Yes, and why? The Microsoft monopoly. This was predicted fifteen years ago. Fifteen years ago, we also knew that search was the hardest problem in computing. Search and sorting are very slow and processor intensive. I think it's fitting that the company that gave us a good way to search and sort large amounts of data will also be the one to give us the thin client machines, because they know how to build the apps for it, and they know it has always been the way to go.
That being said, public transportation, such as the train, should be in every city, but it's not. Why? People love their cars. It gives them freedom. In the same respect, I love my computer, and that's one problem Google would have to solve. Or is that solved. I can use my computer, or a thin client to access their apps, so I think they are in good shape.
I agree for the most part, but then why don't most people use it. Because they have old computers running unsupported and unsecured versions of Windows ME, which I don't believe you can run Firefox on. You can run Google's office programs on the old computer, but good luck getting the spy and ad ware off of it. People will throw away these machines, because of the spy and ad ware, when they would be fine for Google's programs. Google doesn't want people to buy new computers with the new Windows OS to run the Google apps. If people could keep their old computers, and use a Google boot CD to run some thin OS that give them secured web browsing, and if they repackage their apps, then they might have something.
I think the way that Google will go is to make thin client apps that will run on any old computer. They could use a simple file system to install on peoples old and insecure desktops to secure them, and have something to run Firefox or whatever client will access their products. And they will have all their other apps put together in a nice form or package. Whatever file system people install on their desktops will allow them to install third party software.
Really it's a hard sale for most people. Do you want all your info, or say just all your email, documents, video, and whatever else (depending on what products they create) on Google servers. Does Google want to compete with M$ in this arena? Of course the Google OS would be free as in beer with labels. I'm not sure.
I think the more likely scenario would be a Google OS for Servers. To be sure, they are using a custom file system, and they have that down pat. An end-user product is less likely. If it isn't perfect, they likely won't release it.
There was 60+ students standing around. If you ever see something like this happening, and you don't help, then you are just as bad as the police were in this case.
Being gay is a non-issue. Being a hypocrite should be huge issue in politics. Censorship is even a bigger issue.
Here's the clip. Note in the comment section of that post, they mention a few other hypocrites.
Here's the image that CNN showed on their censored rebroadcast of their 9/11 footage. I guess they didn't want people to wonder why their were reports of bombs in the building, and start doing research.
Fact is censorship is everywhere. We only get half the story, if that.
On the whole Table vs DIV thing...
Let me try to be more clear. If you are looking for the holy grail of web design, the three col layout without tables, you won't find a good, clean, and easy solution that has what I believe are good principles of design. Sites like the Slashdot front page can have 20%+ white space, once you scroll down, with a big monitor.
Sites that are badly designed because they don't use tables. Example One... Three cols, no tables, but no footer. Try to put the footer on it, and it will float. Example Two... Not really three cols... It's two, and the footer might float over the right hand side if the body isn't long enough, so it isn't used on comments, or any page that has user generated content that may not exist. Example Three... Looks like three cols, and it is, with all divs, but it's 60% whitespace, because the body size is fixed. This is a case where you can have a nicer monitor, and the site would look worse. Again, its just not right.
It is silly to try to use divs where they don't fit. Use tables when appropriate. Using a table to float a picture in a paragraph would be silly. You would have extra cols every where, and it wouldn't render correctly. Using a div to float the picture is the right thing to do.
On not using the DOCTYPE
If you say it's Strict XHTML, it will use an XML parser, and browsers won't function alike. If you don't use the DOCTYPE statement, it punts the sites content to the HTML parser that will try to render most anything, and you will be less likely to get large differences in the way it renders in different browsers.
I think that in most cases, you are better off without using a DOCTYPE statement. If you tell a web browser that your site is XML 1.0 Strict, it might try to use an XML parser to read the site, which could cause lots of problems if it isn't. And even if your site is true XML, why not have it put to the HTML parser anyway. It's good to program with standards, but often it's good to get the browser to punt to the HTML parser, which will usually parse any crap that anyone tosses at it.
It seems that most of the web 2.0 sites use only strict XML in their site, and they might get Geek Cred for that, but the sites end up being dull looking, because they can only allow for a limited amount of text. Think del.icio.us, which will parse nicely. It has no images, and no user generated styles. Why not? I bet they don't want to have to handle others html errors. They can clean up text only, but not other stuff. It works for them, but you can tell that they may be limited by what they allow users to input. Google doesn't seem to be strict anything, but they seem to know what they are doing. I think most browsers will parse it. Myspace seems to allow a wide range of user input, and it doesn't parse as standard. They seem to get traffic, and users seem to enjoy the flashing bright lights, and the songs playing the second you visit the site.
The one thing that gets me is people using divs when they should use tables. Divs have not deprecated. For all the grail hunters, you are being duped... tables is the only true solution.
From TFA: If the advanced negotiations are successfully concluded, Amazon's service would position itself in the media world alongside rivals like Apple Computer's iTunes as a place where people go not just to order goods to be sent by mail, but to instantly enjoy digital wares as well.
I think that Amazon competing with Apple iTunes or Google Video is a bad idea. It seems that Amazon's power is in it's large (physical, not digital) distribution system. But, I think they may be half way to something good. Maybe this would help them compete with the box stores. Say I want to buy a video from Amazon, because it's cheaper than Sprawlmart, but I want to watch the video that night, and not wait for the mail. That would be a great service and Amazon might be able to provide this. Let me stream it tonight, and get the dvd in the mail next week. Will Amazon move in this direction?
You are upset simply because you probably like the types of video games that Hillary Clinton has it in her mind to control, not because you against the government controlling products on the market per say. Everyone loves regulation and government, until they find the thing they enjoy restricted by the government. Unfortunatly, so many "liberals" (and "conservatives" for that matter), are entirely willing to have the things they like regulated, in exchange for the ability to tell everyone else how to live.
You are close with this, and I almost to mod you up. I'm upset they want to conduct a study that will cost 90 mil, to manufacture results for what I believe is the wrong reason. I do believe in regulation, but that regulation should not impose on constitutionally protected items, such as speech, privacy, and arms. Regulate the pharmaceutical co's. Regulate the toxic polluters. Leave rising the children to the 'rents.
Here's my dilemma. I like music and I like my computer. I used to like CD's, but I like my computer more than I like CD's. I don't like the mixed-bag-of-root-kits-and-DRM that CD's want to put on my computer, so I don't buy them. I also don't like the DRM from iTunes, but at least from them I know what I'm getting. But, I've never bought from iTunes. So, where should I buy my music? The answer is, I don't buy it at all. I would pay for it. I want to pay for it. I used to pay for it. But, I don't like my toys to be broken by greedy strangers... Ok, extremely wealthy and greedy strangers. So, now, I still get my music, and I don't pay. If the record companies still sold a product that wasn't broken, or a risk, I'd like to pay them, or better yet the artist, for the music. But they are not offering something I'm comfortable with, so they get none.
"I'm a liberal, and proud of it." Maybe I should say "I form my own opinions and I'm proud of that."
I have a strong sense-of-self, and I'm proud of it. Maslow would be proud; I am the self actualized person. I know the two systems that the two US political partys support, and I know which one benfits me. I don't choose my beliefs by which side of the bed I wake-up on. I study the differnces, learn the issues, make a choice, and stick by that choice, until it becomes clear that I made the wrong choice. I'm proud that I have strong resolve. I did lock myself into a club; the club of me! You may not know who you are, or what you believe, and you may not be proud because of that, but I know who I am, I know what I believe, and I'll tell you about it. You can try to do that, and on a good day you might succeed, but don't put me down because I have resolve, when you don't.
Actually, the truth is that we're both pro-liberty, regardless of our other political leanings. Neither liberals nor conservatives "own" freedom.
Oh Really? The whole demestic spying thing isn't very liberal. Envading nations without rhyme or reason doesn't embrace liberty. I think liberty envolves the whole rule-of-law and no-one-being-above-the-law ideas.
Liberal comes from liberty; conservative comes from conserve. One's clearly about getting more liberty, when the others about maintaining the level of liberty we had 200 years ago.
Now, I'm a bit smarter than that. All my surfing is logged on my home computer. My home computer is my proxy. Easy enough to do, though I did study CS for many years. Funny, though, because the system admin wanted me to run a spyware remover on my desktop at work, that I've used for two years now. It came back with only one cookie that it thought was set to last to long. He was stunned. Not bad for all that time here.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh, our wiki has the same problems.
Yes, and why? The Microsoft monopoly. This was predicted fifteen years ago. Fifteen years ago, we also knew that search was the hardest problem in computing. Search and sorting are very slow and processor intensive. I think it's fitting that the company that gave us a good way to search and sort large amounts of data will also be the one to give us the thin client machines, because they know how to build the apps for it, and they know it has always been the way to go.
That being said, public transportation, such as the train, should be in every city, but it's not. Why? People love their cars. It gives them freedom. In the same respect, I love my computer, and that's one problem Google would have to solve. Or is that solved. I can use my computer, or a thin client to access their apps, so I think they are in good shape.
I agree for the most part, but then why don't most people use it. Because they have old computers running unsupported and unsecured versions of Windows ME, which I don't believe you can run Firefox on. You can run Google's office programs on the old computer, but good luck getting the spy and ad ware off of it. People will throw away these machines, because of the spy and ad ware, when they would be fine for Google's programs. Google doesn't want people to buy new computers with the new Windows OS to run the Google apps. If people could keep their old computers, and use a Google boot CD to run some thin OS that give them secured web browsing, and if they repackage their apps, then they might have something.
How is something like this going to run on non-broadband?
They will give everyone free broadband.
http://wifi.google.com/
I like the idea of Google hosting my OS and my web servers. I bet they would do it, since I'm an Adsense user.
I think the way that Google will go is to make thin client apps that will run on any old computer. They could use a simple file system to install on peoples old and insecure desktops to secure them, and have something to run Firefox or whatever client will access their products. And they will have all their other apps put together in a nice form or package. Whatever file system people install on their desktops will allow them to install third party software.
Really it's a hard sale for most people. Do you want all your info, or say just all your email, documents, video, and whatever else (depending on what products they create) on Google servers. Does Google want to compete with M$ in this arena? Of course the Google OS would be free as in beer with labels. I'm not sure.
I think the more likely scenario would be a Google OS for Servers. To be sure, they are using a custom file system, and they have that down pat. An end-user product is less likely. If it isn't perfect, they likely won't release it.
There was 60+ students standing around. If you ever see something like this happening, and you don't help, then you are just as bad as the police were in this case.
I predict that we'll have a Jewish president before an athiest.
Russ Feingold?
Hey, a new way to spam Google.
Being gay is a non-issue. Being a hypocrite should be huge issue in politics. Censorship is even a bigger issue.
Here's the clip. Note in the comment section of that post, they mention a few other hypocrites.
Here's the image that CNN showed on their censored rebroadcast of their 9/11 footage. I guess they didn't want people to wonder why their were reports of bombs in the building, and start doing research.
Fact is censorship is everywhere. We only get half the story, if that.
On the whole Table vs DIV thing...
Let me try to be more clear. If you are looking for the holy grail of web design, the three col layout without tables, you won't find a good, clean, and easy solution that has what I believe are good principles of design. Sites like the Slashdot front page can have 20%+ white space, once you scroll down, with a big monitor.
Sites that are badly designed because they don't use tables.
Example One... Three cols, no tables, but no footer. Try to put the footer on it, and it will float.
Example Two... Not really three cols... It's two, and the footer might float over the right hand side if the body isn't long enough, so it isn't used on comments, or any page that has user generated content that may not exist.
Example Three... Looks like three cols, and it is, with all divs, but it's 60% whitespace, because the body size is fixed. This is a case where you can have a nicer monitor, and the site would look worse. Again, its just not right.
It is silly to try to use divs where they don't fit. Use tables when appropriate. Using a table to float a picture in a paragraph would be silly. You would have extra cols every where, and it wouldn't render correctly. Using a div to float the picture is the right thing to do.
On not using the DOCTYPE
If you say it's Strict XHTML, it will use an XML parser, and browsers won't function alike. If you don't use the DOCTYPE statement, it punts the sites content to the HTML parser that will try to render most anything, and you will be less likely to get large differences in the way it renders in different browsers.
I think that in most cases, you are better off without using a DOCTYPE statement. If you tell a web browser that your site is XML 1.0 Strict, it might try to use an XML parser to read the site, which could cause lots of problems if it isn't. And even if your site is true XML, why not have it put to the HTML parser anyway. It's good to program with standards, but often it's good to get the browser to punt to the HTML parser, which will usually parse any crap that anyone tosses at it.
It seems that most of the web 2.0 sites use only strict XML in their site, and they might get Geek Cred for that, but the sites end up being dull looking, because they can only allow for a limited amount of text. Think del.icio.us, which will parse nicely. It has no images, and no user generated styles. Why not? I bet they don't want to have to handle others html errors. They can clean up text only, but not other stuff. It works for them, but you can tell that they may be limited by what they allow users to input. Google doesn't seem to be strict anything, but they seem to know what they are doing. I think most browsers will parse it. Myspace seems to allow a wide range of user input, and it doesn't parse as standard. They seem to get traffic, and users seem to enjoy the flashing bright lights, and the songs playing the second you visit the site.
The one thing that gets me is people using divs when they should use tables. Divs have not deprecated. For all the grail hunters, you are being duped... tables is the only true solution.
Are you bothered by the executive violating federal law to collect personal data on you? (note, they are not getting any judicial oversight)
Answer... YES
And Google's cache...
Here's the rest of the ad campaign. Or this.
Don't know if they advertise their "chief" positions, but it looks like they want a whole marketing department.
In related news, it seems that Diebold has since started a new ad campaign.
In more related news, stock of the Harland Company, parent company of Scantron, got a small bump today.
From TFA:
If the advanced negotiations are successfully concluded, Amazon's service would position itself in the media world alongside rivals like Apple Computer's iTunes as a place where people go not just to order goods to be sent by mail, but to instantly enjoy digital wares as well.
I think that Amazon competing with Apple iTunes or Google Video is a bad idea. It seems that Amazon's power is in it's large (physical, not digital) distribution system. But, I think they may be half way to something good. Maybe this would help them compete with the box stores. Say I want to buy a video from Amazon, because it's cheaper than Sprawlmart, but I want to watch the video that night, and not wait for the mail. That would be a great service and Amazon might be able to provide this. Let me stream it tonight, and get the dvd in the mail next week. Will Amazon move in this direction?
You are upset simply because you probably like the types of video games that Hillary Clinton has it in her mind to control, not because you against the government controlling products on the market per say. Everyone loves regulation and government, until they find the thing they enjoy restricted by the government. Unfortunatly, so many "liberals" (and "conservatives" for that matter), are entirely willing to have the things they like regulated, in exchange for the ability to tell everyone else how to live.
You are close with this, and I almost to mod you up. I'm upset they want to conduct a study that will cost 90 mil, to manufacture results for what I believe is the wrong reason. I do believe in regulation, but that regulation should not impose on constitutionally protected items, such as speech, privacy, and arms. Regulate the pharmaceutical co's. Regulate the toxic polluters. Leave rising the children to the 'rents.
Here's my dilemma. I like music and I like my computer. I used to like CD's, but I like my computer more than I like CD's. I don't like the mixed-bag-of-root-kits-and-DRM that CD's want to put on my computer, so I don't buy them. I also don't like the DRM from iTunes, but at least from them I know what I'm getting. But, I've never bought from iTunes. So, where should I buy my music? The answer is, I don't buy it at all. I would pay for it. I want to pay for it. I used to pay for it. But, I don't like my toys to be broken by greedy strangers... Ok, extremely wealthy and greedy strangers. So, now, I still get my music, and I don't pay. If the record companies still sold a product that wasn't broken, or a risk, I'd like to pay them, or better yet the artist, for the music. But they are not offering something I'm comfortable with, so they get none.
Read the questions and answers. It's a voluntary system that movie theaters have adopted to prevent the possibility of government censorship.
Yeah, the government scares them into making a voluntary rating system that turns the movies into cheese. I feel much better about the research now.
"I'm a liberal, and proud of it." Maybe I should say "I form my own opinions and I'm proud of that."
I have a strong sense-of-self, and I'm proud of it. Maslow would be proud; I am the self actualized person. I know the two systems that the two US political partys support, and I know which one benfits me. I don't choose my beliefs by which side of the bed I wake-up on. I study the differnces, learn the issues, make a choice, and stick by that choice, until it becomes clear that I made the wrong choice. I'm proud that I have strong resolve. I did lock myself into a club; the club of me! You may not know who you are, or what you believe, and you may not be proud because of that, but I know who I am, I know what I believe, and I'll tell you about it. You can try to do that, and on a good day you might succeed, but don't put me down because I have resolve, when you don't.
Actually, the truth is that we're both pro-liberty, regardless of our other political leanings. Neither liberals nor conservatives "own" freedom.
Oh Really? The whole demestic spying thing isn't very liberal. Envading nations without rhyme or reason doesn't embrace liberty. I think liberty envolves the whole rule-of-law and no-one-being-above-the-law ideas.
Liberal comes from liberty; conservative comes from conserve. One's clearly about getting more liberty, when the others about maintaining the level of liberty we had 200 years ago.
Now, I'm a bit smarter than that. All my surfing is logged on my home computer. My home computer is my proxy. Easy enough to do, though I did study CS for many years. Funny, though, because the system admin wanted me to run a spyware remover on my desktop at work, that I've used for two years now. It came back with only one cookie that it thought was set to last to long. He was stunned. Not bad for all that time here.