My company doesn't give me administrator privilages, but has IE 5.5 installed. They haven't told me exactly what I can or can't do with my computer (except "you can browse the web in your down-time, but don't look at porn"), but I don't think the people that immediately oversee me know enough about computers to understand installing programs and stuff (really, it's pretty amazing--they don't even know that IE 5.5 is different at all from whatever they use at home).
The computer won't let my upgrade IE, so I installed Opera and Firefox. Is this "unauthorized software"?
Now, let's go a step more complicated.
They said I can browse the web in my downtime, right. So I figured I can also download and view MIT physics lectures (yes, Walter Lewin). My computer doesn't have proper codecs to view these videos. So I had to install codecs, but the computer is very resistant to that--it took a lot of trial and error to find a codec that would install and also play the videos.
Did the larger amount of work to avoid the problems associated with a lack of administrator privileges make this "unauthorized"?
I've also tweaked the registry (this is Windows 2000) because there were several programs starting with the computer that I have no use for. "Unauthorized"?
from the c-net article:
Both the Firefox and Opera Web browsers, which compete with Apple's pre-installed Safari browser, are forbidden as they support hundreds of user-created add-ons. I've been an Opera user for some time now, but I have somehow missed the "hundreds of user-created add-ons" that are apparently available.
Does the author mean user-javascript, perhaps? I don't think so. Otherwise, given that Opera really doesn't support extensions, and Opera has no intention of allowing extensions (for much the same reason Apple doesn't want to allow extensions, which might be (a) malicious, or (b) crappily coded), does this mean that Opera won't actually be blocked?
However, this will become a more important issue as more nanoparticle-based drugs get on the market. They're effective in smaller concentrations--often parts per billion.
In firefox 2 the test shows a red picture of a cat.
Very interesting. I also got a 50/100. The rectangles are all messed up--they're gray, stacked vertically, and each rectangle is the width of the test. The test name also has no shadow.
I just tried it on Opera 9.5 Beta, build 9755. I got a 60/100. Then I tried again and got a 61/100. Then a 60/100 on a third try.
All of the rectangles are grey (two different shades), the test name is red and does not have a shadow, and there is an x in the upper right hand corner.
It's clear to me that Slashdot is full of what I read recently described as "Google experts."
String theory, although considered by many to be not testable, would rarely be called non-scientific. It has its critics, but it is certainly a theory.
Second, a failed theory is not a failed hypothesis. They are very different things. All theories are hypotheses under your apparent thoughts.
A hypothesis is derived from a theory. For example, when Einstein proposed his General Theory of Relativity, which described, among other things, the effect a mass causes upon the curvature of space-time--he stated that if his theory is correct, it would suggest that scientists should be able to measure a difference in the apparent placement of a certain star during a solar eclipse. The theory is that mass curves space-time, and therefore the sun can bend the light from a star on its way to earth, the hypothesis was that humans will perceive a difference in where a certain star is located in the sky during a solare eclipse.
If the hypothesis was falsified (i.e., if the star appeared to be in the same place), the whole general theory of relativity would have been falsified. The theory of relativity would still have remained a theory--albeit a falsified one. It does not suddenly become the same as its failed hypothesis. That would take some unusual physics indeed.
A theory is an attempt to explain phenomena. I see X, Y, and Z. Why? Perhaps because ABC causes X, Y, and Z. If ABC really is the cause, we should also see D, E, and F.
X, Y, and Z are data, or facts. ABC is a theory. The prediction of D, E, and F are hypotheses.
The scientific definition of theory does not differentiate between a theory that is not disproven when someone sets out to find D, E, and F and one that is not disproven when one sets out to find D, E, and F, and one in which D, E, and F are very difficult to ascertain. A theory is just a theory whether well supported (meaning falsification has been futile, like evolution and relativity), falsified, or difficult to test.
The site itself could still be accessed at its Internet Protocol address (http://88.80.13.160/) the unique number that specifies a Web sites location on the Internet. Wikileaks also maintained mirror sites, or copies usually produced to ensure against failures and this kind of legal action. Some sites were registered in Belgium (http://wikileaks.be/), Germany (http://wikileaks.de) and the Christmas Islands (http://wikileaks.cx) through domain registrars other than Dynadot, and so were not affected by the injunction.
A theory is a statement that has been supported by evidence from repeatable experiments and can be used to make accurate predictions that can be borne out by experiment. No its not--what you describe is a good theory--like evolution or general relativity. Bad theories exist as well (ones that were falsified or that just no longer make sense--like the "aether"), or even theories that I couldn't really say are good or bad (ones which remain untested, or are difficult to use in the formation of testable hypotheses--like string theory).
I've been having a terrible time with the latest version of OOo in Ubuntu 7.10. In fact--I pretty much just use KWrite and Abiword now just because of bugs. I find this very odd of course--OOo always worked fine before!
You're correct that the Wren Cross was donated to W&M in the 1930s (though the Wren Chapel was built in the 1700s), but your attempt to distinguish between a church and a chapel doesn't make sense to me. A church is a building for worship, and a chapel is the primary room used in a church for worship. So this is a religious building--Christian in particular. And the school decided in the 1930s to display in it a cross, that we would now describe as historic. I just don't see why removing it was worth the controversy. What's next--the chapel is no longer a part of a church? A chapel is not to be thought of as a space associated with religion? Very odd.
As for the Sex Worker's Art Show, I don't see why you describe it as "poorly named." The wikipedia article (linked) seems to describe the show just as the name does. And I don't see how prior allowance of the show justifies making a tradition of it. I see the first showing in the conservative town as indulgence for the college, which is central to Williamsburg (giving an inch). But making a tradition of it was beyond what this little town could handle (not allowing them to take a mile).
Just to clarify: The religious symbol was a very old cross inside of a very old church on campus (the school is owned by the state, so it is technically a public building--a church, though, nonetheless). The "controversal event" was a sex worker's art show (second year running, I believe). Also important for context is understanding that the town of Williamsburg is very conservative.
I'm not saying this to say that the president's removal was necissarily right or wrong, just to show that the issue is a bit more complicated when given a more full explanation of the facts.
I work for the Geek Squad and we have had something like this for a while. It is called "Fix Computer" and will automatically format your hard drive and reinstall a clean version of XP, complete with updates. We use it for all of our customers that need a restore, have spyware of virus problems, or would like some new software installed.
My understanding of Linus' comment was that the operating system (Linux) should be invisible--he didn not say that distributions shouldn't have a UI.
In other words, Ubuntu, for example, is trying to make Linux appealing to an average person. They aren't, therefore, going to distribute the Os without a UI. The operating system in Ubuntu should be (and mostly is) invisible, and the user is interacting with Gnome or KDE or XFCE or whatever.
Ubuntu, then, I would say, is not departing from Linus' philosophy--they give you several choices of user interfaces through which you can do what you want with your computer, while the OS does the work invisibly.
What am I missing here. Computer World MUST know more about this than me.
I'm a fan of Dave Barry, but I went back and read this guy's paragraph about his survey--this time keeping what you said in mind--and I'm just not seeing it. There was no humor intended in those aspects of his paragraph.
If humor was intended then he's got a bit of work to do before he can take over for Dave Barry.
Methinks it was a little more than his pronunciation that made him sound stupid. I have to agree. He bothered me right from the beginning:
But in my own random survey of 30 Vista users on Amazon's Mechanical Turk service . . . I'm aware that a survey of 30 people is too small to be scientific One can hardly call a survey on Amazon's Mechanical Turk " random. First, people who use the turk to make money are not average computer users. Second, people using the turk to make money can choose which task they'd like to address. The fact he thought this was "random" tipped me off to his mental ineptitude.
Further reading of the article, which I did not finish, confirmed this. If there was anything to the contrary later in the article, perhaps someone with some combination of courage, boredom, and masochistic tendencies could finish it and post the good parts.
1) This article is obviously very old.
. . . However, Opera isn't free, so of course it's not the recommended option. Oh, wait--no it isn't old, the author just doesn't know what he's talking about.
2) The author's problem is that he can't access the "full" (newish) Hotmail UI, not just being able to access Hotmail at all. He can get to Hotmail, he just really wants to use the full UI, for some reason, rather than the "classic" version to which Hotmail apparently reverts in his case.
Of course, I think the "classic" UI is just fine, and surely far less buggy and processor intensive.
I've never tried accessing Hotmail through FF in Linux. I use Opera, which works with the "classic" UI just fine, so I've just never tried. But I assume the parent just didn't read the article and is missing the distinction between the "classic" and "full" UIs.
I'm sure eBay understands that there are no sellers without buyers. If people are afraid to purchase items on eBay because of jerk sellers, then people won't buy things, and good sellers will use a more reputable service to sell, so eBay will take in fewer fees. In order to survice, eBay needs to keep up its reputation with the end consumer, not merely the entity with which it directly involves itself (the seller, via fees).
It would be nice if more of them also offered linux as an option when selecting the OS. At least Dell does. (Thanks.) I checked on the Dell web site just a minute ago, and no--they still don't offer a Latitude with Linux.
It's interesting you say that--I just installed the release candidate for SP3 on my XP VM, and I'll tell you--it made a huge difference to the performance of XP. It now functions just fine with the meager amount of RAM I allotted to it, and it functions well with Office 2007 (i.e., it doesn't take forever to open or run slow) despite, once again, the meager amount of RAM I allow it to use.
And, of course, as you noted, XP is losing support next year--just as it's running better than ever!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes--goobers. I work for the Virginia court system. IT is not their strong point (among the IT people, I mean).
What exactly does "unauthorized software" mean?
My company doesn't give me administrator privilages, but has IE 5.5 installed. They haven't told me exactly what I can or can't do with my computer (except "you can browse the web in your down-time, but don't look at porn"), but I don't think the people that immediately oversee me know enough about computers to understand installing programs and stuff (really, it's pretty amazing--they don't even know that IE 5.5 is different at all from whatever they use at home).
The computer won't let my upgrade IE, so I installed Opera and Firefox. Is this "unauthorized software"?
Now, let's go a step more complicated.
They said I can browse the web in my downtime, right. So I figured I can also download and view MIT physics lectures (yes, Walter Lewin). My computer doesn't have proper codecs to view these videos. So I had to install codecs, but the computer is very resistant to that--it took a lot of trial and error to find a codec that would install and also play the videos.
Did the larger amount of work to avoid the problems associated with a lack of administrator privileges make this "unauthorized"?
I've also tweaked the registry (this is Windows 2000) because there were several programs starting with the computer that I have no use for. "Unauthorized"?
Sorry people--it doesn't work.
Darn advertisers!
The printer-friendly version:
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=20423
Does the author mean user-javascript, perhaps? I don't think so. Otherwise, given that Opera really doesn't support extensions, and Opera has no intention of allowing extensions (for much the same reason Apple doesn't want to allow extensions, which might be (a) malicious, or (b) crappily coded), does this mean that Opera won't actually be blocked?
I agree for the most part.
However, this will become a more important issue as more nanoparticle-based drugs get on the market. They're effective in smaller concentrations--often parts per billion.
That guy only got 7 years for shooting a guy in the face on an elevator? Even 14 seems pretty low to me.
In firefox 2 the test shows a red picture of a cat.
Very interesting. I also got a 50/100. The rectangles are all messed up--they're gray, stacked vertically, and each rectangle is the width of the test. The test name also has no shadow.
I just tried it on Opera 9.5 Beta, build 9755. I got a 60/100. Then I tried again and got a 61/100. Then a 60/100 on a third try.
All of the rectangles are grey (two different shades), the test name is red and does not have a shadow, and there is an x in the upper right hand corner.
People can produce the H2 "either in their garage or even when driving" is what the article says.
Not only in the car. If you bothered to comprehend TFA.
Excellent--now everyone will have tanks of hydrogen gas in their homes.
Is there some way I can invest in firehouses?
It's clear to me that Slashdot is full of what I read recently described as "Google experts."
String theory, although considered by many to be not testable, would rarely be called non-scientific. It has its critics, but it is certainly a theory.
Second, a failed theory is not a failed hypothesis. They are very different things. All theories are hypotheses under your apparent thoughts.
A hypothesis is derived from a theory. For example, when Einstein proposed his General Theory of Relativity, which described, among other things, the effect a mass causes upon the curvature of space-time--he stated that if his theory is correct, it would suggest that scientists should be able to measure a difference in the apparent placement of a certain star during a solar eclipse. The theory is that mass curves space-time, and therefore the sun can bend the light from a star on its way to earth, the hypothesis was that humans will perceive a difference in where a certain star is located in the sky during a solare eclipse.
If the hypothesis was falsified (i.e., if the star appeared to be in the same place), the whole general theory of relativity would have been falsified. The theory of relativity would still have remained a theory--albeit a falsified one. It does not suddenly become the same as its failed hypothesis. That would take some unusual physics indeed.
A theory is an attempt to explain phenomena. I see X, Y, and Z. Why? Perhaps because ABC causes X, Y, and Z. If ABC really is the cause, we should also see D, E, and F.
X, Y, and Z are data, or facts. ABC is a theory. The prediction of D, E, and F are hypotheses.
The scientific definition of theory does not differentiate between a theory that is not disproven when someone sets out to find D, E, and F and one that is not disproven when one sets out to find D, E, and F, and one in which D, E, and F are very difficult to ascertain. A theory is just a theory whether well supported (meaning falsification has been futile, like evolution and relativity), falsified, or difficult to test.
The site itself could still be accessed at its Internet Protocol address (http://88.80.13.160/) the unique number that specifies a Web sites location on the Internet. Wikileaks also maintained mirror sites, or copies usually produced to ensure against failures and this kind of legal action. Some sites were registered in Belgium (http://wikileaks.be/), Germany (http://wikileaks.de) and the Christmas Islands (http://wikileaks.cx) through domain registrars other than Dynadot, and so were not affected by the injunction.
I've been having a terrible time with the latest version of OOo in Ubuntu 7.10. In fact--I pretty much just use KWrite and Abiword now just because of bugs. I find this very odd of course--OOo always worked fine before!
You're correct that the Wren Cross was donated to W&M in the 1930s (though the Wren Chapel was built in the 1700s), but your attempt to distinguish between a church and a chapel doesn't make sense to me. A church is a building for worship, and a chapel is the primary room used in a church for worship. So this is a religious building--Christian in particular. And the school decided in the 1930s to display in it a cross, that we would now describe as historic. I just don't see why removing it was worth the controversy. What's next--the chapel is no longer a part of a church? A chapel is not to be thought of as a space associated with religion? Very odd.
As for the Sex Worker's Art Show, I don't see why you describe it as "poorly named." The wikipedia article (linked) seems to describe the show just as the name does. And I don't see how prior allowance of the show justifies making a tradition of it. I see the first showing in the conservative town as indulgence for the college, which is central to Williamsburg (giving an inch). But making a tradition of it was beyond what this little town could handle (not allowing them to take a mile).
Just to clarify:
The religious symbol was a very old cross inside of a very old church on campus (the school is owned by the state, so it is technically a public building--a church, though, nonetheless).
The "controversal event" was a sex worker's art show (second year running, I believe).
Also important for context is understanding that the town of Williamsburg is very conservative.
I'm not saying this to say that the president's removal was necissarily right or wrong, just to show that the issue is a bit more complicated when given a more full explanation of the facts.
I work for the Geek Squad and we have had something like this for a while. It is called "Fix Computer" and will automatically format your hard drive and reinstall a clean version of XP, complete with updates. We use it for all of our customers that need a restore, have spyware of virus problems, or would like some new software installed.
My understanding of Linus' comment was that the operating system (Linux) should be invisible--he didn not say that distributions shouldn't have a UI.
In other words, Ubuntu, for example, is trying to make Linux appealing to an average person. They aren't, therefore, going to distribute the Os without a UI. The operating system in Ubuntu should be (and mostly is) invisible, and the user is interacting with Gnome or KDE or XFCE or whatever.
Ubuntu, then, I would say, is not departing from Linus' philosophy--they give you several choices of user interfaces through which you can do what you want with your computer, while the OS does the work invisibly.
What am I missing here. Computer World MUST know more about this than me.
"Inept minds think alike," perhaps?
I'm a fan of Dave Barry, but I went back and read this guy's paragraph about his survey--this time keeping what you said in mind--and I'm just not seeing it. There was no humor intended in those aspects of his paragraph.
If humor was intended then he's got a bit of work to do before he can take over for Dave Barry.
Further reading of the article, which I did not finish, confirmed this. If there was anything to the contrary later in the article, perhaps someone with some combination of courage, boredom, and masochistic tendencies could finish it and post the good parts.
1) This article is obviously very old. . . . However, Opera isn't free, so of course it's not the recommended option. Oh, wait--no it isn't old, the author just doesn't know what he's talking about.
2) The author's problem is that he can't access the "full" (newish) Hotmail UI, not just being able to access Hotmail at all. He can get to Hotmail, he just really wants to use the full UI, for some reason, rather than the "classic" version to which Hotmail apparently reverts in his case.
Of course, I think the "classic" UI is just fine, and surely far less buggy and processor intensive.
I've never tried accessing Hotmail through FF in Linux. I use Opera, which works with the "classic" UI just fine, so I've just never tried. But I assume the parent just didn't read the article and is missing the distinction between the "classic" and "full" UIs.
I'm sure eBay understands that there are no sellers without buyers. If people are afraid to purchase items on eBay because of jerk sellers, then people won't buy things, and good sellers will use a more reputable service to sell, so eBay will take in fewer fees. In order to survice, eBay needs to keep up its reputation with the end consumer, not merely the entity with which it directly involves itself (the seller, via fees).
It's interesting you say that--I just installed the release candidate for SP3 on my XP VM, and I'll tell you--it made a huge difference to the performance of XP. It now functions just fine with the meager amount of RAM I allotted to it, and it functions well with Office 2007 (i.e., it doesn't take forever to open or run slow) despite, once again, the meager amount of RAM I allow it to use.
And, of course, as you noted, XP is losing support next year--just as it's running better than ever!