Just thought I'd pass this on but the funny thing is, Windows has had a indexed plugin compatible search built in since NT4.0 (1997?) It's called the Windows Indexing Service. It comes with NT4.0, 2K and XP and has default plugins for searching Office docs (And of course text files). The docs for adding new plugins have been on MSDN since it's release.
What Apple got that Microsoft missed is that it needed a good interface and lots of promotion. Instead they just made the tech and then didn't have a clue what to do with it except list it as a bullet point.
Before you get into some techincal argument that AAC is not proprietary.,Fairplay currently is. Only Apple products play Fairplay protected AAC files and currently they enjoy something like 70% of the market. In other words it is certaintly not a given that proprietary formats will always lose.
But then again, as others have pointed out Blu-Ray is far from proprietary since so many manufactures and content distributors have signed up to support it. (unlike Apple and Fairplay in which case again, no one but Apple is allowed to support it)
Sorry this comment is old. I saw your post back when you posted it from my cell phone and only today remembered I wanted to comment and possible generate some discussion
First off a minor point
> We have today costless information
It might cost nothing to copy but it cost me and my teammates two years of our lifes to create the last game I worked on
But that's not the main point I wanted to make. I too would love to see what a world with repliators is like. Unfortunately while that might cover basic needs like clothing and food it would not cover things like housing and land. Who gets the glass mansion on the top of the hill overlooking the ocean and who lives in a 1 room studio apt in the basement of some building.
In other words it seems like there would still be a need for money or some kind of value system. Most likely that would come down to work and populartiy?
If you could instantly copy the result of anyone's labor than what incentive would their be to pay for it since you know you can get it for free if you just wait for it to be created? So, if no one wants to pay then one incentive to create disappears. Sure, some people will still create because they enjoy creating but if no one is paying that still leaves the problem of how it's decided who gets the mansion with the view.
Star Trek also seems to assume unlimited energy, otherwise you'd need to pay for that as well in some way.
I'm not critizing your idea, just posting some thoughts and wondering if anyone else as ideas about how things might work in a world with replicators.
>sites tend to produce better search engine results, be faster to download, use less bandwidth, and improved usability
This BS meme is repeated all time and yet with ZERO proof. None of the most popular sites validate. Not google, not yahoo, not cnn, not msnbc, not flickr, not myspace, not even our sacred slashdot. none!
They show up in search engines just fine, download speed is a matter of data size not standard compliance as is bandwidth and as well, you can follow all the standards and still not be usable and you can break all the standards and have a more usable site than others.
As long as standard zealots keep using lies to try to get people to support standards no one is going to listen.
Um, I'm sure others have pointed this out but the GPL is not designed to foster co-opperation, it is actually specifically designed to force people to use GPL only. Maybe you should go read the GNU Manifesto in where Stallman advocates banning commerical softare.
Sound like an opportunity to me. Washable Keyboards you can through in the dishwasher. Especially wireless keyboards. I know supposedly you can wash most keyboards if you open them and dry them throughly afterwards but still, something designed to be washable would be better.
Neither do the license for Apache, PHP, XWindows, Subversion, Boost and many otehrs.
>As such, they garuntee that those with money and resources will >eventually throw enough money at the probem to obliterate the free >versions, by taking all the useful stuff from them.
I agree 2 are better then 1. 3 are even better. I got 1 24" dell and 2 19"s in September. I think a 30 would be nice but I've notices some issues with my 24". With the screen being so wide it's actually somewhat harder to focus on the edges of the monitor as the further from the center I look the more one eye is closer to the monitor than the other. Argubly a wide monitor should curve to correct that. With more than one monitor you can approximate the needed curve.
Main Entry: 1ban
Pronunciation: 'ban
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): banned; banning
Etymology: Middle English bannen to summon, curse, from Old English bannan to summon; akin to Old High German bannan to command, Latin fari to speak, Greek phanai to say, phOnE sound, voice
transitive senses
1 archaic : CURSE
2 : to prohibit especially by legal means [ban discrimination]; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of [ban a book] [ban a pesticide]
Main Entry: 2outlaw
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to deprive of the benefit and protection of law : declare to be an outlaw b : to make illegal [outlawed dueling]
2 : to place under a ban or restriction
3 : to remove from legal jurisdiction or enforcement
No, it's not my definition. it's *THE* definition. Ban = outlaw.
Since when are you his spokesperson? What I posted says nothing about copyright. He probably his for copyright. But his words are pretty plain, their is no spin. If anyone is spinning it's you. He would like to see non-free (as in non-GPLed) software banned and has suggested this multiple times. It's kind of hard to co-operate with someone when their stated goal is to ban those who disagree with him
If you'd actually read RMS maybe you'd know his goal is to outlaw non GPLed software.
What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned. RMS
But that's exaclty my point. Putting a story in space does not in and of itself make a story scifi unless that setting effects the story in some sci-fi way. In fact the original post points to this with Apollo 13 being set in space but not being sci-fi. The being in space doesn't effect the story in Firefly. Nothing about them being in space ever has any real effect on the story. Since it doesn't it's not really sci-fi, it's just drama that happens to be set in space.
Firefly is just a that kind of story. That it takes place on a space ship is inconsequential to pretty much anything about Firefly. That's not true of sci-fi. In sci-fi, remove the sci-fi part and the whole basis for the story disappears.
That is the definiton of BAD sci-fi, as far as I am concerned. I hate sci-fi that tries to wow the reader/watcher with wizbang technological elements. Those are the kind of stories which will look really stupid 50 years from now when the technology doesn't turn out as depicted. Good sci-fi transcends the technological details (while still utilizing them). It does not depend on them.
I agree with you 100%. Good sci-fi transcends the technological details (while still utilizing them). Firefly transcends the technological details. Firefly does not utilize them. That's why it's not sci-fi, it's just good drama.
The point is, flying through space has nothing to do with the story. In a true sci-fi story the characters have to actively deal with something not possible or not yet existing in reality. Without that part to the story there is no possible classification. If you took Friends the TV show and the only thing you changed about it was a back drop of Mars outside their kitchen window but otherwise the characters changed nothing, nothing about being on Mars or dealing with living on Mars ever entered the story that would not make Friends Sci-fi.
Firefly is just a that kind of story. That it takes place on a space ship is inconsequential to pretty much anything about Firefly. That's not true of sci-fi. In sci-fi, remove the sci-fi part and the whole basis for the story disappears. Remove the time travel, A.I. or cybernetics from Terminator, remove the Force, the Death Star, the robots from Star Wars, remove the teleporter, nanites, the holodesk, alternate cultures from Star Trek, remove the Matrix from the Matrix. All of those scifi stores are about scifi things which is what makes them scifi stores. Remove the spaceship from Firefly and put them in a truck or a pack of horses or a boat going from city to city avoiding from the law and doing some dirty deeds and not one thing would be lost.
Note, I don't understand why it's important for you to believe that Firefly is scifi. It's great and interesting drama. I liked watching it. But it's not scifi. At least not at the point it made it to before being cancel.
I agree, but sci-fi generally means dealing with something out of the not currently in existance. Examples: teleporting, cyberspace, A.I., time travel, etc. Firefly deals with nothing out of the ordinary. A crew of people on a bus traveling from city to city here on present day earth could deal with the exact same problems. Hence it's not really sci-fi. Sci-Fi requires something not yet in existance, some item, phenomenon, situation, etc
I know I'm the minority on this but I hated First Contact. They ruined the Borg in the movie. What made the Borg unique was their total alien like qualities. Total logic, no emotion, total devotion to a single goal, etc. It made them a different kind of enemy, something special.
In first contact the introduce the Queen Borg who asks just like you average generic power hungry villian. No longer are the borg this unstopable, uncarring machine, now the Borg are just a the standard typical enemy you can try to seduce, reason with, etc.
How sad to take such an interesting race and completely ruin it's interesting qualities.
Well, I guess Firefly is "space" but Firefly is not "sci-fi". Except for the one episode where sister has special powers almsot nothing about the series has anything to do with sci-fi. It's just a drama that could just as easily set on earth in ships or trucks or winnebagos. It's well written but it's not sci-fi.
Re:Honest question - please hear me out.
on
RSSOwl 1.2 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
First off, In answer to your question, a reader lets you check if your sites are updated instantly. Some of my co-workers have lists of 250 sites. Check them each day would be a PITA but an RSS reader lets them see at a glance which ones are updated. It also shows them the titles and possibly excerpts from each new entry making it easier to decide at a glance if you really want to go to that site to read the whole article or skip it.
My question is, why do I need a desktop RSS reader? Bloglines.com works great, it's cross platform (because it's browser based) and it's up to date from no mater where I read it. In other words, site I write at work are marked as read when I get home. It's a serious question, what's the advantage to a desktop reader? Having never used one and being super happy with Bloglines.com I'd like to know if I'm missing something.
Forget the bugs, you can't fire me, this is a government job, I get paid regardless of results
You want what feature? Hah, vote on it maybe it will get funded
XYZ has that feature and you want it too? Why the F should I care? I get paid so I could care less that XYZ has that feature and we don't.
get it done by when? It'll be done whenever I feel like working on it since I don't care about competition
Because the government has no fiduciary interest in the software they have no incentive to make it better than the competition. The competition has no incentive to even get in the market since they can't compete with free. Result, COMPLETE TECHINCAL STAGNATION. Skip forward a few year until there's an entire government bureaucracy just for deciding which features get funding, which bugs get fixed, which insider gets the contract to do it, and how many billions in cost overruns it's costing tax payers.
VS Studio, at least since version 6.0 has had no problem with relative paths. It defaults to relative names.
Most programs when using external libs hard code the references (directX for example) but there's nothing that requires them to be hard coded.
You can either define them as global includes/libs (similar to Unix and the INCLUDE/LIB env vars) OR you can reference them through environment vars directly per project using $(SOMELIBENVVAR) syntax which is how I usually do it.
Wow, hmm, well, since he won the Nebula award, and since the Nebula award is a peer award, that would mean many of your favorite authors think OSC is pretty great.
Slashdot Mirror
What Apple got that Microsoft missed is that it needed a good interface and lots of promotion. Instead they just made the tech and then didn't have a clue what to do with it except list it as a bullet point.
Before you get into some techincal argument that AAC is not proprietary.,Fairplay currently is. Only Apple products play Fairplay protected AAC files and currently they enjoy something like 70% of the market. In other words it is certaintly not a given that proprietary formats will always lose.
But then again, as others have pointed out Blu-Ray is far from proprietary since so many manufactures and content distributors have signed up to support it. (unlike Apple and Fairplay in which case again, no one but Apple is allowed to support it)
Sorry this comment is old. I saw your post back when you posted it from my cell phone and only today remembered I wanted to comment and possible generate some discussion
First off a minor point
> We have today costless information
It might cost nothing to copy but it cost me and my teammates two years of our lifes to create the last game I worked on
But that's not the main point I wanted to make. I too would love to see what a world with repliators is like. Unfortunately while that might cover basic needs like clothing and food it would not cover things like housing and land. Who gets the glass mansion on the top of the hill overlooking the ocean and who lives in a 1 room studio apt in the basement of some building.
In other words it seems like there would still be a need for money or some kind of value system. Most likely that would come down to work and populartiy?
If you could instantly copy the result of anyone's labor than what incentive would their be to pay for it since you know you can get it for free if you just wait for it to be created? So, if no one wants to pay then one incentive to create disappears. Sure, some people will still create because they enjoy creating but if no one is paying that still leaves the problem of how it's decided who gets the mansion with the view.
Star Trek also seems to assume unlimited energy, otherwise you'd need to pay for that as well in some way.
I'm not critizing your idea, just posting some thoughts and wondering if anyone else as ideas about how things might work in a world with replicators.
Gawd I hate this BS
>sites tend to produce better search engine results, be faster to download, use less bandwidth, and improved usability
This BS meme is repeated all time and yet with ZERO proof. None of the most popular sites validate. Not google, not yahoo, not cnn, not msnbc, not flickr, not myspace, not even our sacred slashdot. none!
They show up in search engines just fine, download speed is a matter of data size not standard compliance as is bandwidth and as well, you can follow all the standards and still not be usable and you can break all the standards and have a more usable site than others.
As long as standard zealots keep using lies to try to get people to support standards no one is going to listen.
Um, I'm sure others have pointed this out but the GPL is not designed to foster co-opperation, it is actually specifically designed to force people to use GPL only. Maybe you should go read the GNU Manifesto in where Stallman advocates banning commerical softare.
Sound like an opportunity to me. Washable Keyboards you can through in the dishwasher. Especially wireless keyboards. I know supposedly you can wash most keyboards if you open them and dry them throughly afterwards but still, something designed to be washable would be better.
>they *don't* require changes to remain free
Neither do the license for Apache, PHP, XWindows, Subversion, Boost and many otehrs.
>As such, they garuntee that those with money and resources will
>eventually throw enough money at the probem to obliterate the free
>versions, by taking all the useful stuff from them.
Yep, I like how Apache and PHP are dead.
> graphic artists, movie makers, etc
Graphic artist maybe, movie makers no. PCs out number Macs at least 19 to 1 in professional movie creation and effects creation.
I agree 2 are better then 1. 3 are even better. I got 1 24" dell and 2 19"s in September. I think a 30 would be nice but I've notices some issues with my 24". With the screen being so wide it's actually somewhat harder to focus on the edges of the monitor as the further from the center I look the more one eye is closer to the monitor than the other. Argubly a wide monitor should curve to correct that. With more than one monitor you can approximate the needed curve.
Main Entry: 1ban
Pronunciation: 'ban
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): banned; banning
Etymology: Middle English bannen to summon, curse, from Old English bannan to summon; akin to Old High German bannan to command, Latin fari to speak, Greek phanai to say, phOnE sound, voice
transitive senses
1 archaic : CURSE
2 : to prohibit especially by legal means [ban discrimination]; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of [ban a book] [ban a pesticide]
Main Entry: 2outlaw
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to deprive of the benefit and protection of law : declare to be an outlaw b : to make illegal [outlawed dueling]
2 : to place under a ban or restriction
3 : to remove from legal jurisdiction or enforcement
No, it's not my definition. it's *THE* definition. Ban = outlaw.
Since when are you his spokesperson? What I posted says nothing about copyright. He probably his for copyright. But his words are pretty plain, their is no spin. If anyone is spinning it's you. He would like to see non-free (as in non-GPLed) software banned and has suggested this multiple times. It's kind of hard to co-operate with someone when their stated goal is to ban those who disagree with him
those are the two most popular forms?
Possibly but lots of high profile teams have been going the no-compensation route. Among them
*) PHP
*) Apache
*) Subversion
*) X
*) Boost
just to name a few
But that's exaclty my point. Putting a story in space does not in and of itself make a story scifi unless that setting effects the story in some sci-fi way. In fact the original post points to this with Apollo 13 being set in space but not being sci-fi. The being in space doesn't effect the story in Firefly. Nothing about them being in space ever has any real effect on the story. Since it doesn't it's not really sci-fi, it's just drama that happens to be set in space.
I agree with you 100%. Good sci-fi transcends the technological details (while still utilizing them). Firefly transcends the technological details. Firefly does not utilize them. That's why it's not sci-fi, it's just good drama.
The point is, flying through space has nothing to do with the story. In a true sci-fi story the characters have to actively deal with something not possible or not yet existing in reality. Without that part to the story there is no possible classification. If you took Friends the TV show and the only thing you changed about it was a back drop of Mars outside their kitchen window but otherwise the characters changed nothing, nothing about being on Mars or dealing with living on Mars ever entered the story that would not make Friends Sci-fi.
Firefly is just a that kind of story. That it takes place on a space ship is inconsequential to pretty much anything about Firefly. That's not true of sci-fi. In sci-fi, remove the sci-fi part and the whole basis for the story disappears. Remove the time travel, A.I. or cybernetics from Terminator, remove the Force, the Death Star, the robots from Star Wars, remove the teleporter, nanites, the holodesk, alternate cultures from Star Trek, remove the Matrix from the Matrix. All of those scifi stores are about scifi things which is what makes them scifi stores. Remove the spaceship from Firefly and put them in a truck or a pack of horses or a boat going from city to city avoiding from the law and doing some dirty deeds and not one thing would be lost.
Note, I don't understand why it's important for you to believe that Firefly is scifi. It's great and interesting drama. I liked watching it. But it's not scifi. At least not at the point it made it to before being cancel.
I agree, but sci-fi generally means dealing with something out of the not currently in existance. Examples: teleporting, cyberspace, A.I., time travel, etc. Firefly deals with nothing out of the ordinary. A crew of people on a bus traveling from city to city here on present day earth could deal with the exact same problems. Hence it's not really sci-fi. Sci-Fi requires something not yet in existance, some item, phenomenon, situation, etc
I know I'm the minority on this but I hated First Contact. They ruined the Borg in the movie. What made the Borg unique was their total alien like qualities. Total logic, no emotion, total devotion to a single goal, etc. It made them a different kind of enemy, something special.
In first contact the introduce the Queen Borg who asks just like you average generic power hungry villian. No longer are the borg this unstopable, uncarring machine, now the Borg are just a the standard typical enemy you can try to seduce, reason with, etc.
How sad to take such an interesting race and completely ruin it's interesting qualities.
Well, I guess Firefly is "space" but Firefly is not "sci-fi". Except for the one episode where sister has special powers almsot nothing about the series has anything to do with sci-fi. It's just a drama that could just as easily set on earth in ships or trucks or winnebagos. It's well written but it's not sci-fi.
First off, In answer to your question, a reader lets you check if your sites are updated instantly. Some of my co-workers have lists of 250 sites. Check them each day would be a PITA but an RSS reader lets them see at a glance which ones are updated. It also shows them the titles and possibly excerpts from each new entry making it easier to decide at a glance if you really want to go to that site to read the whole article or skip it.
My question is, why do I need a desktop RSS reader? Bloglines.com works great, it's cross platform (because it's browser based) and it's up to date from no mater where I read it. In other words, site I write at work are marked as read when I get home. It's a serious question, what's the advantage to a desktop reader? Having never used one and being super happy with Bloglines.com I'd like to know if I'm missing something.
Because the government has no fiduciary interest in the software they have no incentive to make it better than the competition. The competition has no incentive to even get in the market since they can't compete with free. Result, COMPLETE TECHINCAL STAGNATION. Skip forward a few year until there's an entire government bureaucracy just for deciding which features get funding, which bugs get fixed, which insider gets the contract to do it, and how many billions in cost overruns it's costing tax payers.
Sorry, but there are already music to cell phone download services in Korea, Japan and other places. Sprint's is hardly the first
VS Studio, at least since version 6.0 has had no problem with relative paths. It defaults to relative names.
Most programs when using external libs hard code the references (directX for example) but there's nothing that requires them to be hard coded.
You can either define them as global includes/libs (similar to Unix and the INCLUDE/LIB env vars) OR you can reference them through environment vars directly per project using $(SOMELIBENVVAR) syntax which is how I usually do it.
Wow, hmm, well, since he won the Nebula award, and since the Nebula award is a peer award, that would mean many of your favorite authors think OSC is pretty great.
Yes they would and DO. IBM, HP etc contribute to Apache and all it's related projects which are all effectively BSDed.