Umm... if you read the article carefully, you'll find that they're not "printing onto paper" -- just using ink-jet technology to deposit the PPV polymer onto a silicon substrate.
No one said anything about creating a display on a sheet of paper, or even if the substrate was flexible (which would be a most iteresting feature).
* TopClick is "secure"... since it doesn't use cookies? Erm... when was the last time you saw Google use cookies for anything? And even if it did, just turn them off in your browser if you're worried about that.
* TopClick doesn't use banner advertising... neither does Google.
* TopClick uses Google's database indirectly... same results, slightly slower (since you ask TopClick, it asks Google, gets Google's reply and then gives it to you).
* TopClick is running under linux... so is Google.
* TopClick runs Apache... Google runs its own custom server. Wow... who cares, so long as it works?
Is it just me, or is there really no reason to switch from Google? We probably all have more trust for Google than some new group, so why make the change?
Yes, as many people keep suggesting, we setup a personal TLD and everyone registers using their names.
The "Who gets Smith?" problem could easily be solved by creating a "surname registry service". This would ensure that each person's name is completely unique and owned by them.
Of course, to increase the namespace (so we can all have meaningful names), we would need to make our surnaming structure hierarchical. This could either be though the use of a number of "top level surnames", or arranging it geographically. For example, I could be Lionfire.smith or, since I'm in Australia, Lionfire.au
This might lead to some troubles as more and more people register their surnames -- since the population of the planet is increasing, and all. And some people might start registering multiple names, selling them to the highest bidder. So we'll have to setup a "surname arbitration procedure"... but I think it'll all be worth it in the end.
Yep... domain registration problems are going to be a thing of the past...:)
Just a thought -- perhaps the first puzzle, which was apparently reasonably easy to solve, is a clue to this second puzzle?
It could be used as a form of "key" to solve the second...
Or maybe that's just my sick twisted mind enjoying the idea of having people struggle to understand something left behind for 150 years while the clues are sitting right there on the same page:)
Ermm... actually, that is/.'s fault. The doctype is *part* of the standard. Yup... go have a look... I know you don't believe me:)
Okay, I will admit it comes out a little better if you fix that one problem, but there are so many others -- especially obvious things like directly encoding quotes (") and other symbols that should be written otherwise (")
Nope... I'm going to have to give the other side of that argument.
I'm already married and my wife and I are very open with one another. We're honest with one another, we share things -- especially our secrets (one of the best bits about being married is you're allowed to tell your other half all that stuff everyone always tells you not to tell anyone -- and everyone expects it!:)
But I don't give her my passwords, and she doesn't give me hers. If she wants to know something and asks, sure -- I'll tell her whatever she wants to know. But there's no way I'd let her snoop through or play with my stuff.
For practical reasons -- I have research work there I just don't want messed up in an accident, preferences I don't want "tweaked" and bits of things that tend to break far too easily. Only I know my system well enough not to mess things up -- that's why we have multiple user accounts under a good OS. Not to mention misreading something you only have half of and way out of context anyway.
For personal reasons -- it's an invasion of privacy. Yes, I know... we're married. But some things remain private. That's part of being in a relationship -- respect. And respecting your partner's privacy is important.
Okay, so maybe I'm not an expert on relationships -- but ours is a happy one, and we both understand what's private and what's not.
If your partner doesn't require that privacy, that's fine -- but it's no sign of a better/worse relationship if not.
This message is part rant, but also an introduction to an idea currently in development...
Sometimes, a good idea is struck upon. Yes, ICQ was great -- I was one of those first few who jumped on that wagon. It was great at the time -- revolutionary. It changed that way I and many other people communicated online.
But online intercommunication has outgrown that technology. It has grown beyond instant messaging and chat. The numbers are too great to run effectively with a centralised server model. People want security. People want authentication. People want open architecture for plugins. People want to communicate from one platform to another, from one OS to another, and they want it to be seamless.
People want more than ICQ or AIM or any of these instant messaging and online presence clients can offer. No kludge to bring them together is going to solve that. No standard to unify the current technology will be able to give the people what they want.
...after all, intercommunication is all about the people.
And so it is time to return to the drawing board...
I am a member of a team that has been busy with a new idea and, when the chalk-dust settles, we will be letting everyone know more.
For now, I will say this: Our project will be a freely available, OpenSource, server-less, intercommunication technology that will (IMHO) change the way we communicate online. It will provide CORBA interfaces to plugins, and expandability is one of our key concerns. It is, we think, what the people have been asking for.
Initial development under linux has already started and we will be releasing initial betas as soon as they are available. Ports to other platforms are a priority.
Oh... and please don't bother looking for further information on this subject online (there isn't any yet); It will be made available RSN (once we have our website up and running). I'll try to get them to put something on/. if people are interested.
(I doubt this will get moderated anywhere except down, but hey -- worth a try:)
My suggestion would be to simply stick with the editor you like (saves a heck of a lot of time and money... and I personally have little enough of those:)
You might like to try subscribing to the vim mailing list ( http://www.vim.org/mail.html ) and simply ask if there's anyone else out there who would be nice enough to write the syntax file and add it to the distribution. There might even be an unofficial one out there that you just don't know about. Hey, never hurts to ask...
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... if you read the article carefully, you'll find that they're not "printing onto paper" -- just using ink-jet technology to deposit the PPV polymer onto a silicon substrate.
No one said anything about creating a display on a sheet of paper, or even if the substrate was flexible (which would be a most iteresting feature).
The old screenshot is interesting, but the Quicktime movies are myst-eriously missing (sorry, couldn't refuse the pun :)
>When pop comes along, it starts timing itself out when you copy the box from username to .username.pop and you'll kill your pop server.
:)
...MoO!
Erm... that's got nothing to do with sendmail. Why don't you switch to cucipop -- no temporary files at all
http://www.sainc.com/DARPA/EHPA/ contains a slightly more readble mirror of the proposal, as well as some information of putting together teams to work on the project.
/. team? :)
...MoO!
Anyone want to put together the official
Okay... let's see...
...MoO!
* TopClick is "secure"... since it doesn't use cookies? Erm... when was the last time you saw Google use cookies for anything? And even if it did, just turn them off in your browser if you're worried about that.
* TopClick doesn't use banner advertising... neither does Google.
* TopClick uses Google's database indirectly... same results, slightly slower (since you ask TopClick, it asks Google, gets Google's reply and then gives it to you).
* TopClick is running under linux... so is Google.
* TopClick runs Apache... Google runs its own custom server. Wow... who cares, so long as it works?
Is it just me, or is there really no reason to switch from Google? We probably all have more trust for Google than some new group, so why make the change?
Well... the solution to all this is obvious!
:)
...MoO!
Yes, as many people keep suggesting, we setup a personal TLD and everyone registers using their names.
The "Who gets Smith?" problem could easily be solved by creating a "surname registry service". This would ensure that each person's name is completely unique and owned by them.
Of course, to increase the namespace (so we can all have meaningful names), we would need to make our surnaming structure hierarchical. This could either be though the use of a number of "top level surnames", or arranging it geographically. For example, I could be Lionfire.smith or, since I'm in Australia, Lionfire.au
This might lead to some troubles as more and more people register their surnames -- since the population of the planet is increasing, and all. And some people might start registering multiple names, selling them to the highest bidder. So we'll have to setup a "surname arbitration procedure"... but I think it'll all be worth it in the end.
Yep... domain registration problems are going to be a thing of the past...
Just a thought -- perhaps the first puzzle, which was apparently reasonably easy to solve, is a clue to this second puzzle?
:)
...MoO!
It could be used as a form of "key" to solve the second...
Or maybe that's just my sick twisted mind enjoying the idea of having people struggle to understand something left behind for 150 years while the clues are sitting right there on the same page
The windoze version will quite happily use any OpenGL supporting card... (and crash and burn horribly too :)
...MoO!
It seems a little strange that the linux version wouldn't do the same?
Ermm... actually, that is /.'s fault. The doctype is *part* of the standard. Yup... go have a look... I know you don't believe me :)
Okay, I will admit it comes out a little better if you fix that one problem, but there are so many others -- especially obvious things like directly encoding quotes (") and other symbols that should be written otherwise (")
So long as we're picking on sites for not being "correct"... umm... and I hate to say this... but /. isn't exactly an angel...
Take a look at slashdot.org's w3c validation results and I think you'll find Mr slasdot.org isn't all that conformant.
Yes, you too can enter this new competition -- write the fastest, stupidest bot you can that can scream "1st p0st"...
Ah, progress...
Nope... I'm going to have to give the other side of that argument.
I'm already married and my wife and I are very open with one another. We're honest with one another, we share things -- especially our secrets (one of the best bits about being married is you're allowed to tell your other half all that stuff everyone always tells you not to tell anyone -- and everyone expects it!:)
But I don't give her my passwords, and she doesn't give me hers. If she wants to know something and asks, sure -- I'll tell her whatever she wants to know. But there's no way I'd let her snoop through or play with my stuff.
For practical reasons -- I have research work there I just don't want messed up in an accident, preferences I don't want "tweaked" and bits of things that tend to break far too easily. Only I know my system well enough not to mess things up -- that's why we have multiple user accounts under a good OS. Not to mention misreading something you only have half of and way out of context anyway.
For personal reasons -- it's an invasion of privacy. Yes, I know... we're married. But some things remain private. That's part of being in a relationship -- respect. And respecting your partner's privacy is important.
Okay, so maybe I'm not an expert on relationships -- but ours is a happy one, and we both understand what's private and what's not.
If your partner doesn't require that privacy, that's fine -- but it's no sign of a better/worse relationship if not.
This message is part rant, but also an introduction to an idea currently in development...
...after all, intercommunication is all about the people.
/. if people are interested.
:)
Sometimes, a good idea is struck upon. Yes, ICQ was great -- I was one of those first few who jumped on that wagon. It was great at the time -- revolutionary. It changed that way I and many other people communicated online.
But online intercommunication has outgrown that technology. It has grown beyond instant messaging and chat. The numbers are too great to run effectively with a centralised server model. People want security. People want authentication. People want open architecture for plugins. People want to communicate from one platform to another, from one OS to another, and they want it to be seamless.
People want more than ICQ or AIM or any of these instant messaging and online presence clients can offer. No kludge to bring them together is going to solve that. No standard to unify the current technology will be able to give the people what they want.
And so it is time to return to the drawing board...
I am a member of a team that has been busy with a new idea and, when the chalk-dust settles, we will be letting everyone know more.
For now, I will say this:
Our project will be a freely available, OpenSource, server-less, intercommunication technology that will (IMHO) change the way we communicate online. It will provide CORBA interfaces to plugins, and expandability is one of our key concerns. It is, we think, what the people have been asking for.
Initial development under linux has already started and we will be releasing initial betas as soon as they are available. Ports to other platforms are a priority.
Oh... and please don't bother looking for further information on this subject online (there isn't any yet); It will be made available RSN (once we have our website up and running). I'll try to get them to put something on
(I doubt this will get moderated anywhere except down, but hey -- worth a try
My suggestion would be to simply stick with the editor you like (saves a heck of a lot of time and money... and I personally have little enough of those :)
You might like to try subscribing to the vim mailing list ( http://www.vim.org/mail.html ) and simply ask if there's anyone else out there who would be nice enough to write the syntax file and add it to the distribution. There might even be an unofficial one out there that you just don't know about. Hey, never hurts to ask...