What I'd like to see now is a standard ultralight notebook with the two-hinge design replaced by a single central hinge that can rotate 180 degrees. Flip it over, it's a webpad, flip it back it's a notebook.
It runs Windows CE, but sounds like you're describing a Clio. Loses on the "standard ultralight notebook" count, I guess.:p
Oh, and one last thing - never give anyone your social security number.
Guess it's too late for me, then. A number of emplyers have had possession of my social security number at one point or another, as have any number of lenders (student loans). It's a little difficult to keep your SSN from everyone. There's no reason to consider HR-types or loan processors beyond the likelihood of turning to the dark side and misusing the data to which they have access. Not as a rule, just possibly, mind you. So, what, I'm screwed for participating in payroll taxes and funding my education?:P
The ATI Radeon 8500 is a very nice card, and the image quality is really stunning. However, the $199 price is a bit more than you can pay for a slightly-slower and comparable in quality GeForce 3 Ti 200. I got one of these for $119 at Best Buy (Bah), after a rebate.
That's odd,
Pricewatch
seems to turn up Radeon 8500s for about $125, including shipping.
At least, that's how I read the figures.
Yep. Not much help. Not really willing to dish out the dough for either a Zaurus or an Ipaq... I am impressed with Opera making the effort to pare down their regular *nixy offering for the Zaurus.
The best I can hope for is to load NetBSD onto the z50 and see what I can see there. That, too, is just an end-around on the CE operating system, though.:P
All these wonderful ports of Opera to "lesser" OSen. I realize there is little sense to challenge "Pocket IE" (bundling and all) but why won't Opera develop a version for Windows CE / Windows CE Professional / PocketPC / PocketPC 2000 / PocketPC 2002 / Windows CE.NET ???
Something nice and small for my WorkPad z50 to boost the productivity of Windows CE. There were rumors about of Mozilla/Netscape bringing NSPR to Windows CE, but here's a company willing and apparently able to port to handhelds / palmtops.
Even a trimmed down Opera would be better than Pocket IE. They could even throw in Personal Java support for applets!
Like today's big Lawrence Lessig article in Business Week...
Too fucking funny. I submitted that very same article into the submission queue yesterday, early afternoon, and... yep, still pending... too funny. Watch someone grab *your* reference and get the story on the front page. ROTFLMAO
I don't really see the relevance of that
[PoF letter-writing campaign].
FOX demonstrably responded to fan concerns in the past. (This shows, at least, that fans aren't outright ignored in all cases.)
The PoF campaign utilized the Internet to motivate letter writing. (Arguably anecdotal, as the article doesn't touch on it and my old listserv archives aren't available).
You're right that a handwritten letter != an online petition. You're also stating the obvious. Somehow the larger issues elude you. Online petitions probably do little more to soothe watcher's intial shock when confronted with cancellation. However, (1) FOX has been known to listen and (2) there are other ways to leverage the Internet.
I don't think there's been a single example of an online petition having an effect. Please provide examples if I'm mistaken.
Well, there is at least once recent example of
FOX responding to letter-writing campaigns. One
such campaign rescued Party of Five -
the second story on the other side of this link
is supportive of that claim.
I don't believe that online petitions work, but
if I recall correctly, online communications did
assist in the PoF fight by mobilizing people on
PoF-related email lists (yes, this was quite a while ago) to write letters. Likely, this approach
would prove more effective. Kill a tree, save a show!
Either of those methods will cause Gamespot's entire Website to not be listed in a Google search at all
[...]
There are methods of blocking parts of a site, yes, but robots.txt isn't one of them, at least as far as Google is concerned.
Wow.
Did you actually read
the document
to which you pointed another so snootily?
You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about.
I quote:
If you wish to exclude your entire website or a specific section (directory) of your server from Google's index, you can place a file at the root of your server called
robots.txt.
Emphasis theirs. But I'd like to repeat their use of the phrase "or a specific section" one more time: "or a specific section". Although the example on the referenced page is a blanket exclude, Google does partial excludes just fine, thank you -- through meta elements embedded in HTML or as the result of robots.txt rules.
Anyway, the real issue for Gamespot would be the yanking of snippets and cached pages from Google -- which is readily accomplished by following the instructions Google itself presents on that page. I've done it myself; it's *no big deal*.
I curse you for forcing my use of the +1 bonus to point out the wrongheadedness of your posting -- which seems to be stuck at +1 for each and every post, too.:p
Re:This is all good
on
WineX 2.0
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Good thing security is MicroSoft's number one focus now!
You made a funny. In all seriousness, does anyone have a pointer to Microsoft's summary of its audit activities in the month of February? Did they ever issue a press release trumpeting its accomplishments during the month of intense review?
I'm not looking to bash, I just want to know what they managed to accomplish. Near as I can tell, the only benefit to me was a series (three?) of Internet Explorer patch roll-ups. Anyone have a fuller clue?
Come on, I'm getting tired of all these
one-hit boy bands and 16 year-old pop stars.
Give me something worth buying, and I will.
Sentiments like the above floor me time and
again. "Give" you something? Is that the
sort of relationship you want with the music
to which you (eventually) listen? If all you
see (and, judging from your comments, know)
are one-hit, underage acts, you're not really
rummaging around much. Since when has music
appealing to your (or my, or anyone's) own
tastes been something that appears from on
high, without fail, in the absence of active
interest and searching?
I think Dave Hyatt's call for hundreds of different browsers to suit different people should be a call to action!
[W]e'll all be richer for having different browsers for different occasions.
The single biggest problem with Mozilla 1.0
[...]
is that all of the applications
[...]
are bundled together into a single monolithic app
[...]
after Mozilla 1.0, the apps should be disentangled from one another.
One reason that Mozilla has failed to produce a strong user interface is that nobody seems
[...]
able to define
[...]
Mozilla's target audience
[...]
You have all of these smart people
[...]
who get involved
[...]
for many different reasons
[...]
The end result[:]
Mozilla 1.0, a lumbering beast of an application suite that boasts a bewildering array of features
[...]
After Mozilla 1.0, Mozilla.org should relinquish control of its flagship application to Netscape and strike out on its own with new browser projects.
Unfortunately, I believe that decoupling of
constituent applications must lead development
of browser families targeting specific
users.
Hyatt's reasons are clear:
both application design (coding) and presentation
(UI) are hobbled by overabundant coupling.
However, recycling core components is not enough,
and I think the real merit found in Hyatt's words
pertains to one core concern: who will use this browser?
I haven't had the opportunity to use Galeon or any
of the other Gecko spin-offs, but I wonder (aloud) whether these projects adequately address this central concern and suitably differentiate themselves by targeting distinct user populations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most of these spin-offs begun to slim down Mozilla (in terms of required install packages, memory load, etc.) and haven't most retained that goal as their chief objective?
What Hyatt wants is clear audience identification and uncluttered development / presentation of tools tailored to each group's specific needs *as* users. Not just 100 different browsers. That's simple hyperbole on his part.
Alpha transparency is supported in indexed PNG images via the "tRNS" chunk which in effect gives you a 256-entry palette of RGBA, where R,G,G, and A all range from 0 to 255.
I must be confusing people tonight. Did you not read this from the post to which you replied:
Images using the indexed pixel type must resort to "simple" transparency to emulate a "real" alpha channel, however.
Simple transparency is effected through PNG's tRNS chunk, and yes, it does work just as you describe for indexed PNGs.
Sufficient for Web work, but: (1) still not a true 8-bit alpha channel, though effectively interpreted as such; and (2) potentially far narrower in range than alpha channel support for truecolor/grayscale PNGs (8-bit v. 8-bit/16-bit).
PNG supports 256 [palettes] like GIF, and also supports full 24bit colour [...]
I'm not sure if PNG supports an alpha channels at 24 bit.
Er. Yes, my language was a bit too compact, wasn't it? Technically, PNG supports three pixel type representations: indexed, truecolor, and grayscale.
Strictly speaking, truecolor pixels can be composed of 8-bit ["full 24-bit color"] or 16-bit ["fuller(?) 48-bit color"] samples.
And yes, alpha transparency is supported *only* for truecolor and grayscale types, not indexed types.
Images using the indexed pixel type must resort to "simple" transparency to emulate a "real" alpha channel, however.
Slashdot Mirror
dirth
dearth?
What I'd like to see now is a standard ultralight notebook with the two-hinge design replaced by a single central hinge that can rotate 180 degrees. Flip it over, it's a webpad, flip it back it's a notebook.
It runs Windows CE, but sounds like you're describing a Clio. Loses on the "standard ultralight notebook" count, I guess. :p
Oh, and one last thing - never give anyone your social security number.
Guess it's too late for me, then. A number of emplyers have had possession of my social security number at one point or another, as have any number of lenders (student loans). It's a little difficult to keep your SSN from everyone. There's no reason to consider HR-types or loan processors beyond the likelihood of turning to the dark side and misusing the data to which they have access. Not as a rule, just possibly, mind you. So, what, I'm screwed for participating in payroll taxes and funding my education? :P
The ATI Radeon 8500 is a very nice card, and the image quality is really stunning. However, the $199 price is a bit more than you can pay for a slightly-slower and comparable in quality GeForce 3 Ti 200. I got one of these for $119 at Best Buy (Bah), after a rebate.
That's odd, Pricewatch seems to turn up Radeon 8500s for about $125, including shipping. At least, that's how I read the figures.
Yep. Not much help. Not really willing to dish out the dough for either a Zaurus or an Ipaq ... I am impressed with Opera making the effort to pare down their regular *nixy offering for the Zaurus.
The best I can hope for is to load NetBSD onto the z50 and see what I can see there. That, too, is just an end-around on the CE operating system, though. :P
All these wonderful ports of Opera to "lesser" OSen. I realize there is little sense to challenge "Pocket IE" (bundling and all) but why won't Opera develop a version for Windows CE / Windows CE Professional / PocketPC / PocketPC 2000 / PocketPC 2002 / Windows CE .NET ???
Something nice and small for my WorkPad z50 to boost the productivity of Windows CE. There were rumors about of Mozilla/Netscape bringing NSPR to Windows CE, but here's a company willing and apparently able to port to handhelds / palmtops. Even a trimmed down Opera would be better than Pocket IE. They could even throw in Personal Java support for applets!
Signed,
frustrated with P.I.E.
[C]an anybody tell me why the use of active voice is preferred over passive voice?
I'm certain you meant to ask: Can anyone tell me why people prefer active voice to passive voice?
Like today's big Lawrence Lessig article in Business Week ...
Too fucking funny. I submitted that very same article into the submission queue yesterday, early afternoon, and ... yep, still pending ... too funny. Watch someone grab *your* reference and get the story on the front page. ROTFLMAO
D'oh!
I don't really see the relevance of that [PoF letter-writing campaign].
You're right that a handwritten letter != an online petition. You're also stating the obvious. Somehow the larger issues elude you. Online petitions probably do little more to soothe watcher's intial shock when confronted with cancellation. However, (1) FOX has been known to listen and (2) there are other ways to leverage the Internet.
I don't think there's been a single example of an online petition having an effect. Please provide examples if I'm mistaken.
Well, there is at least once recent example of FOX responding to letter-writing campaigns. One such campaign rescued Party of Five - the second story on the other side of this link is supportive of that claim.
I don't believe that online petitions work, but if I recall correctly, online communications did assist in the PoF fight by mobilizing people on PoF-related email lists (yes, this was quite a while ago) to write letters. Likely, this approach would prove more effective. Kill a tree, save a show!
Not exactly to your point, but close.
Wow is right. Someone on /. wreckless enough
to spell Futurama as Futerama, yet
caring enough to remember to accent the 'e' in Pokémon?
What kind of God would create a world where such things happen?
The FT.com article is wonderfully awkward to read with the Mozilla RC. Ah, well...
scroll scroll scroll
It pays to watch Amanda Pays.
Either of those methods will cause Gamespot's entire Website to not be listed in a Google search at all [...] There are methods of blocking parts of a site, yes, but robots.txt isn't one of them, at least as far as Google is concerned.
Wow. Did you actually read the document to which you pointed another so snootily? You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about. I quote:
Emphasis theirs. But I'd like to repeat their use of the phrase "or a specific section" one more time: "or a specific section". Although the example on the referenced page is a blanket exclude, Google does partial excludes just fine, thank you -- through meta elements embedded in HTML or as the result of robots.txt rules.
Anyway, the real issue for Gamespot would be the yanking of snippets and cached pages from Google -- which is readily accomplished by following the instructions Google itself presents on that page. I've done it myself; it's *no big deal*.
I curse you for forcing my use of the +1 bonus to point out the wrongheadedness of your posting -- which seems to be stuck at +1 for each and every post, too. :p
Chicken and egg. What comes first?
Well, there are others besides Loki around.
Came across an announcement on the Majesty Web site that Linux Game Publishing would be porting Majesty over to Linux.
Granted. The release was from January, but one can dream... and this still isn't an 'original' but rather an incredibly delayed port... but still...
Good thing security is MicroSoft's number one focus now!
You made a funny. In all seriousness, does anyone have a pointer to Microsoft's summary of its audit activities in the month of February? Did they ever issue a press release trumpeting its accomplishments during the month of intense review?
I'm not looking to bash, I just want to know what they managed to accomplish. Near as I can tell, the only benefit to me was a series (three?) of Internet Explorer patch roll-ups. Anyone have a fuller clue?
When will we see Slashdot implement P3P?
[D]on't you think sites would prepare for the traffic if they knew a story was coming out?
[advocacy type="devilish"]
Not really. Anyone else recall the whole mlife launch fiasco for AT&T Wireless during the last Super Bowl?
[/advocacy]
C'mon, no +1 for beee on account of the movie reference?
lol
Come on, I'm getting tired of all these one-hit boy bands and 16 year-old pop stars. Give me something worth buying, and I will.
Sentiments like the above floor me time and again. "Give" you something? Is that the sort of relationship you want with the music to which you (eventually) listen? If all you see (and, judging from your comments, know) are one-hit, underage acts, you're not really rummaging around much. Since when has music appealing to your (or my, or anyone's) own tastes been something that appears from on high, without fail, in the absence of active interest and searching?
It's not the links that makes people mad. It's the cache.
I don't want Google to keep a cached version of my page.
I think Dave Hyatt's call for hundreds of different browsers to suit different people should be a call to action! [W]e'll all be richer for having different browsers for different occasions.
Actually, Hyatt writes:
This follows on his earlier call (the one you cite):
Unfortunately, I believe that decoupling of constituent applications must lead development of browser families targeting specific users. Hyatt's reasons are clear: both application design (coding) and presentation (UI) are hobbled by overabundant coupling. However, recycling core components is not enough, and I think the real merit found in Hyatt's words pertains to one core concern: who will use this browser?
I haven't had the opportunity to use Galeon or any of the other Gecko spin-offs, but I wonder (aloud) whether these projects adequately address this central concern and suitably differentiate themselves by targeting distinct user populations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't most of these spin-offs begun to slim down Mozilla (in terms of required install packages, memory load, etc.) and haven't most retained that goal as their chief objective?
What Hyatt wants is clear audience identification and uncluttered development / presentation of tools tailored to each group's specific needs *as* users. Not just 100 different browsers. That's simple hyperbole on his part.
Alpha transparency is supported in indexed PNG images via the "tRNS" chunk which in effect gives you a 256-entry palette of RGBA, where R,G,G, and A all range from 0 to 255.
I must be confusing people tonight. Did you not read this from the post to which you replied:
Simple transparency is effected through PNG's tRNS chunk, and yes, it does work just as you describe for indexed PNGs. Sufficient for Web work, but: (1) still not a true 8-bit alpha channel, though effectively interpreted as such; and (2) potentially far narrower in range than alpha channel support for truecolor/grayscale PNGs (8-bit v. 8-bit/16-bit).
BZZZZZTT.
PNG supports 256 [palettes] like GIF, and also supports full 24bit colour [...] I'm not sure if PNG supports an alpha channels at 24 bit.
Er. Yes, my language was a bit too compact, wasn't it? Technically, PNG supports three pixel type representations: indexed, truecolor, and grayscale. Strictly speaking, truecolor pixels can be composed of 8-bit ["full 24-bit color"] or 16-bit ["fuller(?) 48-bit color"] samples. And yes, alpha transparency is supported *only* for truecolor and grayscale types, not indexed types. Images using the indexed pixel type must resort to "simple" transparency to emulate a "real" alpha channel, however.
Recommended reading: W3C PNG Recommendation.