I would have thought it was precisely because they have so much land that they can do this. Only one body in 75 square metres.
No British cemetery can offer the same.
I must have misread TFA. I really look forward to support for higher colour depth. I took
In other words it will get support for higher color depths, more colorspaces and eventually non-destructive editing in The GIMP! to mean that a future version will now be able to support higher. If you are telling me that capability is with us now, then I rejoice, but that's not how the article reads to me.
This feels like one of those releases that will be exciting for the developers, but largely irrelevant to the end users. Hopefully, it will lay the foundations for future releases to have exciting new features and capabilities, but for now there seems little to shout about.
Reminds me of KDE4.
Whilst I am sure identity theft is a very real problem, I'm not sure I want Symantec to be my source of information about it. They have done more to reduce internet security than most, with bloated, unusable virus checkers that people end up simply disabling.
Furthermore, there is a pretty obvious marketing angle to all of this.
You are completely wrong. "Unique" has one meaning and one meaning alone. This is not grammar, it is semantics. There can be no degrees of uniqueness. It is a boolean term. Either something is unique or it is not. If you argue otherwise, you are wrong.
Why misuse a word when there are plenty of excellent alternatives in this rich language of ours? How about "rare", "uncommon", "exceptional", "unusual", "extraordinary"? You can apply modifiers to any of these terms if they are not strong enough for you. You could try "very rare" or "extremely unusual". But you cannot have degrees of uniqueness, however much you pule about common usage.
Abuse of words like "unique" is commonplace in these days of grammar ignorance, but this article really does excel. The trouble is, I can't decide if it was deliberate irony on behalf of the author, or just plain ignorance.
Real men never RTFM, anyway.
But seriously, it should be one of the goals of the project to ensure that such books are not really need. The GUI should be intuitive where possible and on-line help should be thorough where it is required.
Audible insists on DRM, so I won't use audible.
Whenever the free, pirated version is technically superior to the costly commercial version, the business case is on pretty rocky ground.
There are an increasing number of examples showing that people will pay real money for products that can easily be obtained for nothing, but it must be worth their while. Well presented, high quality, DRM free recording, perhaps accompanied by supporting extras, such as maps and illustrations will sell. The recent experiment by the Nine Inch Nails is an excellent example of people being prepared to pay for a premium product.
The difference here is that Google will certainly provide examples of similar problems, but the student will still have to apply these examples to the specific problem in hand. It is to be hoped that this will at least force them to demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of the problem.
Where they can just take the precise answer off Facebook and change a few words, no understanding is required at all.
Even in my day, course work of this nature was always at risk of collaboration. With the information now available at the keyboard, it seems completely devalued. As another poster has said, invigilated exams must form a critical part of any assessment.
It is analogous to job interviews. People can look great on a CV. A lot of them look far less impressive when I put them in front of computer and give them 40 minutes to complete a programming test.
For Microsoft to have failed to patch an issue such as this must be indicative of either breathtaking arrogance or utter stupidity... or perhaps both. Which is it?
I've just had an upgrade from Virgin Media to 20Mbps. I do get that speed, too. Trouble is, after I've downloaded a gig or two, I get throttled back to 5Mbps until midnight.
Virgin reserve the right to tweak these parameters at their own convenience. I guess that is the future we have to get used to.
I agree that they probably fulfilled their minimum obligation, but it would be great to see a much higher degree of co-operation between the vendors of minority browsers. By all means attack MS in this way, but play nice amongst the good guys.
Sorry, your logic is flawed. Each version of Lotus Notes I have used has been rotten. The idea that it must have improved simply because 5 years have gone by holds no water at all. I am continually astonished that Notes is used by so many corporates - including the last 3 companies I have worked for. If we ever upgrade to 8, on whatever platform, I will try to be open minded, but it will be difficult. Notes has a legacy of appalling usability to overcome. I ask you F9 to refresh a view, whilst f5 logs you out!
It's great that IBM are making sure that their desktop apps run on Linux, but I wish they could have picked one that I hate less.
The real idiots are the ones who realise that they've inappropriately done a reply all and then do it again to apologise.
Someone did that at our place last week with a party invitation that was sent to the entire company (150+ people). To make matters worse, the mail had a very large attachment on it, so we all ended up 3 copies of the attachment.
Still a very inconvenient way to transfer a file to an MP3 Player. And, of course, you have to use iTunes in the first place, which is the essence of DRM.
Personally I'm of the mind that iTunes tracks have always been DRM free though, since you are allowed to burn them to CD.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. The fact that it is possible to burn to an inconvenient physical format an then rip to a DRM free format does not make iTunes DRM free. There is an inevitable loss of quality in this time-consuming process. I cannot play the original file on anything but iTunes or an iPod. That is DRM and it does not equate to consumer choice. Happily, Apple will now be forced to get rid of DRM - in the US, at least. I have no problem with AAC - it's a good format and it can be played by Rockbox, but the DRM is not acceptable. I will never buy restricted media.
But his point is still sound. He won't buy an iPod, because Apple are not supporting Ogg Vorbis. Just because you can replace the firmware does not change this. Apple still get the money from you.
You make an excellent point.
Pro Linux, as I am, I still do not feel that we can afford to be complacent about the malware issue. The reason that Linux is largely unaffected is that it is not very widely used, especially by the sort of numpties that get tempted by exciting new screensavers baring trojans.
If/when we succeed in bringing Linux to the masses, this layer of protection will be torn away. I hope and believe that Linux is more secure by design and the same is probably true of many of the apps that are popular in Linux distros - you won't find ActiveX cheerfully opeing the door to anyone. However nobody should be ignoring malware with the excuse that Linux is immune.
Even if you could run more than one in real time, on normal hardware, it would be insane. I am forced to use McAfee at work and the delay in opening even moderate sized files is really noticable. For large files, it's really intrusive. When a I make a large EAR file for deploying to an application server, it can take several minutes. Much of that delay is due to the AV. Performing a similar operation at home on comparable hardware running Linux without AV if much faster. If two virus checkers insisted on inspecting every file I accessed it would absolutely become necessary to upgrade the hardware. It's a sad fact that the hardware industry is being driven by bloatware and anti malware.
Xnix did not patent this. Microsoft did. IANAL, but that's not the point. If it was already in use, that's prior art and the patent should not have been granted.
But this approach must be counter-productive. Even the fuckwits at the RIAA and their equivalents must be able to see not allowing fair use reduces the value of their CDs and makes them less attractive. That must lead to lower sales and lower profits. This is not a difficult concept.
If I buy a piece of music, I want to be able to play it on any device I own. I want to be able to do this legally, so I buy a CD, copy it and then rip the tracks to MP3. I can now use the CD in my home HiFi, the copied disc in my car (which has a bad habit of damaging discs), and the MP3s on my portable player. I'm happy and they should be too, as I parted with hard cash for the CD. If they now insists that my actions are illegal, I might as well download the MP3s in the first place and burn them to CD for the car and HiFi.
To what do you refer when you say the One True Belief? Not believing in religion is not a creed. I don't believe in God in the same way that I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy.
I do agree with your point about the word "atheism". The very fact that there is a word to describe a state of unbelief is very odd and counter productive. There is no similar word for not believing in the Tooth Fairy. The existence of a word to describe unbelief in God lends credence to the possibility of God's existence.
I read a very interesting piece on this subject in the Washington Post a few weeks ago. In it, Sam Harris argues the following:
Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as "non-racism" is not one. Atheism is not a worldview--and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves. He has since been criticised for his views by fellow "atheists", but I think there is a lot of sense in what he's saying.
Slashdot Mirror
I would have thought it was precisely because they have so much land that they can do this. Only one body in 75 square metres. No British cemetery can offer the same.
This feels like one of those releases that will be exciting for the developers, but largely irrelevant to the end users. Hopefully, it will lay the foundations for future releases to have exciting new features and capabilities, but for now there seems little to shout about.
Reminds me of KDE4.
Whilst I am sure identity theft is a very real problem, I'm not sure I want Symantec to be my source of information about it. They have done more to reduce internet security than most, with bloated, unusable virus checkers that people end up simply disabling. Furthermore, there is a pretty obvious marketing angle to all of this.
You are completely wrong. "Unique" has one meaning and one meaning alone. This is not grammar, it is semantics. There can be no degrees of uniqueness. It is a boolean term. Either something is unique or it is not. If you argue otherwise, you are wrong.
Why misuse a word when there are plenty of excellent alternatives in this rich language of ours? How about "rare", "uncommon", "exceptional", "unusual", "extraordinary"?
You can apply modifiers to any of these terms if they are not strong enough for you. You could try "very rare" or "extremely unusual". But you cannot have degrees of uniqueness, however much you pule about common usage.
Abuse of words like "unique" is commonplace in these days of grammar ignorance, but this article really does excel. The trouble is, I can't decide if it was deliberate irony on behalf of the author, or just plain ignorance.
Real men never RTFM, anyway.
But seriously, it should be one of the goals of the project to ensure that such books are not really need. The GUI should be intuitive where possible and on-line help should be thorough where it is required.
Audible insists on DRM, so I won't use audible.
Whenever the free, pirated version is technically superior to the costly commercial version, the business case is on pretty rocky ground.
There are an increasing number of examples showing that people will pay real money for products that can easily be obtained for nothing, but it must be worth their while. Well presented, high quality, DRM free recording, perhaps accompanied by supporting extras, such as maps and illustrations will sell. The recent experiment by the Nine Inch Nails is an excellent example of people being prepared to pay for a premium product.
The difference here is that Google will certainly provide examples of similar problems, but the student will still have to apply these examples to the specific problem in hand. It is to be hoped that this will at least force them to demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of the problem. Where they can just take the precise answer off Facebook and change a few words, no understanding is required at all. Even in my day, course work of this nature was always at risk of collaboration. With the information now available at the keyboard, it seems completely devalued. As another poster has said, invigilated exams must form a critical part of any assessment.
It is analogous to job interviews. People can look great on a CV. A lot of them look far less impressive when I put them in front of computer and give them 40 minutes to complete a programming test.
For Microsoft to have failed to patch an issue such as this must be indicative of either breathtaking arrogance or utter stupidity... or perhaps both. Which is it?
I've just had an upgrade from Virgin Media to 20Mbps. I do get that speed, too. Trouble is, after I've downloaded a gig or two, I get throttled back to 5Mbps until midnight. Virgin reserve the right to tweak these parameters at their own convenience. I guess that is the future we have to get used to.
I agree that they probably fulfilled their minimum obligation, but it would be great to see a much higher degree of co-operation between the vendors of minority browsers. By all means attack MS in this way, but play nice amongst the good guys.
Sorry, your logic is flawed. Each version of Lotus Notes I have used has been rotten. The idea that it must have improved simply because 5 years have gone by holds no water at all. I am continually astonished that Notes is used by so many corporates - including the last 3 companies I have worked for. If we ever upgrade to 8, on whatever platform, I will try to be open minded, but it will be difficult. Notes has a legacy of appalling usability to overcome. I ask you F9 to refresh a view, whilst f5 logs you out!
It's great that IBM are making sure that their desktop apps run on Linux, but I wish they could have picked one that I hate less.
or After Effects.
The real idiots are the ones who realise that they've inappropriately done a reply all and then do it again to apologise.
Someone did that at our place last week with a party invitation that was sent to the entire company (150+ people). To make matters worse, the mail had a very large attachment on it, so we all ended up 3 copies of the attachment.
Still a very inconvenient way to transfer a file to an MP3 Player. And, of course, you have to use iTunes in the first place, which is the essence of DRM.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. The fact that it is possible to burn to an inconvenient physical format an then rip to a DRM free format does not make iTunes DRM free. There is an inevitable loss of quality in this time-consuming process. I cannot play the original file on anything but iTunes or an iPod. That is DRM and it does not equate to consumer choice. Happily, Apple will now be forced to get rid of DRM - in the US, at least.
I have no problem with AAC - it's a good format and it can be played by Rockbox, but the DRM is not acceptable. I will never buy restricted media.
But his point is still sound. He won't buy an iPod, because Apple are not supporting Ogg Vorbis. Just because you can replace the firmware does not change this. Apple still get the money from you.
You make an excellent point.
Pro Linux, as I am, I still do not feel that we can afford to be complacent about the malware issue. The reason that Linux is largely unaffected is that it is not very widely used, especially by the sort of numpties that get tempted by exciting new screensavers baring trojans.
If/when we succeed in bringing Linux to the masses, this layer of protection will be torn away. I hope and believe that Linux is more secure by design and the same is probably true of many of the apps that are popular in Linux distros - you won't find ActiveX cheerfully opeing the door to anyone. However nobody should be ignoring malware with the excuse that Linux is immune.
Even if you could run more than one in real time, on normal hardware, it would be insane. I am forced to use McAfee at work and the delay in opening even moderate sized files is really noticable. For large files, it's really intrusive. When a I make a large EAR file for deploying to an application server, it can take several minutes. Much of that delay is due to the AV. Performing a similar operation at home on comparable hardware running Linux without AV if much faster. If two virus checkers insisted on inspecting every file I accessed it would absolutely become necessary to upgrade the hardware. It's a sad fact that the hardware industry is being driven by bloatware and anti malware.
Sadly, yes I do. Provided that each state gets to provide a bit of the concrete!
But this approach must be counter-productive. Even the fuckwits at the RIAA and their equivalents must be able to see not allowing fair use reduces the value of their CDs and makes them less attractive. That must lead to lower sales and lower profits. This is not a difficult concept.
If I buy a piece of music, I want to be able to play it on any device I own. I want to be able to do this legally, so I buy a CD, copy it and then rip the tracks to MP3. I can now use the CD in my home HiFi, the copied disc in my car (which has a bad habit of damaging discs), and the MP3s on my portable player. I'm happy and they should be too, as I parted with hard cash for the CD. If they now insists that my actions are illegal, I might as well download the MP3s in the first place and burn them to CD for the car and HiFi.
I do agree with your point about the word "atheism". The very fact that there is a word to describe a state of unbelief is very odd and counter productive. There is no similar word for not believing in the Tooth Fairy. The existence of a word to describe unbelief in God lends credence to the possibility of God's existence. I read a very interesting piece on this subject in the Washington Post a few weeks ago. In it, Sam Harris argues the following: Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn't really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as "non-racism" is not one. Atheism is not a worldview--and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves. He has since been criticised for his views by fellow "atheists", but I think there is a lot of sense in what he's saying.