Yeah, I've been meaning to write a letter to them. I have a few other minor suggestions too. the reason I'd subscribe to a whole season is that I often have to miss the primetime Wednesday time in front of the suite TV, because I have stuff to do. But if I could pay, say $35-40 or so for the whole season (22-24 eps), and have the new one download every Thursday morning while I sit in class, I can watch it whenever I want over the next week. I'd rather not wait for the DVDs, because then I'd have to watch the teasers, and be like, darn, I have to wait 4 months to see this.
But we ain't there yet- and given my history with used radios and TVs, and the current hassle over HDTV broadcast, I'd say we're at least 40, perhaps 50 years away from this becoming nationwide reality; and at least 100 years before it becomes worldwide reality.
Do you really think so? I mean, when I bought my first computer 10 years ago, 56k was blazing fast. And wireless was unheard of (at least beyond 5 foot, PDA to PDA transmissions). Now Wireless is much more commonplace, and the bandwidth is rising rapidly. I doubt it'll take 50 years. Given the rate at which technology now moves, we could see enough bandwidth wirelessly all over major markets (read: big cities) within 15 years, and maybe 25 for it to go everywhere. Since the amount of bandwidth you need is roughly proportional to population, it's easier to cover rural areas adequately. With radio, signal strength needs to be based on terrain, since an area needs a certain amount of signal regardless of whether it is populated or not.
Full seasons cost less than the price of all their episodes Call me stupid, but I never have seen this option. I mean, I see where I can order the Season 1 of stuff, like Lost, but where is the option to order the season up front? It would be a lot nicer to get the discount and the timeliness all at once. Like if I wanted to subscribe to get all of Lost Season 2, I can't seem to find that (although I actually don't watch Lost).
Personally, I think Apple needs to have more content before it reaches unstoppable critical mass. Like they need at least half the shows on TV. If they get everything ABC-Disney has, and pick up NBC, they have a good start. And old shows. I'd buy old "Serenity"s or whatever.
IMDB Rocks. I work on the committee that brings movies to our college for cheap prices ($3 a ticket), and we rely heavily on it to know which movies we want to show. We also go on personal choices, but it is nice to have the resources of IMDb.
Well, in that case, I'm patenting "making online forum posts to avoid working". Just so you know, I take my royalties in cash, check, and hot girls roughly my age (18).
No offense, but it doesn't really matter right now. If a result of Google serving it's advertising customers is a bunch of good stuff for me, I'm generally happy. I mean, there is a risk that the advertisers could then have so much power over Google as its "customers" that they force Google to do things we don't like. But given how that is possible in other industries where the customer-company relationship is traditional (i.e. TiVo), it doesn't seem like any sort of negative change.
With this technology, I can't easily lend out the product. For instance, my family at one point was forced to share a cell phone. This technology would make it an annoyance to share your phone, since you'd have to do the password all the time. If this is applied to other things, it could create a society where people can't share useful things like cars or whatever, which would be great for industries. When I was in High School, there were a lot of families with 2 cars for 3 drivers, and they scheduled it well. But with this technology they couldn't do that easily.
I bet prices wont even drop after this, 'due to inflation'.Or, prices will stay the same/rise because of the whole having to pay $300 million. They get stung for overcharging us, so they'll have to pass the costs on. And they just blame the gov't. So we pay higher prices than we would have, and far higher than we should be paying. Anyone want to reconsider this?
Slashdot Mirror
For those who can't wait for MIT to stop playing with their death rays and cure this painful addiction, there is hope at http://www.civanon.org/home.shtml
There's going to be a circus?
gives a new meaning to "Moon Bounce". And it makes the trapese child's play.
Because what'd the headlines be:
"New MS OS: Windows Vista puts Microsoft only three years behind Apple!"
"Internet Explorer to match nearest competitor in some areas"?
"Hotmail and MSN Search may reduce Google's functional/features lead"?
Microsoft's "next-generation" stuff just puts them on or just below par in most areas. Assuming it isn't bug-ridden, and comes out before OS X.6 or so. Really, I don't want those headlines.
Not to mention, exactly none of the stuff you mentioned is coming out this year. Why should the media cover stuff that won't come out for another six months at best, and isn't set in stone as far as features?
The decent reality is that Apple don't do much, but when they concentrate on improving a product they do produce a good result. (As does any company that focuses their efforts on a sole product.)
On the contrary, the special thing about Apple is that it just improved the majority of their product lines in the last 6 weeks, with significant functional upgrades (while keeping prices mostly constant). I mean, iMac, PowerMac, iBook, PowerBook, iPod Nano, iPod w/ video? Most companies could pick two, but Apple is doing all of them. Not to mention introducing new products that may be cool (Front Row, Apenture, the widescreen monitors). I bet we'll get 10.4.3 this year too. And 10.5 (Leopard) by mid-next year.
We'll be getting all of this before Vista even hits shelves. And Vista will probably be a bug-ridden, first-generation mess. I mean, we'll probably be getting OS Y before they release the fixes for Vista. And I haven't seen unambiguous evidence that IE7 is going to be a trendsetter (sure, it may catch Firefox/Opera, but beat them?). And the new Word looks like it'll be hit-or-miss with the new interface.
That's why Steve Jobs is on the cover of Time this week.
Ok, I personally like what you're saying. If I had more than 2k dollars (american), I might bite. But the majority of Americans would never think of going to a bank outside the US. I mean, maybe we'd think about it, but even if we liked the idea (doubtful), we're still pretty lazy (I'm no exception). I generally don't rely on any sort of expectations that involve any voluntary action from an average American. Especially if it's that complex. I mean, it's an option for a multimillionare's accounts, but for John and Jane Public's college savings fund? Or grocery money? I doubt it.
if FEMA/Fed Govt would of moved before hand the people bitching now would be bitching about "Oh noes! States' Rights!" instead.
Maybe, but if so, then a few hundred people might still be alive. That's worth a lot.
What I've heard is that if you know for certain that you aren't drunk, take the blood test, because it is the most reliable and you can have it re-tested if you don't like the answer. If you aren't sure, take the breath test because it's easier to challenge in court.
See, I'd go with the breathalyzer in all cases. It's quicker. If I'm not drunk, I want to get going. I mean, what's a blood test? Half an hour to station or ER, then getting the test taken, then getting back on the road? Heck of a lot time to waste.
Personally, I'd like it if they had their own section. Like there is an Apple section, a Linux section, etc, how about a New Toys section? I mean, I'm all for reading about good new products, therefore I don't think ad posts are defacto bad, but it would be nice to distinguish them as biased towards the manufacturer.
::Braces for the inevitable "What, slashdot biased?" joke::
I have both Opera and Firefox, and I use Firefox more. I like the extensions mostly. But I suppose it is a matter of personal taste.
However, I've got to say that I love the shadow effect on the Opera icon. It looks pretty sweet when I zoom in to it on the Dock. Yes, I'm easily amused.
I'm talking about internet communities in general, not any type in specific. The trend seems to be towards spamming increasing with growth. And it isn't just spamming, a tiered system could prevent people who don't know what they're talking about from messing with major issues.
My comments should not be construed as negative towards Wikipedians. I have deep respect for people who volunteer for good causes, and I commend them on a overall good job.
Which may be happening here: the Cingulars and Nextels may start getting annoyed enough by the absurdities of patent law and the effect on their bottom line that they start to lobby for a change. Unfortunately, the change is not likely to make things any easier for the bulk of us.
Yeah, and when they do, it'll be couched in terms that sound like something we'd like, until we read the fine print or amendments. And everyone in America will think the problem is solved, and Joe Average, if he even understood the problem, will be happy, but it'll just be worse. Bit of a gloomy mood I suppose.
Wait, run that by me again... How can the Mafia sue the **AAs for stealing their business model if "there is no Mafia"?
It seems like this is sort of a trend. I mean, didn't vandalism and trolling force the introduction of the moderation system here? And didn't that happen nearly everywhere on the web as discussion boards increased in size? Anyone see a trend? It seems that once it goes from a clubhouse to a gym, you start to get bad apples.
Another poster suggested a leveling system, and I agree. I think that wikipedia should establish a system whereby articles are ranked, i.e. culture - specialized - mainstream or something. That way, as you start out, you can work on culture articles, then work your way up. Or maybe base it on page views and specialization. People who just joined can make new articles (to fill the missing ones) or can work on general articles that are rarely viewed, then work their way up.
Or, on the same note, while I am confident 99.9 percent of the people here have done nothing illegal of this severity, but couldn't a lot of innocent searchs be misconstrued if desired? I mean, if ever the gov't decided they didn't like somebody? How hard would it be to find 5 things out of about a million we searched for, and tie them together into something that looks troublesome?
Yeah, I've been meaning to write a letter to them. I have a few other minor suggestions too. the reason I'd subscribe to a whole season is that I often have to miss the primetime Wednesday time in front of the suite TV, because I have stuff to do. But if I could pay, say $35-40 or so for the whole season (22-24 eps), and have the new one download every Thursday morning while I sit in class, I can watch it whenever I want over the next week. I'd rather not wait for the DVDs, because then I'd have to watch the teasers, and be like, darn, I have to wait 4 months to see this.
But we ain't there yet- and given my history with used radios and TVs, and the current hassle over HDTV broadcast, I'd say we're at least 40, perhaps 50 years away from this becoming nationwide reality; and at least 100 years before it becomes worldwide reality.
Do you really think so? I mean, when I bought my first computer 10 years ago, 56k was blazing fast. And wireless was unheard of (at least beyond 5 foot, PDA to PDA transmissions). Now Wireless is much more commonplace, and the bandwidth is rising rapidly. I doubt it'll take 50 years. Given the rate at which technology now moves, we could see enough bandwidth wirelessly all over major markets (read: big cities) within 15 years, and maybe 25 for it to go everywhere. Since the amount of bandwidth you need is roughly proportional to population, it's easier to cover rural areas adequately. With radio, signal strength needs to be based on terrain, since an area needs a certain amount of signal regardless of whether it is populated or not.
Full seasons cost less than the price of all their episodes Call me stupid, but I never have seen this option. I mean, I see where I can order the Season 1 of stuff, like Lost, but where is the option to order the season up front? It would be a lot nicer to get the discount and the timeliness all at once. Like if I wanted to subscribe to get all of Lost Season 2, I can't seem to find that (although I actually don't watch Lost).
Personally, I think Apple needs to have more content before it reaches unstoppable critical mass. Like they need at least half the shows on TV. If they get everything ABC-Disney has, and pick up NBC, they have a good start. And old shows. I'd buy old "Serenity"s or whatever.
IMDB Rocks. I work on the committee that brings movies to our college for cheap prices ($3 a ticket), and we rely heavily on it to know which movies we want to show. We also go on personal choices, but it is nice to have the resources of IMDb.
Well, in that case, I'm patenting "making online forum posts to avoid working". Just so you know, I take my royalties in cash, check, and hot girls roughly my age (18).
No offense, but it doesn't really matter right now. If a result of Google serving it's advertising customers is a bunch of good stuff for me, I'm generally happy. I mean, there is a risk that the advertisers could then have so much power over Google as its "customers" that they force Google to do things we don't like. But given how that is possible in other industries where the customer-company relationship is traditional (i.e. TiVo), it doesn't seem like any sort of negative change.
Oh, great. now I have a serious case of insomnia. Check your mail for the lawsuit for about a dozen years of psychologist's bills.
Sound doesn't travel in space.
And they'd get lawsuits for keeping people up at night. It's always 3am somewhere, and that'd wake the whole planet up.
With this technology, I can't easily lend out the product. For instance, my family at one point was forced to share a cell phone. This technology would make it an annoyance to share your phone, since you'd have to do the password all the time. If this is applied to other things, it could create a society where people can't share useful things like cars or whatever, which would be great for industries. When I was in High School, there were a lot of families with 2 cars for 3 drivers, and they scheduled it well. But with this technology they couldn't do that easily.
I meant reconsider the system. But I have no intention of buying Samsung memory.
I bet prices wont even drop after this, 'due to inflation'.Or, prices will stay the same/rise because of the whole having to pay $300 million. They get stung for overcharging us, so they'll have to pass the costs on. And they just blame the gov't. So we pay higher prices than we would have, and far higher than we should be paying. Anyone want to reconsider this?