I'm not an expert, but perhaps the cooling effect would be from the fact that the structure is shaped to draw in more wind (as opposed to traditional buildings, which some have commented are usually designed to *reduce* the amount of wind).
Maybe the cooling effect of the extra wind between the structures would counter the heating effect of sucking the energy out of the wind?
There's been no major netscape release since june 2000? Excuse me?
Netscape 6.1 (released last month) is effectively the *first* release of the new, mozilla-based, rewritten from scratch, standards compliant, stable, fast, skinnable, netscape browser.
You can argue about "fast" (depends on your computer - it flies on mine) and it's certainly not "lean and mean" but it certainly counts as a major release.
I say "effectively the first" because 6.0 was, by all accounts, a complete disaster. While Netscape's official corporate position is still "it was the right product at the right time", even their own developers unofficially admit that this is only because they had to release *something* before they became completely irrelevant. 6.1 is what 6.0 should have been.
Now, I don't know whether their market share has increased due to 6.1 or not (ime 6.0 caused such a backlash that a lot of people are simply not willing to give 6.1 a chance, and those are by definition the people that were willing to give netscape a chance a year ago) but it's simply not true to claim that there hasn't been a major netscape release since june of last year. 6.1 is imho the most significant netscape release since 4.5 (which was the equivalent point in the 4.x series - previous 4.xs sucked in the same way 6.0 did, 4.5 was the first decent release)
Sorry, the formula for Snapple[TM] is copyrighted - replicating Snapple[TM] is a violation of the DMCA and you will face 25 years in prison just for thinking about it, courtesy of Snapple[TM] Beverage Corp[TM].
In response to this growing threat to our freedoms, the FSF has launched a new Lemon Iced Tea project which will be licensed under the GPL, and RMS is already preparing his "Why it should be referred to as GNU/Iced Tea" whitepaper.
MozillaQuest lays off MozillaQuest's Chief Article Wrangler, Michael Angelo, And Others?
According to Bug Number 34834 in the MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite's BugQuest database, MozillaQuest's Chief Article Wrangler, "Michael Angelo has left MozillaQuest." However, he is still listed on MozillaQuest's article pages as the MozillaQuest article writer.
Here's what we think happened. It appears that Michael Angelo's position at MozillaQuest was eliminated and that he consequently was laid off on or about 4 September 2001. Although Michael served as head of the MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite he was actually employed by Matrix Wireless and was being paid by Matrix Wireless for his work at the Magazine-Suite.
The lion's share of people working on the entire MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite are employed and paid by Matrix Wireless - or at least were employed by Matrix Wireless. Matrix Wireless through its spokesman Michael Angelo has refused to disclose how many Matrix Wireless employees work on the Magazine-Suite. However it is likely that at least 100-200 positions have been eliminated at the Magazine-Suite, which would leave it with only -99 to -199 employees. So layoffs at Matrix Wireless could have a substantial impact on the MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite.
This puts my username, host and working directory in both my prompt and my xterm window title. Put it in/etc/profile on all machines you use and you always know where you are:) Only works if your shell is bash, though.
case "$TERM" in
xterm|xterm-*)
PS1='`echo >&2 -en "\033]0;\u@\h:\w\007"`\u@\h:\w\$ '
;;
*)
PS1='\u@\h:\w\$ '
echo "Non-xterm: window-title functions disabled"
;;
esac
Well, here's what *I* always planned on trying to do with my CueCat:
Add a plugin to AbiWord/KWord/KSpread/Gnumeric that would put a barcode on the bottom of each printout. Then arrange that scanning that barcode with my cat would auto-launch said office application with the relevant document.
Sounded useful to me, especially if you work for a company that prints all sorts of things out without including the filename in the footer. And even with the filename in the footer it would be quicker and easier just to scan it...
Stuart.
PS You could do the same thing with a web browser to launch at a URL based on a printout of the page.
The only thing you have wrong is #1. The only people you have to provide source to are the people you provide binaries to. Even though Linus is the copyright holder, he doesn't get any rights to your version unless you give him the binaries.
You left out an important part of #2, though: You have to give the purchasers of the VCR the right to modify and redistribute the code (under the GPL), as well as simply obtaining it.
then edit/usr/bin/mozilla from the debian package to run/usr/local/mozilla-whatever/mozilla instead of/usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla. Works great.)
As far as the "major portions rewrite", I partially agree. However, I'd still much rather see this work done before 1.0 than after - the image library had major structural problems, the old cache was completely crap (and was the primary cause of the appalling behavior of "view source" on form posts), and some of the newer rewrites (CSS rule matching, XPCDOM) are major performance and memory gains (in other words, answers to all the "it's slow/bloated" criticism). It speaks poorly of the *early* mozilla development that these major rewrites are necessary, but it's still good to see them happen - as a mozilla user myself I can see the benefits every time I download a new build and I certainly wouldn't trade my new cache or image library for the old ones.
The last answer I heard for this is "We're waiting on an okay from a major contributor, but work is still ongoing on this". Now, I have no idea which "major contributor" this could be: I don't think it's Netscape themselves because they were the ones that initiated this, so I guess the top candidates are Sun, IBM and maybe ActiveState... but those are just names pulled out of the hat that have done a lot of work on Mozilla. It could be anyone, but "we're waiting on a major contributor" is the official line.
Damn, 2 days ago I had moderator access and nothing I wanted to do with it - now here's a post that I want to mod up and I don't have any.
Folks, MozillaQuest has been clueless from day 1. I've found numerous factual errors in their articles, all of which were obvious to me even as an outsider who just follows the various n.p.m.* newsgroups and reads *real* mozilla news sites like mozillaZine. I haven't read a single article at their site that told me anything I didn't know, except for the ones (like this one) that are just plain untrue (see other posts: the roadmap was updated weeks ago and all they changed was the "you are here" X).
I suspect this site is actually run by someone with an anti-mozilla agenda. Checking the whois indicates that the same person (Mike Angelo) owns the domains and posts practically every article on the site. And the front-page has at least 5 "Mozilla 1.0 delayed until XXXX" articles - nothing about all the great new features that have gone in recently, the giant leaps in mail/news stability and performance, the pre-loader for better startup time, Dave Hyatt's new CSS rule matching code that gives a 10% performance improvement and saves hundreds of K in runtime memory, or anything. Just "Mozilla 1.0 delayed". Way to not tell the whole story.
Read mozillaZine if you want mozilla news, or better yet, subscribe to the newsgroups and follow interesting issues in bugzilla. If only the MozillaQuest editor would bother to do that.
Yeah, I tried to put in spoilerspace but/. compressed it all to one line. I should have used preview. Sorry. I did at least *warn* readers not to read the rest of my comment, which is more than this reviewer did.
I'm now going to put in some actual spoilerspace before discussing why I believe the review was a spoiler...
some
text
that
hopefully
will defeat
the lameness
filter
foo
However, if you're reading the book, and you got to the bit where you find out that Time has a son - the first thing you wonder is *which* of the two possible characters is the son. There's no inkling that "both" is a possibility -- and it's very clear (once you do find out) that you were never *meant* to guess it - it's supposed to come as a surprise. If you've read this review, you've heard "son (or sons)" and so you *know*, consciously or not, that "both" is a possible answer. It is a legitimate spoiler.
Damn, watch the spoilers! My advice to anyone who hasn't read ToT yet is to not read the above review... or the rest of this comment.
"And I nearly forgot the Son of Time. Or Sons. Or something like that." - you just gave away the most carefully-kept secret in the whole book! First off it's not even revealed that Time has a son until a long way into the book, and even after that, Pterry is VERY careful to avoid hinting at plurals until Lobsang is actually about to meet Jeremy: "He's your brother" is the very first time we find this out, and up until that point one of the major items of suspense is *which* of the two actually is Time's son. Nicely spoilt, without any warning whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure that the fact that the clock will stop time is also not given away until later in the book, and I'm not entirely sure about the Fifth Horseman either.
I'm just glad that I'd read the book before I read this review, or I'd be mighty pissed off.
RMS signing a document full of the term "Open Source"!
Quick, someone check the weather in hell...
Stuart.
Re:Backdoor challenge for you hackers...
on
NSA Linux In Depth
·
· Score: 2
That's actually easy - just read Reflections on trusting trust by Ken Thompson. This paper is absolutely recommended reading, and was groundbreaking when first published in August 1984. It's also one of/.'s top ten hacks of all time... Of course it would only work if your NSA Linux code was compiled on a system running NSA Linux from binaries, but that would probably apply a fair amount of the time.
Well, I do see your logic and it makes a kind of sense. But I don't think it totally rules out changing the rules in a way that *effectively* gets rid of software patents.
(I'll take the hardware vs software issue as an example; the same logic can be used for software vs business and software vs genetic)
If you wish to disallow software patents, all you have to do is say that no software program can *infringe* a hardware patent. In other words, a patent is only being infringed if the hardware is sufficiently single-purpose to infringe the patent even with no software running on it. A software program running on generic hardware simply could not be considered to infringe on any hardware patent, because it isn't hardware.
Thus if Amazon were to patent 1-click by writing a patent that described a special-purpose computer whose sole purpose in life was 1-click, we could all laugh at them and implement 1-click using PHP or cgi or JSP on our generic hardware and be completely safe, even though they had a legitimate patent.
This would not only be equivalent to disallowing software patents, it would discourage people from filing hardware patents that were simply software patents in disguise, because they wouldn't be any use against "infringing" software.
The 2.4.1ac series included a couple of fixes for the Matrox G450 card. The changelog for 2.4.2 says "sync up more with Alan", but it doesn't say what changes were sunc. How can I find out if the Matrox fixes went in or not?
This is at least the fourth time I've seen MozillaQuest information corrected.
Back before the 0.7 release, it was widely known through newsgroup discussion and public comments that 0.7 was likely to be a hand-picked one of the nightly builds from sometime in December (in the end there was a brief branch for it, but that happened later). MozillaQuest ran a story in late December saying "0.7 is scheduled for the end of December, and seeing as it's December 29th or so today, that must mean that if you pick up a nightly tonight then it'll be more or less identical to 0.7, right?". Of course this was crap - the 0.7 build could have come from Dec 3rd, if that had been the best compromise of features and stability. (Of course, discussing the release process in a reply to Asa means that I'm bound to have got something wrong just by Murphy's Law, so the disclaimer is: if Asa disagrees with anything in this paragraph, then he's right and I'm wrong;) )
Then I read another story on there - I forget the details of this one, but I think it was something to do with skinning, and even a casual observer of the project, such as myself, was able to spot technical mistakes in their comments. And that was intended as a tutorial for new skin creators!
Then there's the other comment in this slashdot article which Asa also corrected.
So far I haven't seen an article on MozillaQuest yet that I've considered up to the lowest standards of research and quality (although they haven't quite sunk to some of the depths/. has recently, either).
These days I just ignore any MozillaQuest link, despite being very interested in Mozilla info. I don't want to give them the banner ad money. Visit mozillaZine instead if you want accurate Mozilla reporting.
I'm going to be buying a new computer in the very near future and I want to get a good graphics card. I also want to support companies that have been "good" towards open source, so your advice is exactly what I had planned to do.
But should I buy ATI or Matrox? I don't play many 3D games, but I do want to get decent performance when I do. I also want good 2D because that's what I use most (I want AA text too:) )
So my question is, which is "better" for me, ATI or Matrox? I appreciate that ATI has faster 3D, but is it as well supported in XFree 4.0.2? How does its 2D compare to Matrox? If the ATI has better 3D and comparable 2D, why did so many people mention Matrox and so few ATI in the recent Ask Slashdot on this topic?
Read the law professors' brief. It explains clearly that:
- Implementing a treaty didn't give Congress the right to break the constitution.
- The WIPO treaty *didn't* require anything like the DMCA. The US proposed DMCA-like language for WIPO, and it was rejected out of concerns much like the ones being brought up in this trial.
In other words, the DMCA can be overturned without having to pull out of WIPO- someone would just have to make another DMCA-like law without the unconstitutional bits, that would implement the sane bits of WIPO (if there are any).
Mozilla (since M18 at least) supports MathML out of the box. I'm sure the support isn't 100% complete or bug-free, but looking at a couple of demonstration pages it can do some pretty impressive stuff.
It supports only the "presentational" markup, not the "semantic" form, so unless you are amazingly patient you probably need a tool to generate it (there is a TeX to MathML converter available already) and you have to use XHTML in your web pages because XML-in-HTML is not supported by Mozilla. It also isn't included in all builds, and Netscape didn't choose to build it in NS6.
All that said, it works! I can view MathML pages today in my usual browser:)
My impression of the miniseries was that, although they got many details wrong, they managed to capture the overall "feel" of the book, and the overall plot, extremely well.
This will no doubt be redundant (thousands and thousands of/.ers will be posting these same criticisms) but here are a few of the details they got wrong:
- Baron Harkonnen was supposed to capture Thufir Hawat (the Atreides Mentat) and use him by persuading him that Jessica had been the traitor. Instead, Hawat seemed to die in the raid (I think?) This was IMO a good choice for a plotline to drop if you have to drop one at all, because Hawat didn't really play much role despite being in Harkonnen's employ.
- Irulan's role was, of course, all wrong, but I suspect that that was deliberate. It made it possible to explain a lot of events without having to resort to voiceovers or narration.
- No explanation of how the Fremen blew a hole in the shield wall (didn't they use the family atomics or something?)
- Too many more to count...
On the good side, though:
- They got Alia right - young, cute and *really* spooky.
- They got the ending right (... "history will call us wives"). It didn't rain!
- Many of the scenes looked *exactly* as I pictured them when reading the book - especially when Paul and Jessica first met the Fremen. Overall, the "atmosphere" was very good.
- Most of the important plotlines were preserved, even the seemingly minor ones. For example, Gurney's attack on Jessica, and the death of young Leto.
Overall, I was extremely impressed. It wasn't a perfect rendition of the book, and they took a few liberties with the storyline, but it worked really well overall and captured the *spirit* of the book.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an expert, but perhaps the cooling effect would be from the fact that the structure is shaped to draw in more wind (as opposed to traditional buildings, which some have commented are usually designed to *reduce* the amount of wind).
Maybe the cooling effect of the extra wind between the structures would counter the heating effect of sucking the energy out of the wind?
Stuart.
There's been no major netscape release since june 2000? Excuse me?
Netscape 6.1 (released last month) is effectively the *first* release of the new, mozilla-based, rewritten from scratch, standards compliant, stable, fast, skinnable, netscape browser.
You can argue about "fast" (depends on your computer - it flies on mine) and it's certainly not "lean and mean" but it certainly counts as a major release.
I say "effectively the first" because 6.0 was, by all accounts, a complete disaster. While Netscape's official corporate position is still "it was the right product at the right time", even their own developers unofficially admit that this is only because they had to release *something* before they became completely irrelevant. 6.1 is what 6.0 should have been.
Now, I don't know whether their market share has increased due to 6.1 or not (ime 6.0 caused such a backlash that a lot of people are simply not willing to give 6.1 a chance, and those are by definition the people that were willing to give netscape a chance a year ago) but it's simply not true to claim that there hasn't been a major netscape release since june of last year. 6.1 is imho the most significant netscape release since 4.5 (which was the equivalent point in the 4.x series - previous 4.xs sucked in the same way 6.0 did, 4.5 was the first decent release)
Sorry, the formula for Snapple[TM] is copyrighted - replicating Snapple[TM] is a violation of the DMCA and you will face 25 years in prison just for thinking about it, courtesy of Snapple[TM] Beverage Corp[TM].
In response to this growing threat to our freedoms, the FSF has launched a new Lemon Iced Tea project which will be licensed under the GPL, and RMS is already preparing his "Why it should be referred to as GNU/Iced Tea" whitepaper.
I can see the MozillaQuestQuest article now:
MozillaQuest lays off MozillaQuest's Chief Article Wrangler, Michael Angelo, And Others?
According to Bug Number 34834 in the MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite's BugQuest database, MozillaQuest's Chief Article Wrangler, "Michael Angelo has left MozillaQuest." However, he is still listed on MozillaQuest's article pages as the MozillaQuest article writer.
Here's what we think happened. It appears that Michael Angelo's position at MozillaQuest was eliminated and that he consequently was laid off on or about 4 September 2001. Although Michael served as head of the MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite he was actually employed by Matrix Wireless and was being paid by Matrix Wireless for his work at the Magazine-Suite.
The lion's share of people working on the entire MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite are employed and paid by Matrix Wireless - or at least were employed by Matrix Wireless. Matrix Wireless through its spokesman Michael Angelo has refused to disclose how many Matrix Wireless employees work on the Magazine-Suite. However it is likely that at least 100-200 positions have been eliminated at the Magazine-Suite, which would leave it with only -99 to -199 employees. So layoffs at Matrix Wireless could have a substantial impact on the MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite.
This puts my username, host and working directory in both my prompt and my xterm window title. Put it in /etc/profile on all machines you use and you always know where you are :) Only works if your shell is bash, though.
;;
;;
case "$TERM" in
xterm|xterm-*)
PS1='`echo >&2 -en "\033]0;\u@\h:\w\007"`\u@\h:\w\$ '
*)
PS1='\u@\h:\w\$ '
echo "Non-xterm: window-title functions disabled"
esac
Hey, a bunch of people in my HS did that too.
;)
You wouldn't happen to be in Surrey, UK would you?
Stuart.
Well, here's what *I* always planned on trying to do with my CueCat:
Add a plugin to AbiWord/KWord/KSpread/Gnumeric that would put a barcode on the bottom of each printout. Then arrange that scanning that barcode with my cat would auto-launch said office application with the relevant document.
Sounded useful to me, especially if you work for a company that prints all sorts of things out without including the filename in the footer. And even with the filename in the footer it would be quicker and easier just to scan it...
Stuart.
PS You could do the same thing with a web browser to launch at a URL based on a printout of the page.
The only thing you have wrong is #1. The only people you have to provide source to are the people you provide binaries to. Even though Linus is the copyright holder, he doesn't get any rights to your version unless you give him the binaries.
You left out an important part of #2, though: You have to give the purchasers of the VCR the right to modify and redistribute the code (under the GPL), as well as simply obtaining it.
(re debian support: Just unpack the 0.9 tar.gz in /usr/local as root, cd to the installed directory, run the following:
/usr/bin/mozilla from the debian package to run /usr/local/mozilla-whatever/mozilla instead of /usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla. Works great.)
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ;
export MOZILLA_FIVE_HOME=. ;
./regxpcom ;
./regchrome ;
touch chrome/user-{locales,skins}.rdf
then edit
As far as the "major portions rewrite", I partially agree. However, I'd still much rather see this work done before 1.0 than after - the image library had major structural problems, the old cache was completely crap (and was the primary cause of the appalling behavior of "view source" on form posts), and some of the newer rewrites (CSS rule matching, XPCDOM) are major performance and memory gains (in other words, answers to all the "it's slow/bloated" criticism). It speaks poorly of the *early* mozilla development that these major rewrites are necessary, but it's still good to see them happen - as a mozilla user myself I can see the benefits every time I download a new build and I certainly wouldn't trade my new cache or image library for the old ones.
Stuart.
The last answer I heard for this is "We're waiting on an okay from a major contributor, but work is still ongoing on this". Now, I have no idea which "major contributor" this could be: I don't think it's Netscape themselves because they were the ones that initiated this, so I guess the top candidates are Sun, IBM and maybe ActiveState... but those are just names pulled out of the hat that have done a lot of work on Mozilla. It could be anyone, but "we're waiting on a major contributor" is the official line.
Stuart.
Damn, 2 days ago I had moderator access and nothing I wanted to do with it - now here's a post that I want to mod up and I don't have any.
Folks, MozillaQuest has been clueless from day 1. I've found numerous factual errors in their articles, all of which were obvious to me even as an outsider who just follows the various n.p.m.* newsgroups and reads *real* mozilla news sites like mozillaZine. I haven't read a single article at their site that told me anything I didn't know, except for the ones (like this one) that are just plain untrue (see other posts: the roadmap was updated weeks ago and all they changed was the "you are here" X).
I suspect this site is actually run by someone with an anti-mozilla agenda. Checking the whois indicates that the same person (Mike Angelo) owns the domains and posts practically every article on the site. And the front-page has at least 5 "Mozilla 1.0 delayed until XXXX" articles - nothing about all the great new features that have gone in recently, the giant leaps in mail/news stability and performance, the pre-loader for better startup time, Dave Hyatt's new CSS rule matching code that gives a 10% performance improvement and saves hundreds of K in runtime memory, or anything. Just "Mozilla 1.0 delayed". Way to not tell the whole story.
Read mozillaZine if you want mozilla news, or better yet, subscribe to the newsgroups and follow interesting issues in bugzilla. If only the MozillaQuest editor would bother to do that.
Stuart.
Yeah, I tried to put in spoilerspace but /. compressed it all to one line. I should have used preview. Sorry. I did at least *warn* readers not to read the rest of my comment, which is more than this reviewer did.
I'm now going to put in some actual spoilerspace before discussing why I believe the review was a spoiler...
some
text
that
hopefully
will defeat
the lameness
filter
foo
However, if you're reading the book, and you got to the bit where you find out that Time has a son - the first thing you wonder is *which* of the two possible characters is the son. There's no inkling that "both" is a possibility -- and it's very clear (once you do find out) that you were never *meant* to guess it - it's supposed to come as a surprise. If you've read this review, you've heard "son (or sons)" and so you *know*, consciously or not, that "both" is a possible answer. It is a legitimate spoiler.
Stuart.
Damn, watch the spoilers! My advice to anyone who hasn't read ToT yet is to not read the above review... or the rest of this comment.
"And I nearly forgot the Son of Time. Or Sons. Or something like that." - you just gave away the most carefully-kept secret in the whole book! First off it's not even revealed that Time has a son until a long way into the book, and even after that, Pterry is VERY careful to avoid hinting at plurals until Lobsang is actually about to meet Jeremy: "He's your brother" is the very first time we find this out, and up until that point one of the major items of suspense is *which* of the two actually is Time's son. Nicely spoilt, without any warning whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure that the fact that the clock will stop time is also not given away until later in the book, and I'm not entirely sure about the Fifth Horseman either.
I'm just glad that I'd read the book before I read this review, or I'd be mighty pissed off.
Stuart.
"this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works?"
Oops.
RMS signing a document full of the term "Open Source"!
Quick, someone check the weather in hell...
Stuart.
That's actually easy - just read Reflections on trusting trust by Ken Thompson. This paper is absolutely recommended reading, and was groundbreaking when first published in August 1984. It's also one of /.'s top ten hacks of all time... Of course it would only work if your NSA Linux code was compiled on a system running NSA Linux from binaries, but that would probably apply a fair amount of the time.
Well, I do see your logic and it makes a kind of sense. But I don't think it totally rules out changing the rules in a way that *effectively* gets rid of software patents.
(I'll take the hardware vs software issue as an example; the same logic can be used for software vs business and software vs genetic)
If you wish to disallow software patents, all you have to do is say that no software program can *infringe* a hardware patent. In other words, a patent is only being infringed if the hardware is sufficiently single-purpose to infringe the patent even with no software running on it. A software program running on generic hardware simply could not be considered to infringe on any hardware patent, because it isn't hardware.
Thus if Amazon were to patent 1-click by writing a patent that described a special-purpose computer whose sole purpose in life was 1-click, we could all laugh at them and implement 1-click using PHP or cgi or JSP on our generic hardware and be completely safe, even though they had a legitimate patent.
This would not only be equivalent to disallowing software patents, it would discourage people from filing hardware patents that were simply software patents in disguise, because they wouldn't be any use against "infringing" software.
Thoughts?
Stuart.
The 2.4.1ac series included a couple of fixes for the Matrox G450 card. The changelog for 2.4.2 says "sync up more with Alan", but it doesn't say what changes were sunc. How can I find out if the Matrox fixes went in or not?
Thanks,
Stuart.
This is at least the fourth time I've seen MozillaQuest information corrected.
;) )
/. has recently, either).
Back before the 0.7 release, it was widely known through newsgroup discussion and public comments that 0.7 was likely to be a hand-picked one of the nightly builds from sometime in December (in the end there was a brief branch for it, but that happened later). MozillaQuest ran a story in late December saying "0.7 is scheduled for the end of December, and seeing as it's December 29th or so today, that must mean that if you pick up a nightly tonight then it'll be more or less identical to 0.7, right?". Of course this was crap - the 0.7 build could have come from Dec 3rd, if that had been the best compromise of features and stability. (Of course, discussing the release process in a reply to Asa means that I'm bound to have got something wrong just by Murphy's Law, so the disclaimer is: if Asa disagrees with anything in this paragraph, then he's right and I'm wrong
Then I read another story on there - I forget the details of this one, but I think it was something to do with skinning, and even a casual observer of the project, such as myself, was able to spot technical mistakes in their comments. And that was intended as a tutorial for new skin creators!
Then there's the other comment in this slashdot article which Asa also corrected.
So far I haven't seen an article on MozillaQuest yet that I've considered up to the lowest standards of research and quality (although they haven't quite sunk to some of the depths
These days I just ignore any MozillaQuest link, despite being very interested in Mozilla info. I don't want to give them the banner ad money. Visit mozillaZine instead if you want accurate Mozilla reporting.
Stuart.
Read the release notes of 0.8, it's listed right there under "new features".
You can even disable opening new windows when a website specifies target="_blank" on a link.
Stuart.
I'm going to be buying a new computer in the very near future and I want to get a good graphics card. I also want to support companies that have been "good" towards open source, so your advice is exactly what I had planned to do.
:) )
But should I buy ATI or Matrox? I don't play many 3D games, but I do want to get decent performance when I do. I also want good 2D because that's what I use most (I want AA text too
So my question is, which is "better" for me, ATI or Matrox? I appreciate that ATI has faster 3D, but is it as well supported in XFree 4.0.2? How does its 2D compare to Matrox? If the ATI has better 3D and comparable 2D, why did so many people mention Matrox and so few ATI in the recent Ask Slashdot on this topic?
Help?
Thanks,
Stuart.
Read the law professors' brief. It explains clearly that:
- Implementing a treaty didn't give Congress the right to break the constitution.
- The WIPO treaty *didn't* require anything like the DMCA. The US proposed DMCA-like language for WIPO, and it was rejected out of concerns much like the ones being brought up in this trial.
In other words, the DMCA can be overturned without having to pull out of WIPO- someone would just have to make another DMCA-like law without the unconstitutional bits, that would implement the sane bits of WIPO (if there are any).
Stuart.
You mean SVG? The non-proprietary W3C developed vector graphics format that I can view (admittedly only a limited subset of) in my browser today?
Stuart.
Mozilla (since M18 at least) supports MathML out of the box. I'm sure the support isn't 100% complete or bug-free, but looking at a couple of demonstration pages it can do some pretty impressive stuff.
:)
It supports only the "presentational" markup, not the "semantic" form, so unless you are amazingly patient you probably need a tool to generate it (there is a TeX to MathML converter available already) and you have to use XHTML in your web pages because XML-in-HTML is not supported by Mozilla. It also isn't included in all builds, and Netscape didn't choose to build it in NS6.
All that said, it works! I can view MathML pages today in my usual browser
Stuart.
My impression of the miniseries was that, although they got many details wrong, they managed to capture the overall "feel" of the book, and the overall plot, extremely well.
/.ers will be posting these same criticisms) but here are a few of the details they got wrong:
This will no doubt be redundant (thousands and thousands of
- Baron Harkonnen was supposed to capture Thufir Hawat (the Atreides Mentat) and use him by persuading him that Jessica had been the traitor. Instead, Hawat seemed to die in the raid (I think?) This was IMO a good choice for a plotline to drop if you have to drop one at all, because Hawat didn't really play much role despite being in Harkonnen's employ.
- Irulan's role was, of course, all wrong, but I suspect that that was deliberate. It made it possible to explain a lot of events without having to resort to voiceovers or narration.
- No explanation of how the Fremen blew a hole in the shield wall (didn't they use the family atomics or something?)
- Too many more to count...
On the good side, though:
- They got Alia right - young, cute and *really* spooky.
- They got the ending right (... "history will call us wives"). It didn't rain!
- Many of the scenes looked *exactly* as I pictured them when reading the book - especially when Paul and Jessica first met the Fremen. Overall, the "atmosphere" was very good.
- Most of the important plotlines were preserved, even the seemingly minor ones. For example, Gurney's attack on Jessica, and the death of young Leto.
Overall, I was extremely impressed. It wasn't a perfect rendition of the book, and they took a few liberties with the storyline, but it worked really well overall and captured the *spirit* of the book.