It appears as if I've craftily tricked you into revealing your update calculation algorithm:)
And you're right - I notice now that Google, for example, isn't marked as updated when checking. Two of us missed that completely in testing, which is somewhat embarrassing. Perhaps the feature will get re-stolen . . . .
yes, it would be nice if browsers besides Safari used the 1.4.1 JavaCocoaPlugin. It would also be nice if Apple released some sort of documentation on how to call it. I *think* you can load it as a normal bundle, then call it just like the old Carbon plug-in, but it'd be nice to have something written someplace to back this up.
Um, I hate to break it to you - but Omni's page change notification system is hopelessly broken. It relies on websites returning a "304" response to indicate pages haven't been changed since a certain date, and a "200" response if they have. This worked back in the 90's. It doesn't anymore.
Many many many web sites now always return "200" no matter what. Google? 200. Any blogs you happen to read at Xanga, Blogspot, etc? 200. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Slashdot, Yahoo, Apple? 200. Always. Without fail. Check every second - check every half-second, the website will still say it's been updated.
Don't believe me? Go through and set some of your bookmarks to check every minute, rather than the every couple of hours they're set at now. Then come back and tell me how great Omni's update checking is.
Builds of Camino existed with this feature. It matched Omniweb's behavior exactly. The feature was pulled because it was found to be worthless.
Yes, the string and container classes are pretty goofy. "Oh no, OpenVMS doesn't have a.rot13 method on it's string class - guess we'll have to implement strings from scratch in Mozilla for every platform"
But - as to *hundreds* of sites with problems - I have ~60 bookmarks. 3 of them are rendered oddly in Safari compared with Moz/Camino. So hundreds doesn't seem that unreasonable.
Apple has made some nice contributions to KHTML - but there are still some problems when it comes to standards support that Gecko doesn't have.
The reason I've been told that one isn't allowed to ask for an ID to vote is that it would be a violation of the Constitution - specifically, the 24th Amendment.
Now, you're asking yourself, "why would asking for an ID violate the prohibition of poll taxes?" Think about the time you got (or last renewed) your driver's licence. It wasn't free, was it? Ta-dah! A poll tax.
So, if you've got to show a photo ID to vote, the state's got to provide a free photo ID. And most states right now are too broke to even think about something like this.
And as far as point 3 - Purging of the voting roles led to big problems in the 2000 election in Florida. Basically, some voters that shouldn't have been purged were purged. When they showed up to vote, they were told they couldn't. Big disaster. I suspect most places would rather have voting roles with ineligible voters (99.99% of whom won't show up to vote, because they've moved or are dead - and if "they" do show up, it's unlikely anyone will find out about it, thus causing problems for the officials running the election) than voting roles missing eligible voters (who will make a huge stink if they show up and are told they can't vote, which will cause a problem for the officials running the election).
You can read about the Florida voting list purge here if you wish, and check the mention in the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' report here.
Well, it's more like they saw a decay in efficiency, and after 48 hours, the rate of that decay was low enough that they couldn't really measure it on the hour-by-hour timescale they were working at.
So it doesn't mean that you can only use it for 48 hours then it has to get replaced. But it also doesn't mean it could run at 78% efficiency forever - if you checked the efficiency after two weeks, or two months, you would probably find it had dropped further.
As for your next question - "could you put 2 inline and get 95% efficiency", the answer depends on whether or not the reaction is going to equilibrium or not, as well as (iirc) the reactor type.
And as far as the article making a good somnulant - trust me, chicks dig Mossbauer spectroscopy. Bring it up the next time you're out on the town.
After reading the article(may need a subscription to view), I'm happy to answer your question.
The catalytic activity degrades over time - but stabilizes at 72% of initial activity after about 48 hours of use. They published data out to 60 hours of use. (since I eat lunch with John & George on a semi-regular basis, I can find out Monday how far they actually tested, but for now that's the best I can tell you.)
So if you're wondering why the activity degrades over time, that's an easier and harder question to answer. It's easy, since it's one of a couple of likely culprits - impurities in the feed stream can poison (ie, react with) the catalyst; the catalyst might physically break down over time, the metals in the catalyst might rearrange themselves over time (like tin on the catalyst surface might migrate to the sub-surface), etc. The hard part is figuring out which one (or how many) of these things are actually happening.
And as an aside, I can't believe it's a story in/. where I actually know the people involved. Way cool.
ahh - i see. in my classes, there were 10-15 students that would come by and get help, and then they'd tell everybody else. thank the stars they cut you out of the loop.
To answer your questions, no - I have no idea where the case stands legally, nor do I know what depositions might have been taken or what evidence has been exchanged.
And yes - you're correct, SCO's lawyers are going to want to keep things close to the vest as long as they possibly can, so that would be a good reason not to present the offending code.
My primary point was that the original poster was incorrect in saying you don't give out evidence before you get to court. My saying "they lose nothing by presenting the relevant IP" was, I'll grant you, a stretch.
Ah, but during the discovery phase of a case, you are REQUIRED to tell the opposing side what evidence you have, what witnesses you will be calling, what you consider to be relevant case law and your take on it.
You don't "surprise" either side with evidence in a real court of law. Judges won't let you present evidence in court you haven't already shared with the opposition during discovery, unless it really is "brand new" evidence discovered after the trial has started. And if that actually happens, you'll often have a recess declared so the opposition has a chance to analyze the evidence.
So they lose nothing by presenting the relevant IP.
only problem with this idea is that camino saves its bookmarks as an.xml file, not as standard "netscape1-bookmark-file".html. Although, of course, you can export from Camino.xml to that.html.
It's possible that within a few weeks Camino will move to a.plist file, which is what Safari uses. Or that it's choice of bookmark file becomes much more customizable. But we'll have to see if the big guys will go along with that;)
So, in one sense, I might be inclined to agree with you - many of my problems with Powerpoint have come when I've tried to move a file created on my Mac to a PC. There's always formatting mistakes, missing pictures, etc. And WinPP has crashed on me (from Office 2K) far more often than MacPP (from Office X). And like you have experienced my coworkers usually fumble around 5-10 minutes getting their Win2K laptops to display something, anything on the projector for talks.
However . . . the performance of MacPP is not good. Slow redraws. Slow moves of pictures. Unexplainable 15-20 sec delays once a file is open & visible for editing actions to be possible. Pictures that look fine on-screen but jaggy has hell when printed. These sorts of things (for me, on this mac) haven't happened in Keynote. Not to mention the occasional "gee, this slide just became 1"x0.5" after I had played with the zoom, and it keeps setting itself back to this size no matter what I try.
A valid point - we should take into account cost/time. So let's change the SSI number to be $3 billion (on a roughly annual basis) rather than $30 billion. I suppose you could even change the school tech number to $10 billion (I believe it was per decade, as well.)
But - does that recalculation mean the first poster was correct, that cutting out our foreign aid budget (~15-20 billion) lets us buy a new space station (~$3 billion/yr), new space delivery vehicle (who knows? I'd say considerably more than the ISS if you want something reusable), and solve ALL of our domestic problems?
Not a chance. It just isn't that big a part of the budget.
It's a pity you posted this as an AC - because you're post will probably never get noticed, and you've posted it as the respone to a response to the original post, and it's an opinion that I happen to agree with.
we could EASILY afford to reconfigure the shuttles, design and build new ones, and solve most of our domestic (US) problems (education, etc) if we'd Stop giving so damn much money away in foreign aid!!!
An intersting perspective. Let's see if it's backed up by fact. Here are the numbers I get from the U.S. state department. You can find the report here. These numbers seem to be in pretty good agreement with what I've seen from other sites on the web (you can do your own googling to verify).
U.S. Spending on Foreign Operations 2002: $17.9 Billion Requested spending in 2003: $16.4 Billion Requested spending in 2004: $18.8 Billion
Just so you know - those aid figures include a little over $4 billion a year in foreign military financing and a couple hundred million each for anti-drug efforts and peacekeeping efforts. But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, we'll lump it all in as "foreign aid."
In FY 2004, NASA's proposed budget is $15.4 Billion ( link). Cost of the ISS (estimated, from Young Report): ~$30 billion (link)
Estimated costs of "other" domestic problems: Medicare prescription drug benefit for elderly: $11-15 Billion (link). Domestic port security needs: $2 billion (link). Upgrade school technology: $100 billion (link).
I could go on, but I don't see much point in doing so. Foreign aid is a teeny tiny part of the federal budget, and cutting it won't do much of anything. A vast proportion of federal discretionary spending comes from Defense - if you want to cut, that's where you've got to cut.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears as if I've craftily tricked you into revealing your update calculation algorithm :)
And you're right - I notice now that Google, for example, isn't marked as updated when checking. Two of us missed that completely in testing, which is somewhat embarrassing. Perhaps the feature will get re-stolen . . . .
yes, it would be nice if browsers besides Safari used the 1.4.1 JavaCocoaPlugin. It would also be nice if Apple released some sort of documentation on how to call it. I *think* you can load it as a normal bundle, then call it just like the old Carbon plug-in, but it'd be nice to have something written someplace to back this up.
Um, I hate to break it to you - but Omni's page change notification system is hopelessly broken. It relies on websites returning a "304" response to indicate pages haven't been changed since a certain date, and a "200" response if they have. This worked back in the 90's. It doesn't anymore.
Many many many web sites now always return "200" no matter what. Google? 200. Any blogs you happen to read at Xanga, Blogspot, etc? 200. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Slashdot, Yahoo, Apple? 200. Always. Without fail. Check every second - check every half-second, the website will still say it's been updated.
Don't believe me? Go through and set some of your bookmarks to check every minute, rather than the every couple of hours they're set at now. Then come back and tell me how great Omni's update checking is.
Builds of Camino existed with this feature. It matched Omniweb's behavior exactly. The feature was pulled because it was found to be worthless.
I'd have to say that depends very much on the case in question.
Why yes, yes I do. I'll have to give you suggestion a try. Thanks!
My example: I can't log on to my school's wireless network with Safari (via https). I have to use Camino or Moz.
Why? Beats me. But it's true. With Safari 1.0.
Yes, the string and container classes are pretty goofy. "Oh no, OpenVMS doesn't have a .rot13 method on it's string class - guess we'll have to implement strings from scratch in Mozilla for every platform"
But - as to *hundreds* of sites with problems - I have ~60 bookmarks. 3 of them are rendered oddly in Safari compared with Moz/Camino. So hundreds doesn't seem that unreasonable.
Apple has made some nice contributions to KHTML - but there are still some problems when it comes to standards support that Gecko doesn't have.
You are correct. It's the same committee & same chairperson.
Beats me. Find an article & post with a link as a reply - I'd be interested.
I'll respond to points 2 & 3.
The reason I've been told that one isn't allowed to ask for an ID to vote is that it would be a violation of the Constitution - specifically, the 24th Amendment.
Now, you're asking yourself, "why would asking for an ID violate the prohibition of poll taxes?" Think about the time you got (or last renewed) your driver's licence. It wasn't free, was it? Ta-dah! A poll tax.
So, if you've got to show a photo ID to vote, the state's got to provide a free photo ID. And most states right now are too broke to even think about something like this.
And as far as point 3 - Purging of the voting roles led to big problems in the 2000 election in Florida. Basically, some voters that shouldn't have been purged were purged. When they showed up to vote, they were told they couldn't. Big disaster. I suspect most places would rather have voting roles with ineligible voters (99.99% of whom won't show up to vote, because they've moved or are dead - and if "they" do show up, it's unlikely anyone will find out about it, thus causing problems for the officials running the election) than voting roles missing eligible voters (who will make a huge stink if they show up and are told they can't vote, which will cause a problem for the officials running the election).
You can read about the Florida voting list purge here if you wish, and check the mention in the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' report here.
Well, it's more like they saw a decay in efficiency, and after 48 hours, the rate of that decay was low enough that they couldn't really measure it on the hour-by-hour timescale they were working at.
So it doesn't mean that you can only use it for 48 hours then it has to get replaced. But it also doesn't mean it could run at 78% efficiency forever - if you checked the efficiency after two weeks, or two months, you would probably find it had dropped further.
As for your next question - "could you put 2 inline and get 95% efficiency", the answer depends on whether or not the reaction is going to equilibrium or not, as well as (iirc) the reactor type.
And as far as the article making a good somnulant - trust me, chicks dig Mossbauer spectroscopy. Bring it up the next time you're out on the town.
After reading the article(may need a subscription to view), I'm happy to answer your question.
/. where I actually know the people involved. Way cool.
The catalytic activity degrades over time - but stabilizes at 72% of initial activity after about 48 hours of use. They published data out to 60 hours of use. (since I eat lunch with John & George on a semi-regular basis, I can find out Monday how far they actually tested, but for now that's the best I can tell you.)
So if you're wondering why the activity degrades over time, that's an easier and harder question to answer. It's easy, since it's one of a couple of likely culprits - impurities in the feed stream can poison (ie, react with) the catalyst; the catalyst might physically break down over time, the metals in the catalyst might rearrange themselves over time (like tin on the catalyst surface might migrate to the sub-surface), etc. The hard part is figuring out which one (or how many) of these things are actually happening.
And as an aside, I can't believe it's a story in
No, it wasn't. I wouldn't exactly call an 80% loss a "good return" on an investment.
ahh - i see. in my classes, there were 10-15 students that would come by and get help, and then they'd tell everybody else. thank the stars they cut you out of the loop.
So I see you weren't teaching (or maybe TA'ing) a class with homework . . .
To answer your questions, no - I have no idea where the case stands legally, nor do I know what depositions might have been taken or what evidence has been exchanged.
And yes - you're correct, SCO's lawyers are going to want to keep things close to the vest as long as they possibly can, so that would be a good reason not to present the offending code.
My primary point was that the original poster was incorrect in saying you don't give out evidence before you get to court. My saying "they lose nothing by presenting the relevant IP" was, I'll grant you, a stretch.
Discovery occurs in civil cases as well as criminal. A quick trip to google will convince you of this.
See here for a nice description by the ABA of discovery procedures. That website, in fact, has a good description of how trials work in general.
Ah, but during the discovery phase of a case, you are REQUIRED to tell the opposing side what evidence you have, what witnesses you will be calling, what you consider to be relevant case law and your take on it.
You don't "surprise" either side with evidence in a real court of law. Judges won't let you present evidence in court you haven't already shared with the opposition during discovery, unless it really is "brand new" evidence discovered after the trial has started. And if that actually happens, you'll often have a recess declared so the opposition has a chance to analyze the evidence.
So they lose nothing by presenting the relevant IP.
only problem with this idea is that camino saves its bookmarks as an .xml file, not as standard "netscape1-bookmark-file" .html. Although, of course, you can export from Camino .xml to that .html.
.plist file, which is what Safari uses. Or that it's choice of bookmark file becomes much more customizable. But we'll have to see if the big guys will go along with that ;)
It's possible that within a few weeks Camino will move to a
So, in one sense, I might be inclined to agree with you - many of my problems with Powerpoint have come when I've tried to move a file created on my Mac to a PC. There's always formatting mistakes, missing pictures, etc. And WinPP has crashed on me (from Office 2K) far more often than MacPP (from Office X). And like you have experienced my coworkers usually fumble around 5-10 minutes getting their Win2K laptops to display something, anything on the projector for talks.
However . . . the performance of MacPP is not good. Slow redraws. Slow moves of pictures. Unexplainable 15-20 sec delays once a file is open & visible for editing actions to be possible. Pictures that look fine on-screen but jaggy has hell when printed. These sorts of things (for me, on this mac) haven't happened in Keynote. Not to mention the occasional "gee, this slide just became 1"x0.5" after I had played with the zoom, and it keeps setting itself back to this size no matter what I try.
Hi, I see you've never used Powerpoint before.
A valid point - we should take into account cost/time.
So let's change the SSI number to be $3 billion (on a roughly annual basis) rather than $30 billion. I suppose you could even change the school tech number to $10 billion (I believe it was per decade, as well.)
But - does that recalculation mean the first poster was correct, that cutting out our foreign aid budget (~15-20 billion) lets us buy a new space station (~$3 billion/yr), new space delivery vehicle (who knows? I'd say considerably more than the ISS if you want something
reusable), and solve ALL of our domestic problems?
Not a chance. It just isn't that big a part of the budget.
It's a pity you posted this as an AC - because you're post will probably never get noticed, and you've posted it as the respone to a response to the original post, and it's an opinion that I happen to agree with.
Link to state department page on foreign aid budget here
An intersting perspective. Let's see if it's backed up by fact. Here are the numbers I get from the U.S. state department. You can find the report here. These numbers seem to be in pretty good agreement with what I've seen from other sites on the web (you can do your own googling to verify).
U.S. Spending on Foreign Operations 2002: $17.9 Billion
Requested spending in 2003: $16.4 Billion
Requested spending in 2004: $18.8 Billion
Just so you know - those aid figures include a little over $4 billion a year in foreign military financing and a couple hundred million each for anti-drug efforts and peacekeeping efforts. But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, we'll lump it all in as "foreign aid."
In FY 2004, NASA's proposed budget is $15.4 Billion ( link).
Cost of the ISS (estimated, from Young Report): ~$30 billion (link)
Estimated costs of "other" domestic problems:
Medicare prescription drug benefit for elderly: $11-15 Billion (link).
Domestic port security needs: $2 billion (link).
Upgrade school technology: $100 billion (link).
I could go on, but I don't see much point in doing so. Foreign aid is a teeny tiny part of the federal budget, and cutting it won't do much of anything. A vast proportion of federal discretionary spending comes from Defense - if you want to cut, that's where you've got to cut.