Since ctrl+k gets me right to the search box in FF, I never go to the google home page. And even if I log out of my google account it still routes me to igoogle anyway. When they did that funky logo follows the mouse thing a while back, I actually had to go to google.co.uk to see it. That was easier then blasting the cookies anyway.

I did actually try this out though. I'm a fast enough typist that it doesn't matter. And I am *not* that fast. I can see if you are someone who types with an index finger one character every few seconds then maybe it will show you results before you are done typing.

Taken to the absurd extreme, then no one knows anything because every relies on someone else. So what if I can communicate with everyone else if everyone else is an ignorant moron. No man is an island, but what if we're marooned with Gilligan instead of the Professor.

Seriously though, at some point you have to actually know what you are doing without relying on help. You *will* have to answer a question when your friends are on vacation or when you are in a meeting and can't check with them. Who wants to tell their boss that they have to ask Fred the answer to a question.

It doesn't look like there is a good definition. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial.

At what point does the use become commercial?

Many people have google adwords on their blogs and they might get a few bucks each month because their traffic is so low. Say I have a blog that has adwords. If I use the picture to say "I'm on vacation," as it was in BoingBoing, is that still commercial? The picture isn't specifically used in an advertisement or to promote the blog or to specifically sell anything at the blog. But my blog does bring in a few bucks each month, so in that sense the entire blog is commercial.

Do you make a distinction between a commercial use and an non-commercial use within a site? Say I have a site discussing my passion for Fenton glassware. I don't make any money from the site. I use the picture. Ok, all non-commercial.

Now let's say I use my following as a blog to write a book about Fenton, but my blog still makes only a few bucks each month. Do all of my blog posts now become commercial and I have to remove the picture from a post that happened before I wrote my book? What if I also use the blog to talk about my pet rabbits, but I don't have a book about rabbits out. Can I use a non-commercial picture in a post about rabbits? Someone might read that post, then see that I wrote a book about Fenton, which brings in money for me.

Let's say I'm the CEO of Toyota. I can't use the picture in an ad in Car and Driver, that seems obvious(to me at least). Can I use it for an internal only company newsletter? I'm a commercial entity, but the use itself is non-commercial. Can I print it out to hang in the break room?

Taking a very brief read at the creative commons site, it looks like there isn't a good consensus about the definition. When you are writing a legal license for people to use, you shouldn't have to take a poll to decide what the definition of a word is, you put it in the license. Here's what they wrote at cc's wiki: "In 2008-09, Creative Commons commissioned a study from a professional market research firm to explore understandings of the terms “commercial use” and “noncommercial use” among Internet users when used in the context of content found online. " I think that's the wrong way to go about it. All it does is cause situations like this where the creator thought non-commercial meant one thing but the user thought it meant something else. How does the user know what the creator meant?

At least once a week one of us has this conversation:

us: Right click on the desktop
them: Left click?
us: no, right click
them: where?
us: right click on the desktop. The background you see when you don't have anything open.
them: Ok. Click twice?
us: no, right click once
them: Ok.
us: now left click on Personalize
them: with the left button?
us: Yes
them: just once?
us: yes, single click

Or the even better copy and paste

us: highlight the text
them: how?
us: click and hold and move the mouse
them: I clicked and moved but nothing happened
us: Did you double click?
them: Oh, just click once?
us: yes, click once, hold, and move the mouse
them; Ok, it's highlighted. Oh, now its not
us: did you click again after you highlighted?
them: yeah
us: click, hold, move, release and nothing else
them: ok
us: now hit ctrl+c
them: At the same time?
us: yes
them: where's ctrl?
us: by the space bar
them: at the same time?
us: yes, ctrl+c at the same time
them: ok
us: now click where you want to paste it.
them: Double click?
us: no, just once.
them: I double clicked and it highlighted a word.
us: just click once
them: ok
us: now hit ctrl+v
them: at the same time?
us: yes, same time
them: ok

us: hits head against wall until the pain stops

Hooray! I can bitch and moan then. Censorship is one of the many reasons I don't go to wal-mart. They won't sell Cosmo but they will sell you a gun. They censor their music. They break unions. They treat their employees like crap.

Thanks for the invitation to complain. I didn't know you could do that on the internet.

You're right, a real tablet needs a different os and a different metaphor for interaction.

For example, most people are probably going to be single tasking on a tablet, but still want multiple tasks open at once. Surf the web, but have your im in the background to pop up when you get a message.

Get rid of the menu bars and task launchers that are always on teh scrieen and make use of the types of input you have available. For example, tapping with three fingers at once (just like hitting ctrl+alt+del) could bring up the launcher menu. Like hitting ctrl+esc or the windows key in windows.

There are already gestures, like finger down to page down or finger across to turn a page. Just make using two fingers swap between running tasks, like alt+tab. Or take advantage of the fact that most people will be holding the tablet with two hands and make use of tabs on opposite sides of the screen at the same time be a gesture.

I'm writing this on laptop with a swivel screen and when I put it in pad mode, these gestures are there. Problem is that because I bought the really cheap one, it is far too heavy to use as an actual tablet. It takes two hands to hold it comfortably.

I keep thinking that I want a tablet that will let me read, surf, watch video, read email, videochat, and do some basic typing(just turn it in landscape mode and bring up a translucent qwerty keyboard as big as a regular notebook keyboard). All seem to promise they can do that, but they aren't quite there yet.

Maybe its out there, but it isn't getting the press that the ipad has.

Really? So if I run an email server that doesn't route outside of the local network and is encrypted on the local network is that more insecure than any other form of communication? Paper can be misdelivered, conversations can be overheard, etc.

Yes, they most likely put up a screen. But more importantly, unless they put up a mirror, you aren't going to be able to watch the whole procedure anyway unless they prop your head up so that it would be in the surgeon's way. When someone has your heart in your hand, you don't want them to have to worry about bumping your nose.

If they wouldn't put up a mirror so I could watch my vasectomy, they sure aren't going to for a heart operation. And yes, I was awake and chatting with everyone in the room during the operation. Morphine doesn't knock you out, it just makes the pain go away.

It really depends on who your users are, what your servers are doing, and what level of support is desired/needed by the organization.

If you have 1000 users who use one app that they are all familiar with, user calls are going to be lower than an org with 20 different apps and a wide range of skills. In a large organization, you may be supporting everyone one from accountants who know Excel inside and an out to janitorial staff who are still using dial-up at home(seriously, they still are because they can't afford broadband) and have trouble using email.

Same with server apps. 100 file servers with the same os are going to take fewer admins than 75 file servers running a variety of operating systems and doing file, print, database, web, email and proxy/vpn/remote access.

Some orgs want techs to really know how the organization works so they can not only answer questions, but understand the business processes and be able to come up with new processes and services. They may also want that personal touch where you walk to the user's desk and help out. Other orgs are happy having basic phone support and making the users responsible for finding out the answers on their own.

"I mean, any time you refer to "the Democrats" or "minority groups" you are referring to a fictitious whole, sure. But democrats (plural) did question the push"

So if two Christians advocated murder and cannibalism, an accurate headline would be "Christians advocate murder and cannibalism?" If it were 2 Republicans, could I write "Republicans advocate murder and cannibalism?"

Just as 2 out of millions doesn't justify that headline, 72 out of 256, 28%, doesn't justify the headline. If it were 160 out of 256, that would be different. Or if the leadership, the people who speak for the party, supported it, then it would be justified. But if the party doesn't support it and only 28% of the reps do, it simply isn't accurate.

An accurate headline might be "Blue Dog Democrats Question Net Neutrality" if the 72 were comprised of members in the so-called Blue Dog coalition.

"Democrats, Minority Groups Question Net Neutrality Push"

Except that's not true. The second sentence says that Democrats, including the President, generally support Net Neutrality. Also, the phrase "minority groups" is misleading because it is generally referred to groups of traditionally underrepresented peoples.

It's the equivalent of writing:

Slashdot supports Microsoft Windows 7 over Linux.

One of the people who works for Slashdot uses Windows 7 at home. Here is his story.

What is the difference between studying an application for several years and rejecting it outright? Years can be a lifetime for a software product. At what point does continually studying cross over into outright rejection? I'm sure Google's lawyers will be asking that same question.

This. Or has that meme been played out?

There is probably something in the install EULA that says that for additional clauses or changes to the EULA, people should always visit the company's website. It's like the terms of your credit card. There's always a clause in there that says they can change the terms at any time and give you notice. The clause in the EULA will tell you to go to their website for changes and update privacy information.

IIRC the online protection law in the USA has a 13 year old cut off point and that like most things, the parent's wishes determine what happens. And since the parent is installing the software and agreeing to the license, the presumption will be that the parent wanted to permit the datamining.

Ok, so the compiler costs money. It costs money to purchase the computer that software runs on. What is the first step of running or compiling any piece of software? Purchase a computer. It seems wrong to get hung up on the the price of purchasing the compiler software while ignoring the investment costs of simply purchasing a computer and internet access. Or in this case the cost of purchasing an iPhone.

There doesn't seem to be anything requiring the compiler to be free.