I agree with the above. I gave Ubuntu a major chance a year ago. I committed to Ubuntu for a full 6 months at home without using Windows. I had to go back for a couple of reasons. One, I found it harder to use (and I use linux/unix at work regularly). I had 4 computers at home and non-dual booted perfect the first time and some required extensive research and effort to work. Two, I just had too much invested in Windows only software (both free and paid) that I just could not find a replacement for. That includes everything from games to One Note. I don't use iTunes so that wasn't really a blocker for me.
I like Ubuntu, its just not a Desktop replacement for me and I am fairly geeky. I do run a server/file server on Ubuntu though that all the other computers connect to.
This has already been debunked. The data was cherry picked (i.e. not the most recent year) and the year it was picked from included a year where less than 10% took the test i WI vs other states where a greater majority of students took the test. Therefore in WI the best and brightest were compared against the average student in other states. And we know how smart the average student is.
This is why I use bing more often now. Google may have better results that come back, but they are in between so much spam sites, that it makes it hard to find what you are looking for. So for me, bing is good enough and faster since there is less crap to wade through. That may change in the future, but for now bing works better for me.
Well the lawyerly advice on here is not always the best, at least it would have been better than what the letter writer got. IANAL, but I am also not a moron and know that wasn't a smart response.
Just think about all the culture that would still be available to us today, if the technology to copy was wider spread and available when TV first appeared. We would have a complete collection of all the old Dr. Who episodes.
The editor has shown poor judgment in sourcing someone who hates her. It doesn't matter if it was correct or not.
So wikipedia says Sarah Palin supports an exit plan.
The actual source is a blogger commenting on an email quoting an article from a magazine interview with Sarah Palin and the sourced blogger questions whether Sarah Palin still believes what she said two years later.
This is an example of a high quality source? Do you really have to wonder why Wikipedia has low trust? Was it too hard to quote the actual article that doesn't contain any opinions but the actual words of Sarah Palin herself in raw interview form?
Funny thing was you asked for one example, I search Palin and Sullivan and not only found a crappy source, but the source itself disputing the fact wikipedia took from his blog. If that doesn't make you want to verify the rest of the information I don't know what does.
And your argument is a bait and switch. No one is arguing factual information, but if you source someone who made up a conspiracy about a person as a reliable, then you have to look at the credibility and judgment of the editors. As far as I am concerned that example proves the original poster's point:
"Occasionally they point you to something interesting but you'd better verify what they say elsewhere."
If you want credibility you don't source Andrew Sullivan for Sarah Palin facts just like you wouldn't cite Rush Limbaugh for Obama facts. It shows very poor judgment on the part of the editors.
Andrew Sullivan used as a reference on Sarah Palin. How can he be considered a credible objective source for her wikipedia article after his Trig meltdown?
My guess is that the average paying user, will pay 1-2 dollars a month, but there are the very small % of users that drop a ton of cash to make up for it.
Maybe he is using the median average instead of the mean?
Here a hint to all of those aspiring authors. Unless you write something creative and unique you won't make a living writing books. Sorry, just how it is. There is a couple thousand years of books available, you can't justify a huge price against all of that competition unless you have something new to bring to the table worth buying. The landscape has changed and the access to the information and old books can no longer be controlled. You can blame piracy, but without the monopoly of distribution anymore, the laws of supply and demand are starting to take hold in the marketplace.
As to the FA, I'm not seeing the problem. For the longest time certain information has been hard to come by and in the hands of the rich and powerful for the most part or locked away where the average person can't access it. Having all of this text available easily online is not a problem in my book. It should be encouraged.
Am I going to defend someone who goes and downloads the latest book on Day 1, no. Am I going to shed a tear for the publishing company of someone who downloads a book by an author dead for 10 years instead of buying it? The answer is no to that as well.
I can only hope this is a huge step forward to making knowledge available to all. I fear that most will take it as a way to get the latest Stephen King books or Playboy magazine for free though.
If copyright was more sane the newer works would be respected and older ones available and people would respect the law for the most part. When you are heavy handed against your customers they revolt. You then give your non-customer a chance to take the high ground based on your actions. (Not saying they are justified, but you don't know if that downloader is someone who wants a non-DRM digital copy of their ebook for a backup or just a plain old thief)
Interesting, we are hearing that Yahoo is old news and getting its lunch eaten by Google and in the other breath that people want to plunder it for short term value. Which is it?
My thoughts are this: Remember the stock market goes up over time and individual stocks are a crap shoot at best. If I was a Yahoo stock holder, I'd be pissed the merger didn't go through. A 70+% almost overnight gain, why pass it up. Its money in the bank.
What planet are you from? Do you really think phishing, spam, and viruses will be stopped with an education campaign?
Overall people are trusting and think that the bad things they read about will never happen to them. You can educate them up the wazoo, but you won't change their mindset.
Consumers view it as the company's job anyways to solve all of the above problems. If a consumer gets their information stolen they first blame the company instead of the phisher.
And finally the funny thing is by doing this, paypal will probably run the most effective campaign for security by forcing users to confront the issue. Of course they will just switch browsers and still will be easily scammed, but at least they were warned first.
Thats OK, they will say its for the children, elderly, schools, homeless people and then will blame the boogyman from the other party and then everyone will fall in line and pay the tax happily.
I would have done the same, it looked like Microsoft would have to pony up the cash at the time with more potential suitors out there. But with the current economy, Yahoo's current share price, and no other suitors waiting in the wings any leverage for a higher price is gone.
"Finally, I do believe that Yahoo! is worth more than that ammount,"
If that was true, Yahoo would already be valued at that much. While it may be true at some point in the future that may be the case, but if I was a Yahoo investor considering the economy is entering a recession and Google is starting to slow down I would take the money and find a better investment. The Yahoo board doesn't have its shareholders best interest in mind here.
Whether it is good for the internet, computers, world peace, global warming or the war in Iraq it doesn't matter. The CEOs have a duty to the shareholders that they seem to be neglecting here.
For Clinton to lose given your theory, approximately 100,000 Republicans in Texas and 250,000 Republicans would have had to vote her that would not have. I don't buy that theory. There were some crossovers, like there were in the early Republican primaries BTW, but not enough to account for those margins, especially Ohio.
Remember Republicans hate the Clintons, so why some consider it in their best interest for Hillary to win, that is a lot of people to overcome their hatred for her. Also exit polls showed a lot of cross over for Obama, so I'm assuming many of those Republicans wanted a chance to drive the "stake through her heart" and voted against her. So that means that even more Republicans would have had to vote for her to be the only cause for her victory since she didn't even come close to winning 100% of them. I've heard that she won anywhere from 40% - 60% of them. Assuming the upper end of that range there would have had to been 500,000 Republican voters in Texas messing in the primary (300,000 - 200,000).
Lets be serious here. The numbers just don't add up. Rush can brag all he wants, but the margin was too big for him/Republicans to be the deciding factor.
You are so funny. They will just buy off the next generation of politicians. You think we are the first generation that wanted to change how things are done. Look at the Baby Boomers they were so right and were going to show the old folk how to make the world a better place. All they did was screw it up more.
You mean like George Bush cutting taxes and the tax revenues going up? Can't blame tax cuts for the deficits, its the spending that is the problem. Seems like the problem is not conservative theories trumpeted into facts, but the facts are getting in the way of what ever beliefs you have.
BTW what the hell are conservative and liberal theories anyways? The only theories I see around Washington is the theory that they can take our money and freedom.
Money == Power == Freedom in this country. Any new taxes are taking away our freedom and not helping the poor, the unhealthy, scientific research, or the children. We have more than enough tax money to cover that.
I'll sum it up for you. Taxing other people is OK, don't just tax me. That is how this all fits in a nice tidy bow.
See corrections below:
Taxes are good (for others)
The internet is good
Tax on the internet is bad (it affects me)
There is the current group think for you.
You are right to the extent that they are both phones, but Google doesn't plan to compete in the multimedia phone market. I don't see them stressing the fact that it can play audio or video unless I am missing something. It may have those features, but it isn't a selling point from what I can tell.
At the end of the day they are competitors in some respect and probably will pitted against each other shortly, but it doesn't sound like Google will be marketing, "please turn in your iPhone because the gPhone is better".
Part of the entertainment at the final night party was Grinder Girl. That made things awfully awkward between the male and female coworkers. It shouldn't amaze anyone why females get this impression. Hell, one of the biggest tech conferences of the year added fuel to the fire.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with the above. I gave Ubuntu a major chance a year ago. I committed to Ubuntu for a full 6 months at home without using Windows. I had to go back for a couple of reasons. One, I found it harder to use (and I use linux/unix at work regularly). I had 4 computers at home and non-dual booted perfect the first time and some required extensive research and effort to work. Two, I just had too much invested in Windows only software (both free and paid) that I just could not find a replacement for. That includes everything from games to One Note. I don't use iTunes so that wasn't really a blocker for me.
I like Ubuntu, its just not a Desktop replacement for me and I am fairly geeky. I do run a server/file server on Ubuntu though that all the other computers connect to.
This has already been debunked. The data was cherry picked (i.e. not the most recent year) and the year it was picked from included a year where less than 10% took the test i WI vs other states where a greater majority of students took the test. Therefore in WI the best and brightest were compared against the average student in other states. And we know how smart the average student is.
At least be a little honest here with the data.
This is why I use bing more often now. Google may have better results that come back, but they are in between so much spam sites, that it makes it hard to find what you are looking for. So for me, bing is good enough and faster since there is less crap to wade through. That may change in the future, but for now bing works better for me.
Well the lawyerly advice on here is not always the best, at least it would have been better than what the letter writer got. IANAL, but I am also not a moron and know that wasn't a smart response.
Just think about all the culture that would still be available to us today, if the technology to copy was wider spread and available when TV first appeared. We would have a complete collection of all the old Dr. Who episodes.
The editor has shown poor judgment in sourcing someone who hates her. It doesn't matter if it was correct or not.
So wikipedia says Sarah Palin supports an exit plan.
The actual source is a blogger commenting on an email quoting an article from a magazine interview with Sarah Palin and the sourced blogger questions whether Sarah Palin still believes what she said two years later.
This is an example of a high quality source? Do you really have to wonder why Wikipedia has low trust? Was it too hard to quote the actual article that doesn't contain any opinions but the actual words of Sarah Palin herself in raw interview form?
Funny thing was you asked for one example, I search Palin and Sullivan and not only found a crappy source, but the source itself disputing the fact wikipedia took from his blog. If that doesn't make you want to verify the rest of the information I don't know what does.
And your argument is a bait and switch. No one is arguing factual information, but if you source someone who made up a conspiracy about a person as a reliable, then you have to look at the credibility and judgment of the editors. As far as I am concerned that example proves the original poster's point:
"Occasionally they point you to something interesting but you'd better verify what they say elsewhere."
If you want credibility you don't source Andrew Sullivan for Sarah Palin facts just like you wouldn't cite Rush Limbaugh for Obama facts. It shows very poor judgment on the part of the editors.
Andrew Sullivan used as a reference on Sarah Palin. How can he be considered a credible objective source for her wikipedia article after his Trig meltdown?
Yeah, because REPUBLICANS have done nothing to increase the power of government.
Fixed that for you. Republicans != Conservatives at the Federal level.
My guess is that the average paying user, will pay 1-2 dollars a month, but there are the very small % of users that drop a ton of cash to make up for it.
Maybe he is using the median average instead of the mean?
Here a hint to all of those aspiring authors. Unless you write something creative and unique you won't make a living writing books. Sorry, just how it is. There is a couple thousand years of books available, you can't justify a huge price against all of that competition unless you have something new to bring to the table worth buying. The landscape has changed and the access to the information and old books can no longer be controlled. You can blame piracy, but without the monopoly of distribution anymore, the laws of supply and demand are starting to take hold in the marketplace.
As to the FA, I'm not seeing the problem. For the longest time certain information has been hard to come by and in the hands of the rich and powerful for the most part or locked away where the average person can't access it. Having all of this text available easily online is not a problem in my book. It should be encouraged.
Am I going to defend someone who goes and downloads the latest book on Day 1, no. Am I going to shed a tear for the publishing company of someone who downloads a book by an author dead for 10 years instead of buying it? The answer is no to that as well.
I can only hope this is a huge step forward to making knowledge available to all. I fear that most will take it as a way to get the latest Stephen King books or Playboy magazine for free though.
If copyright was more sane the newer works would be respected and older ones available and people would respect the law for the most part. When you are heavy handed against your customers they revolt. You then give your non-customer a chance to take the high ground based on your actions. (Not saying they are justified, but you don't know if that downloader is someone who wants a non-DRM digital copy of their ebook for a backup or just a plain old thief)
Interesting, we are hearing that Yahoo is old news and getting its lunch eaten by Google and in the other breath that people want to plunder it for short term value. Which is it? My thoughts are this: Remember the stock market goes up over time and individual stocks are a crap shoot at best. If I was a Yahoo stock holder, I'd be pissed the merger didn't go through. A 70+% almost overnight gain, why pass it up. Its money in the bank.
What planet are you from? Do you really think phishing, spam, and viruses will be stopped with an education campaign?
Overall people are trusting and think that the bad things they read about will never happen to them. You can educate them up the wazoo, but you won't change their mindset.
Consumers view it as the company's job anyways to solve all of the above problems. If a consumer gets their information stolen they first blame the company instead of the phisher.
And finally the funny thing is by doing this, paypal will probably run the most effective campaign for security by forcing users to confront the issue. Of course they will just switch browsers and still will be easily scammed, but at least they were warned first.
Thats OK, they will say its for the children, elderly, schools, homeless people and then will blame the boogyman from the other party and then everyone will fall in line and pay the tax happily.
This has a politicians middle finger written all over it.
I would have done the same, it looked like Microsoft would have to pony up the cash at the time with more potential suitors out there. But with the current economy, Yahoo's current share price, and no other suitors waiting in the wings any leverage for a higher price is gone.
"Finally, I do believe that Yahoo! is worth more than that ammount," If that was true, Yahoo would already be valued at that much. While it may be true at some point in the future that may be the case, but if I was a Yahoo investor considering the economy is entering a recession and Google is starting to slow down I would take the money and find a better investment. The Yahoo board doesn't have its shareholders best interest in mind here. Whether it is good for the internet, computers, world peace, global warming or the war in Iraq it doesn't matter. The CEOs have a duty to the shareholders that they seem to be neglecting here.
or maybe it is better to keep all the mommy and daddy basement dwellers in a single location to keep an eye on them.
For Clinton to lose given your theory, approximately 100,000 Republicans in Texas and 250,000 Republicans would have had to vote her that would not have. I don't buy that theory. There were some crossovers, like there were in the early Republican primaries BTW, but not enough to account for those margins, especially Ohio.
Remember Republicans hate the Clintons, so why some consider it in their best interest for Hillary to win, that is a lot of people to overcome their hatred for her. Also exit polls showed a lot of cross over for Obama, so I'm assuming many of those Republicans wanted a chance to drive the "stake through her heart" and voted against her. So that means that even more Republicans would have had to vote for her to be the only cause for her victory since she didn't even come close to winning 100% of them. I've heard that she won anywhere from 40% - 60% of them. Assuming the upper end of that range there would have had to been 500,000 Republican voters in Texas messing in the primary (300,000 - 200,000).
Lets be serious here. The numbers just don't add up. Rush can brag all he wants, but the margin was too big for him/Republicans to be the deciding factor.
You are so funny. They will just buy off the next generation of politicians. You think we are the first generation that wanted to change how things are done. Look at the Baby Boomers they were so right and were going to show the old folk how to make the world a better place. All they did was screw it up more.
Too many people were getting killed by second-hand video game playing.
You mean like George Bush cutting taxes and the tax revenues going up? Can't blame tax cuts for the deficits, its the spending that is the problem. Seems like the problem is not conservative theories trumpeted into facts, but the facts are getting in the way of what ever beliefs you have.
BTW what the hell are conservative and liberal theories anyways? The only theories I see around Washington is the theory that they can take our money and freedom.
Money == Power == Freedom in this country. Any new taxes are taking away our freedom and not helping the poor, the unhealthy, scientific research, or the children. We have more than enough tax money to cover that.
I'll sum it up for you. Taxing other people is OK, don't just tax me. That is how this all fits in a nice tidy bow. See corrections below: Taxes are good (for others) The internet is good Tax on the internet is bad (it affects me) There is the current group think for you.
You are right to the extent that they are both phones, but Google doesn't plan to compete in the multimedia phone market. I don't see them stressing the fact that it can play audio or video unless I am missing something. It may have those features, but it isn't a selling point from what I can tell.
At the end of the day they are competitors in some respect and probably will pitted against each other shortly, but it doesn't sound like Google will be marketing, "please turn in your iPhone because the gPhone is better".
Part of the entertainment at the final night party was Grinder Girl. That made things awfully awkward between the male and female coworkers. It shouldn't amaze anyone why females get this impression. Hell, one of the biggest tech conferences of the year added fuel to the fire.