I.E. 6 - Just after I submitted the post a thought occured to me: perhaps it's because i have all caching disabled i.e. this does seem to be the case lol. Firefox does not have an option for this, I'm not sure about safari.
Yes using images as form elements can work. Integrating them server side is difficult.
Though my real beef: every mouse over causes a *flicker* of the image.
End users don't like "wierd" behavior in user interfaces. There is no reason that the image should disappear and re-appear when the mouse goes over the image. This behavior gets worse as the connection speed of the user decreases.
This sort of behavior makes people who are not fully comfortable with the computer uncomfortable reducing their desire to interact with an application that behaves in this manner.
The flicker bahavior has also become rampant in drop down menu and site navigation everywhere. Back in the day we used to cache images but now we just accept sub-standard UI behavior because caching images "is a pain".
I took my laptop out of the box, turned it on (booting win xp prof.) and enrolled my fingers for authentication. Then I logged on using the enrolled fingers.
Will Linux be the first operating system to have integrated biometric user authentication 'out of the box'?"
but isn't it in some sense built on the shoulders of the hippies and hobbyists he seems to scorn
Not really. Java has continued to be a thorn in the side of the GNU camp because of it's licensing issues. His product has been built from the ground up and serves as a platform for the deployment of non-free software. Thus, he does not stand on the shoulders of those he scorns.
Has been available in windows since 2000 (perhaps earlier, I don't know). It's just that a lot of windows developers don't take "advantage" of it. It also consumes a lot of cpu to us the transparency in "neat" ways.
Class A Controlled airspace ends @ FL600. This does not however, mean that you are no longer under the influnce of the FAA. You are still flying within United States airspace, and thus are still under the influence of U.S. Aviation Policy. The restriction on sonic booms is not tied to altitude, thus it still applies above FL600. Indeed these rules apply to civilan aircraft, but a normal air carrier operates "civilian" aircraft. So for the discussion of a Japan/France alliance to build a supersonic aircraft and the disinterest of U.S. plane makers to do so - military and federal FAA policy is irrlevent.
The primary issue is Noise. As I mentioned in another response there is a National Environmetal Policy act that was passed in 1969 that is supposed to "protect the human environment". One of the "dangers" to that is noise. The FAA directive also explicitly states that a civil aircraft may not be operated above Mach number one, as well as stating that a sonic boom may not reach US soil. So the answer is both.
There is an appendix B to that rule (91.817) that allows an operator to apply for a permit to travel above mach 1, but it does not sound like it is easy to obtain.
In addition there are other noise abatement directives that limit how loud aircraft can be.
The bottom line of the FAA directive, states that "no measureable sonic boom overpressure" may reach the surface of the U.S. except within an authorized test area. There is a rather lengthy procedure to be granted such an authorization. There is no mention of altitude in the FAR 91.817 or it's Appendix. The rule simply states that if you make a sonic boom, it cannot reach the surface of the United States.
In addition, high altitued flights are generally regarded as a Bad Idea because of concerns of radiation.
100 km is also 62 miles. A decent from such a flight will certainly put an aircraft above mach 1 over at an altitude which will cause a sonic boom to reach the US.
Suggests - a heavily modified F-4 Phantom on loan from the USAF proved that a noise cancelling shape was feasible. However, that design is a long way from commercial production.
Not true. Actually the FAA is responsible for enforcing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This act protects the "quality of the human environemt". The U.S. is unique in this regard because I don't think many other countries have such legislation.
The bottom line of the FAA directive however, states that "no measureable sonic boom overpressure" may reach the surface of the U.S. except within an authorized test area. There is a rather lengthy procedure to be granted such an authorization.
"Although Japan had previously done extensive research towards building a 250-person mach 1.6 passenger jet, the agreement with France - announced at the annual Paris Air Show on Tuesday - represents a interesting shift in technological alliances given the Japanese aviation industry's longstanding ties to the United States."
The U.S. aviation industry has no desire to build these aircraft. The FAA prohibits supersoinc flight over US Soil @ any altitude without prior special approval.
The first thing I did was to install OO.o It took only 7.5 minutes and took up 164MB (94.82 according to Windows). It did not require a restart. It has been over a year since I installed MS Office, but I know it had to be restarted and that it takes up 450MB (according to Windows).
Office does not require a restart. I just installed it yesterday.
Also, how much of office was installed? Just Word? I'm pretty sure that he also installed Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook and Office Tools at the minimum.
Using a 4.8 MB text file is a retarded test. How often is a very large text file like that manipulated?
The author doesn't really call attention to the fact that word actually owned writer in the basic document operations on the large text file FTFA: Operation OO Writer MSO Word Save 1:07.05 16.24* Close 2.36 12.42`` Open Saved File 1:06.63 26.26 Resave 1:26.26 22.59
That's a pretty significant performance difference.
The asterisk was for the following comment: * it opened in just 43.04 seconds, but it spent the next 22 minutes automatically spellchecking, with the CPU usage at 100% most of the time. Sometime during this, it autosaved, putting the CPU into the red zone for about 30 seconds. ``Oops... It was still "repaginating"
Yeah, well - you can turn that auto spell check feature off. Also, auto save isn't a bad thing.
LOL - I'm hardly a "proponent of the OSS revolution". I am however a propenent of no-free-lunch. I've been seeing a trend lately, where very large companies go out and base a significant portion of their products or services on free software. IBM has given a lot back - and they continue to innovate and release software for us to use. However, companies like Macromedia - don't innovate, and don't give a lot back. They loot IP from others and call it their own.
Flash is also as proprietary as it gets - more so than any other web development platform. And while I'm not a freak about standards, it's nice to have a common lingua franca that multiple products understand and not be tied into a vendor that writes software but feels that it's O.K. to have "known bugs".
Let's really be honest about what Macromedia is doing. They are going to leverage the Eclipse IDE for building a their new development platform and they will get the platform for Free. However their server side technology is not free and is not going to be OSS. It is in fact, rather expensive for what it is.
This is all very lame. They are effectively riding on the coat tails of everyone else's hard work to sell their server products. This kind of corporate free loading shouldn't be tolerated.
Also, do we *really* want Macromedia participating in the development of eclipse, a well designed ide and software platform? Flash has been an ever evolving mess of crap since it's inception. In fact, it's still crap or they would have decided that the current Flash IDE was still useful, and they would have not decided to camp others work and get a free IDE.
Note that Coldfusion was an allaire product and was not orginally developed by Macromedia.
I'm not sure I believe all this non sense just yet but I'll play devils advocate:
Here's my bet: Intel is going to produce PowerPC chips for Apple. But I'm only betting one dollar.
Is that a dollar for everyone that reads your blog? Intel doesn't have a cheap consumer ready power pc platform lined up, if they did that would be more of a shock than anything else.
From Peter Glaskowsky: "Apple certainly pays much less for IBM and Freescale processors than Intel charges for comparable chips. Probably less than half as much on average"
If find this claim to be dubious at best, I'm almost certain that Apple could find some economies with an Intel platform that they currently cannot with IBM. The chips could possibly cost less, but what about the engineering costs for motherboards that are always custom, in a market with fewer suppliers?
There was an article on Wired.com which provides a very solid argument for this new development. If we believe the garbage about chip emulation, there might be some meat to this. The DRM angle is definately the most convincing.
As an addition there have been multiple sources that talk about IBM's ability to deliver quantity on time. If there is anything to this it would explain why AMD hasn't been a part of the news - It is for similar reasons that Dell will not engage AMD to supply chips. AMD appears to have a bad rap for delivering quantity on time.
I'll believe all this when I see it, but the links provided don't fully cover the reasons for or againts.
Longhorn, should *not* be based on the Framework. One word - performance. What I think confuses most people is that while the OS and libraries may be written in C or C++ these libraries still can easily be used via the framework..NET is a application developers framework, it gives us access to almost all of the features of the C++ SDK but with a higher level of cleanliness and organization. "Managed code" offers a host of benefits for application developers such as protection from buffer overflows, more transparent management of system resources and better identity management.
To the framework developer it doesn't matter what the undelying library code is written in, so long as there are.NET base constructs to interact with the classes, methods or functions in external libraries - it's all good. A perfect example of this: a few weeks ago I had to write a framework adapter class to a legacy C library. It took about 30 minutes to expose the functions of the library that were needed. Just include a reference in the.net project and you're good to go.
All of this fuss about Longhorn not being developed in.NET is a good thing. Let's be realistic, why on earth would you build your OS on a garbage collecting framework? I mean, should Solaris move to using the JVM as it's core execution environment? Probably not.
So the short and sweet is, the core os will be built on traditional technologies (they are faster), but supporting applications will use the framework as their developemnt platform. In addition, all of the system level api calls will be available in the framework, making it easy for appliaction developers to build and deploy applications quickly.
Last spring there was a demo for Longhorn published to the web. The primary focus was around finding information regarding a real estate property. In the demo the user was able to select the street address of the property and retrieve, photos (air and sat.), demographic information and traffic pattern data and overlay it on a map. In hindsight, this sounds a lot like what Bill is talking about. All of this data was accessible via a web service as well.
I'm thinking that this isn't something that MS just invented "out of the blue" to compete with Google maps, it has likely been under development for a while.
Or is this all a clever trick on Google's part to build up more and more third parties dependent upon Google?
Probably, yes but WTF? Google is offering a service, you can choose to use it, or not. Go build your own if you don't like the fact that a Company is doing it (GL HF). Not every product or service offered by a company is some sort of hidden conspiracy to steal our lives and take our money. I also fail to see how "novelty" products such as these constitute a "dependency" on the google map service.
There is a big differance between saying "The vulnerability isn't really that bad" and saying "I'm never going to fix it". Linus is probably right to some degree about the severity of this attack vector. That doesn't mean that he won't fix it, or someone else will be allowed to.
Slashdot Mirror
I.E. 6 - Just after I submitted the post a thought occured to me: perhaps it's because i have all caching disabled i.e. this does seem to be the case lol. Firefox does not have an option for this, I'm not sure about safari.
Chalk one up for the bug list.
Yes using images as form elements can work. Integrating them server side is difficult.
Though my real beef: every mouse over causes a *flicker* of the image.
End users don't like "wierd" behavior in user interfaces. There is no reason that the image should disappear and re-appear when the mouse goes over the image. This behavior gets worse as the connection speed of the user decreases.
This sort of behavior makes people who are not fully comfortable with the computer uncomfortable reducing their desire to interact with an application that behaves in this manner.
The flicker bahavior has also become rampant in drop down menu and site navigation everywhere. Back in the day we used to cache images but now we just accept sub-standard UI behavior because caching images "is a pain".
My 2 cents
I took my laptop out of the box, turned it on (booting win xp prof.) and enrolled my fingers for authentication. Then I logged on using the enrolled fingers.
Will Linux be the first operating system to have integrated biometric user authentication 'out of the box'?"
So sorry, just not going to be the case.
but isn't it in some sense built on the shoulders of the hippies and hobbyists he seems to scorn
Not really. Java has continued to be a thorn in the side of the GNU camp because of it's licensing issues. His product has been built from the ground up and serves as a platform for the deployment of non-free software. Thus, he does not stand on the shoulders of those he scorns.
Has been available in windows since 2000 (perhaps earlier, I don't know). It's just that a lot of windows developers don't take "advantage" of it. It also consumes a lot of cpu to us the transparency in "neat" ways.
Wow. The first civil post ever on slashdot!
Is the sky falling?
I was replying to the parent comment, not the comment above mine.
Class A Controlled airspace ends @ FL600. This does not however, mean that you are no longer under the influnce of the FAA. You are still flying within United States airspace, and thus are still under the influence of U.S. Aviation Policy. The restriction on sonic booms is not tied to altitude, thus it still applies above FL600. Indeed these rules apply to civilan aircraft, but a normal air carrier operates "civilian" aircraft. So for the discussion of a Japan/France alliance to build a supersonic aircraft and the disinterest of U.S. plane makers to do so - military and federal FAA policy is irrlevent.
FAR 91.817 applies to Civil Aircraft.
The primary issue is Noise. As I mentioned in another response there is a National Environmetal Policy act that was passed in 1969 that is supposed to "protect the human environment". One of the "dangers" to that is noise. The FAA directive also explicitly states that a civil aircraft may not be operated above Mach number one, as well as stating that a sonic boom may not reach US soil. So the answer is both.
There is an appendix B to that rule (91.817) that allows an operator to apply for a permit to travel above mach 1, but it does not sound like it is easy to obtain.
In addition there are other noise abatement directives that limit how loud aircraft can be.
No.
The bottom line of the FAA directive, states that "no measureable sonic boom overpressure" may reach the surface of the U.S. except within an authorized test area. There is a rather lengthy procedure to be granted such an authorization. There is no mention of altitude in the FAR 91.817 or it's Appendix. The rule simply states that if you make a sonic boom, it cannot reach the surface of the United States.
In addition, high altitued flights are generally regarded as a Bad Idea because of concerns of radiation.
100 km is also 62 miles. A decent from such a flight will certainly put an aircraft above mach 1 over at an altitude which will cause a sonic boom to reach the US.
Suggests - a heavily modified F-4 Phantom on loan from the USAF proved that a noise cancelling shape was feasible. However, that design is a long way from commercial production.
Not true. Actually the FAA is responsible for enforcing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This act protects the "quality of the human environemt". The U.S. is unique in this regard because I don't think many other countries have such legislation.
The bottom line of the FAA directive however, states that "no measureable sonic boom overpressure" may reach the surface of the U.S. except within an authorized test area. There is a rather lengthy procedure to be granted such an authorization.
"Although Japan had previously done extensive research towards building a 250-person mach 1.6 passenger jet, the agreement with France - announced at the annual Paris Air Show on Tuesday - represents a interesting shift in technological alliances given the Japanese aviation industry's longstanding ties to the United States."
The U.S. aviation industry has no desire to build these aircraft. The FAA prohibits supersoinc flight over US Soil @ any altitude without prior special approval.
The first thing I did was to install OO.o It took only 7.5 minutes and took up 164MB (94.82 according to Windows). It did not require a restart. It has been over a year since I installed MS Office, but I know it had to be restarted and that it takes up 450MB (according to Windows).
Office does not require a restart. I just installed it yesterday.
Also, how much of office was installed? Just Word? I'm pretty sure that he also installed Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook and Office Tools at the minimum.
Using a 4.8 MB text file is a retarded test. How often is a very large text file like that manipulated?
The author doesn't really call attention to the fact that word actually owned writer in the basic document operations on the large text file FTFA:
Operation OO Writer MSO Word
Save 1:07.05 16.24*
Close 2.36 12.42``
Open Saved File 1:06.63 26.26
Resave 1:26.26 22.59
That's a pretty significant performance difference.
The asterisk was for the following comment: * it opened in just 43.04 seconds, but it spent the next 22 minutes automatically spellchecking, with the CPU usage at 100% most of the time. Sometime during this, it autosaved, putting the CPU into the red zone for about 30 seconds.
``Oops... It was still "repaginating"
Yeah, well - you can turn that auto spell check feature off. Also, auto save isn't a bad thing.
LOL - I'm hardly a "proponent of the OSS revolution". I am however a propenent of no-free-lunch. I've been seeing a trend lately, where very large companies go out and base a significant portion of their products or services on free software. IBM has given a lot back - and they continue to innovate and release software for us to use. However, companies like Macromedia - don't innovate, and don't give a lot back. They loot IP from others and call it their own.
Flash is also as proprietary as it gets - more so than any other web development platform. And while I'm not a freak about standards, it's nice to have a common lingua franca that multiple products understand and not be tied into a vendor that writes software but feels that it's O.K. to have "known bugs".
Let's really be honest about what Macromedia is doing. They are going to leverage the Eclipse IDE for building a their new development platform and they will get the platform for Free. However their server side technology is not free and is not going to be OSS. It is in fact, rather expensive for what it is.
This is all very lame. They are effectively riding on the coat tails of everyone else's hard work to sell their server products. This kind of corporate free loading shouldn't be tolerated.
Also, do we *really* want Macromedia participating in the development of eclipse, a well designed ide and software platform? Flash has been an ever evolving mess of crap since it's inception. In fact, it's still crap or they would have decided that the current Flash IDE was still useful, and they would have not decided to camp others work and get a free IDE.
Note that Coldfusion was an allaire product and was not orginally developed by Macromedia.
I'm not sure I believe all this non sense just yet but I'll play devils advocate:
Here's my bet: Intel is going to produce PowerPC chips for Apple. But I'm only betting one dollar.
Is that a dollar for everyone that reads your blog? Intel doesn't have a cheap consumer ready power pc platform lined up, if they did that would be more of a shock than anything else.
From Peter Glaskowsky: "Apple certainly pays much less for IBM and Freescale processors than Intel charges for comparable chips. Probably less than half as much on average"
If find this claim to be dubious at best, I'm almost certain that Apple could find some economies with an Intel platform that they currently cannot with IBM. The chips could possibly cost less, but what about the engineering costs for motherboards that are always custom, in a market with fewer suppliers?
There was an article on Wired.com which provides a very solid argument for this new development. If we believe the garbage about chip emulation, there might be some meat to this. The DRM angle is definately the most convincing.
As an addition there have been multiple sources that talk about IBM's ability to deliver quantity on time. If there is anything to this it would explain why AMD hasn't been a part of the news - It is for similar reasons that Dell will not engage AMD to supply chips. AMD appears to have a bad rap for delivering quantity on time.
I'll believe all this when I see it, but the links provided don't fully cover the reasons for or againts.
Longhorn, should *not* be based on the Framework. One word - performance. What I think confuses most people is that while the OS and libraries may be written in C or C++ these libraries still can easily be used via the framework. .NET is a application developers framework, it gives us access to almost all of the features of the C++ SDK but with a higher level of cleanliness and organization. "Managed code" offers a host of benefits for application developers such as protection from buffer overflows, more transparent management of system resources and better identity management.
.NET base constructs to interact with the classes, methods or functions in external libraries - it's all good. A perfect example of this: a few weeks ago I had to write a framework adapter class to a legacy C library. It took about 30 minutes to expose the functions of the library that were needed. Just include a reference in the .net project and you're good to go.
.NET is a good thing. Let's be realistic, why on earth would you build your OS on a garbage collecting framework? I mean, should Solaris move to using the JVM as it's core execution environment? Probably not.
To the framework developer it doesn't matter what the undelying library code is written in, so long as there are
All of this fuss about Longhorn not being developed in
So the short and sweet is, the core os will be built on traditional technologies (they are faster), but supporting applications will use the framework as their developemnt platform. In addition, all of the system level api calls will be available in the framework, making it easy for appliaction developers to build and deploy applications quickly.
Extinct Wildflower Found In California
Not exitinct now is it?
highlighting fears that the ambitious project will violate copyrights and stifle future sales.
How about stifiling innovation, education and learning? It would seem that capitalism is at odds with general betterment of humaity.
Last spring there was a demo for Longhorn published to the web. The primary focus was around finding information regarding a real estate property. In the demo the user was able to select the street address of the property and retrieve, photos (air and sat.), demographic information and traffic pattern data and overlay it on a map. In hindsight, this sounds a lot like what Bill is talking about. All of this data was accessible via a web service as well.
I'm thinking that this isn't something that MS just invented "out of the blue" to compete with Google maps, it has likely been under development for a while.
Or is this all a clever trick on Google's part to build up more and more third parties dependent upon Google?
Probably, yes but WTF? Google is offering a service, you can choose to use it, or not. Go build your own if you don't like the fact that a Company is doing it (GL HF). Not every product or service offered by a company is some sort of hidden conspiracy to steal our lives and take our money. I also fail to see how "novelty" products such as these constitute a "dependency" on the google map service.
There is a big differance between saying "The vulnerability isn't really that bad" and saying "I'm never going to fix it". Linus is probably right to some degree about the severity of this attack vector. That doesn't mean that he won't fix it, or someone else will be allowed to.
Everyone is so excitable these days.
Addendum:Google is "catching" up to companies like double click and poindexter at the moment.
Google isn't catching up - they currently have a similar amount of coverage of competing companies, using their ad words placed on other sites.