The chief accomplishment is not that this produces better results than what Google or MSN Live has to offer. It doesn't. There are a lot of odd things, many shapes are a bit off, it can't handle tall buildings at all and if you have something like a bridge the ground level rises up to it. Still, if you're gonna go out and measure every house using lasers, we'll only see 3D views of the biggest US cities. This way it is possible to do it for smaller places, like little Sweden.
Hats off for Hitta, they've done a great job together with their partners in bringing cool funcionality to Sweden.
I believe you have a point. When money is involved, it's a lot easier for people to get upset. I'm thinking about the stories about Google being a bit of a bully in the marketing business, since they have become so big with Adwords. Whether Google were acting bad or it was just people whining doesn't really matter. It just goes to show that when you're dealing with money, people (or companies) easily get upset.
It does seem nice with a competitor to Paypal that has the muscle to do something substantive.
And here it goes once again. Some company competes with a Google product, and then a Slashdotter asks if the competitor's product has feature X, which is a feature pioneered by Google. And so often it's not something you absolutely need. Sure, Gmail's labels are nice, but they're not something you that can't be lived without. That is how the fanboys make it sound tough. If you see labels that work like Gmail's as a basic requirement of an email system, you'll be hard pressed to find another than Gmail.
I know at first this addition may seem really scary and potentially counter-productive to the free software movement, but how it really works is actually quite elegant. Not surprising, seeing who it's coming from.
The good thing about this addition is that it won't change things for the software that's already out there. As a user of the software, your previous rights can't be retracted, and it's not something Stallman and Moglen are trying to do. Remember, the GPL is about protecting the rights of the users of the software. What this addition does is that it gives a new control to the original author. See, it's only if the code already has a feature to let you download the source code that you would have to include it later on. If such a feature is added at a later moment, as I understand it another person could fork the code previous to that and then continue developing it without the code download feature. If I make a software and I want the new feature, I'll just put it in there. Then subsequent versions based on the code have to include it. If I don't think the new feature is necessary, I don't add a code downloading feature and then this addition to the GPL won't affect the software.
Bluetooth is 2.4GHz too, but it seems to coexist fine with WiFi
There are interoperation issues. I did my master's thesis project programming an iPAQ, using both the Bluetooth and 802.11b radio. Both radios being in that small device leads to problems; when doing a Bluetooth device search the 802.11b radio turns off (very abruptly and not-nice). Also, a researcher at the group I worked for has experienced problems using the 802.11b network while doing Bluetooth searches when the radios are close to each other (on the same desk).
I've also tried using a Bluetooth headset as headphones with the iPAQ when streaming music over the 802.11b connection, with abysmal results. I think it is because the two radios don't like to work at the same time.
The way Bluetooth and 802.11b works means that Bluetooth, which is frequency hoping, can work quite well with 802.11b, while 802.11b has more trouble coping with it.
There is plenty of litterature talking about the interoperation issues. That is not to say that it can work fine, but one can not be certain that it will. My uneducated guess is that if the two radios use separate antennas, preferably in different parts of the device it works better. And of course, the bigger device the better, as they can be further away from each other then.
"Open source is a complete mess -- many people do lots of different things. There's total confusion today," Villasante said.
I see this as one of the strengths of open source. Lots of people are doing lots of different things. There isn't a plan that everyone's following. That's how nature works, and that's how open source works. And it seems to work just splendidly in both cases.
I see. So to corporate america, blogging equates to marketing.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
It definitely was an expected thing. Marketing has become increasingly import (and disgusting, imho) in our society. Wherever ads can creep in, they do. Cf school books with ads. I'm glad I'm done with school.
Hopefully, this might lead to IBM helping with developing good tools for remote management of Firefox. It would be very helpful for all the people having big deployments. If Firefox is to be ubiquitous, this is needed.
All this is totally gone with GPL licensing, the answer is basically I can do whatever bar sell it (In my case I dont modify and code, so that doesnt come into play).
In fact, you are even allowed to sell it! You just can't stop the one you sold it to from giving it away, or indeed selling it. Throughout history companies have been successful selling GPL software, for example the GCC.
Considering some flights offer Internet access using 802.11b/g it seems the flight companies acknowledge it to be safe. Bluetooth is using the same frequencies (the ISM bands) as 802.11b/g, but at lower power. If the flight companies allow 802.11b/g, there really shouldn't be any problem with Bluetooth.
But what do I know (IANAAirplane technician), maybe they have given the airplanes that allow 802.11b/b some special treatment? I find that unlikely though.
"The government shouldn't be the one who decides what hardware and software will go into these computers," said Júlio Semeghini, a member of Congress from the opposition Social Democratic Party. "That's undemocratic."
The government is the one behind the program, and is subsidising the computers, right? Why then shouldn't they be allowed to decide what comes preinstalled with the systems? They give people an option to buy something. After they have bought it, they are free to do what they want with it. But hey, it's the opposition being quoted, of course they will be whining and of course they will try to play on emotions. "Undemocratic", right.
If Microsoft actually produced an MS-Linux that was the standard Linux attached to the driver layer of Windows, giving users full Plug and Play (PnP) support of all their peripherals, nobody would buy any other Linux on the market.
*sigh* Here Dvorak goes taking giant leaps in his conclusion. Being able to plug and play a scanner isn't the top priority for everyone. We have no problems with drivers for our servers at university. The fact that your software is non-Microsoft, and in fact non-corporation means you have a great freedom. You know that no one can come and boss you around. That's worth a lot in many situations. It's about control of your investments, and it feels better when the control belongs to you than some corporation. Cf article earlier today about Microsoft disabling Windows Activation.
And by the way, would people please stop shouting about killing free software. If people want to continue developing free software, they will. Software patents is the only thing I can think of that could present a severe blow to free software, but that would probably move a lot of development underground.
Once again knowledge resources are shut down for no reason at all. It seems the world in general is getting more and more shut out from Information.. how can ANY government claim this is healthy?
The dumber the people get the more they need help, the more help they need the more the 'powers that be' control them. The more they control them.. the closer to get to 1984.
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George W Bush
How would you like the USA to be guided by witches and warlocks?
Ronald Reagan consulted with his astrologer before making any important decisions. Your current president believes he has been sent by God. The president isn't the whole country, but he is quite important. I feel really sorry for you guys.
This sounds interesting, and I'm looking forward to an answer to what did it. However, the "It said something -- or someone -- had regularly cleaned layers of dust from the solar panels" sounds very unscientific. Did the New Scientist magazine really say this?
You have made a very good post and you seem to be able to see through a lot of propaganda. The only thing I object to, and which makes your post a bit scary, is how you use the term "liberate" without quotationmarks or marks of any kind, when in fact you are talking about invasions.
Seriously I've been using Firefox for several months now, check Slashdot multiple times a day... and I've had/. render incorrectly ONCE. Out of the hundreds of times I've loaded this page, that's a percentage I can deal with.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, the error mainly appears on slower connections. Since the Firefox devs have been on fast connections, they themselves haven't encountered the problem, and have had difficulties reproducing the issue. There is a fix in the aviary branch, and it was supposed to be included with 1.0, but it seems we will see it in Firefox 1.1.
now if only the plugins were updated... or backwards compatible
Up until 1.0 they haven't cared about this. It was beta software, and anything and all could be changed. Things would break, if it meant the final (1.0) product would be better. Now that we have 1.0, things designed for it won't just break, and we will have backwards compatibility.
I VNC'd into my work machine to check a few things, but then needed to check my email on my own desktop. Without thinking (I thought I was at work because, hey, this is my work background!) I VNC'd to my home computer - which is the computer I was using to VNC into work.
I must admit that one of the first things I did with VNC when I tried it many years ago was to make a VNC loop. However, the software was smart enough to sense it and not allow it. Knowing there is no software that can be smarter than the dumbness of users, I added a third machine to the mix--and voila! I had my loop.
why? Almost ALL people have problems with windows constantly, yet they do not switch to a Mac and never consider Microsoft again...
Switching browser is a lot easier than switching OS and hardware. Besides, Firefox is a free, fast download. Apple computers are exepensive. In the long run it may be better to swtitch to an Apple, but the bump to get over is a lot bigger.
I reckon that money would be better spent on wining and dining journalists and trying to get Firefox on the cover of Times Magazine.
There is already a team which is dedicated to handling journalists and correcting and aiding in the creation of articles. One doesn't exclude the other.
What if they distributed an installer that checks your processor architecture then downloads and installs the appropriate executables?
It could work, but it would also cause a lot of trouble and bad feelings among users. Imagine that I download a copy of Firefox with my nice AMD Athlon. Then I want to share this awesome software with my friends (always share Firefox with your friends, people) so I give him my copy of the installation problem. However, it doesn't work on your computer! How odd. And what a turn off.
Yes, it would work, and there are work-arounds (the installer says "Hey, you'll have to get another! Click here.") but I don't think it's worth it. The software should just work.
How about if Slashdot would open up their logfiles? Same crowd, but bigger sample...
People who have had links to their web servers posted to Slashdot have reported what it looked like, and it wasn't pretty. There are a lot of Internet Explorer visitors, a lot more than 50%. We need to keep evangelizing. Be helpful to your fellow people, introduce them to a safer, better, faster browser now.
Hopefully they'll upgrade the spam filter as well... because as far as I can tell it doesn't work too great, or maybe I'm just stupid.
As I understand it, the Thunderbird spam filter is bayesian. This means that you have to teach it. To begin with it won't be very good, but as you mark your email as spam or non-spam it learns what both types look like. Given the right stimuli, this can work very well.
Slashdot Mirror
The chief accomplishment is not that this produces better results than what Google or MSN Live has to offer. It doesn't. There are a lot of odd things, many shapes are a bit off, it can't handle tall buildings at all and if you have something like a bridge the ground level rises up to it. Still, if you're gonna go out and measure every house using lasers, we'll only see 3D views of the biggest US cities. This way it is possible to do it for smaller places, like little Sweden.
Hats off for Hitta, they've done a great job together with their partners in bringing cool funcionality to Sweden.
I believe you have a point. When money is involved, it's a lot easier for people to get upset. I'm thinking about the stories about Google being a bit of a bully in the marketing business, since they have become so big with Adwords. Whether Google were acting bad or it was just people whining doesn't really matter. It just goes to show that when you're dealing with money, people (or companies) easily get upset.
It does seem nice with a competitor to Paypal that has the muscle to do something substantive.
And the salesmen of office chairs in Redmond all cheered.
Multiple labels per mail, set by filters?
And here it goes once again. Some company competes with a Google product, and then a Slashdotter asks if the competitor's product has feature X, which is a feature pioneered by Google. And so often it's not something you absolutely need. Sure, Gmail's labels are nice, but they're not something you that can't be lived without. That is how the fanboys make it sound tough. If you see labels that work like Gmail's as a basic requirement of an email system, you'll be hard pressed to find another than Gmail.
I know at first this addition may seem really scary and potentially counter-productive to the free software movement, but how it really works is actually quite elegant. Not surprising, seeing who it's coming from.
The good thing about this addition is that it won't change things for the software that's already out there. As a user of the software, your previous rights can't be retracted, and it's not something Stallman and Moglen are trying to do. Remember, the GPL is about protecting the rights of the users of the software. What this addition does is that it gives a new control to the original author. See, it's only if the code already has a feature to let you download the source code that you would have to include it later on. If such a feature is added at a later moment, as I understand it another person could fork the code previous to that and then continue developing it without the code download feature. If I make a software and I want the new feature, I'll just put it in there. Then subsequent versions based on the code have to include it. If I don't think the new feature is necessary, I don't add a code downloading feature and then this addition to the GPL won't affect the software.
It doesn't sound so dangerous now, does it?
Bluetooth is 2.4GHz too, but it seems to coexist fine with WiFi
There are interoperation issues. I did my master's thesis project programming an iPAQ, using both the Bluetooth and 802.11b radio. Both radios being in that small device leads to problems; when doing a Bluetooth device search the 802.11b radio turns off (very abruptly and not-nice). Also, a researcher at the group I worked for has experienced problems using the 802.11b network while doing Bluetooth searches when the radios are close to each other (on the same desk).
I've also tried using a Bluetooth headset as headphones with the iPAQ when streaming music over the 802.11b connection, with abysmal results. I think it is because the two radios don't like to work at the same time.
The way Bluetooth and 802.11b works means that Bluetooth, which is frequency hoping, can work quite well with 802.11b, while 802.11b has more trouble coping with it.
There is plenty of litterature talking about the interoperation issues. That is not to say that it can work fine, but one can not be certain that it will. My uneducated guess is that if the two radios use separate antennas, preferably in different parts of the device it works better. And of course, the bigger device the better, as they can be further away from each other then.
I see this as one of the strengths of open source. Lots of people are doing lots of different things. There isn't a plan that everyone's following. That's how nature works, and that's how open source works. And it seems to work just splendidly in both cases.
I see. So to corporate america, blogging equates to marketing.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
It definitely was an expected thing. Marketing has become increasingly import (and disgusting, imho) in our society. Wherever ads can creep in, they do. Cf school books with ads. I'm glad I'm done with school.
Hopefully, this might lead to IBM helping with developing good tools for remote management of Firefox. It would be very helpful for all the people having big deployments. If Firefox is to be ubiquitous, this is needed.
All this is totally gone with GPL licensing, the answer is basically I can do whatever bar sell it (In my case I dont modify and code, so that doesnt come into play).
In fact, you are even allowed to sell it! You just can't stop the one you sold it to from giving it away, or indeed selling it. Throughout history companies have been successful selling GPL software, for example the GCC.
Considering some flights offer Internet access using 802.11b/g it seems the flight companies acknowledge it to be safe. Bluetooth is using the same frequencies (the ISM bands) as 802.11b/g, but at lower power. If the flight companies allow 802.11b/g, there really shouldn't be any problem with Bluetooth.
But what do I know (IANAAirplane technician), maybe they have given the airplanes that allow 802.11b/b some special treatment? I find that unlikely though.
"The government shouldn't be the one who decides what hardware and software will go into these computers," said Júlio Semeghini, a member of Congress from the opposition Social Democratic Party. "That's undemocratic."
The government is the one behind the program, and is subsidising the computers, right? Why then shouldn't they be allowed to decide what comes preinstalled with the systems? They give people an option to buy something. After they have bought it, they are free to do what they want with it. But hey, it's the opposition being quoted, of course they will be whining and of course they will try to play on emotions. "Undemocratic", right.
If Microsoft actually produced an MS-Linux that was the standard Linux attached to the driver layer of Windows, giving users full Plug and Play (PnP) support of all their peripherals, nobody would buy any other Linux on the market.
*sigh* Here Dvorak goes taking giant leaps in his conclusion. Being able to plug and play a scanner isn't the top priority for everyone. We have no problems with drivers for our servers at university. The fact that your software is non-Microsoft, and in fact non-corporation means you have a great freedom. You know that no one can come and boss you around. That's worth a lot in many situations. It's about control of your investments, and it feels better when the control belongs to you than some corporation. Cf article earlier today about Microsoft disabling Windows Activation.
And by the way, would people please stop shouting about killing free software. If people want to continue developing free software, they will. Software patents is the only thing I can think of that could present a severe blow to free software, but that would probably move a lot of development underground.
Once again knowledge resources are shut down for no reason at all. It seems the world in general is getting more and more shut out from Information.. how can ANY government claim this is healthy?
The dumber the people get the more they need help, the more help they need the more the 'powers that be' control them. The more they control them.. the closer to get to 1984.
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George W Bush
How would you like the USA to be guided by witches and warlocks?
Ronald Reagan consulted with his astrologer before making any important decisions. Your current president believes he has been sent by God. The president isn't the whole country, but he is quite important. I feel really sorry for you guys.
This sounds interesting, and I'm looking forward to an answer to what did it. However, the "It said something -- or someone -- had regularly cleaned layers of dust from the solar panels" sounds very unscientific. Did the New Scientist magazine really say this?
You have made a very good post and you seem to be able to see through a lot of propaganda. The only thing I object to, and which makes your post a bit scary, is how you use the term "liberate" without quotationmarks or marks of any kind, when in fact you are talking about invasions.
Seriously I've been using Firefox for several months now, check Slashdot multiple times a day ... and I've had /. render incorrectly ONCE. Out of the hundreds of times I've loaded this page, that's a percentage I can deal with.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, the error mainly appears on slower connections. Since the Firefox devs have been on fast connections, they themselves haven't encountered the problem, and have had difficulties reproducing the issue. There is a fix in the aviary branch, and it was supposed to be included with 1.0, but it seems we will see it in Firefox 1.1.
now if only the plugins were updated ... or backwards compatible
Up until 1.0 they haven't cared about this. It was beta software, and anything and all could be changed. Things would break, if it meant the final (1.0) product would be better. Now that we have 1.0, things designed for it won't just break, and we will have backwards compatibility.
I VNC'd into my work machine to check a few things, but then needed to check my email on my own desktop. Without thinking (I thought I was at work because, hey, this is my work background!) I VNC'd to my home computer - which is the computer I was using to VNC into work.
I must admit that one of the first things I did with VNC when I tried it many years ago was to make a VNC loop. However, the software was smart enough to sense it and not allow it. Knowing there is no software that can be smarter than the dumbness of users, I added a third machine to the mix--and voila! I had my loop.
why? Almost ALL people have problems with windows constantly, yet they do not switch to a Mac and never consider Microsoft again...
Switching browser is a lot easier than switching OS and hardware. Besides, Firefox is a free, fast download. Apple computers are exepensive. In the long run it may be better to swtitch to an Apple, but the bump to get over is a lot bigger.
I reckon that money would be better spent on wining and dining journalists and trying to get Firefox on the cover of Times Magazine.
There is already a team which is dedicated to handling journalists and correcting and aiding in the creation of articles. One doesn't exclude the other.
What if they distributed an installer that checks your processor architecture then downloads and installs the appropriate executables?
It could work, but it would also cause a lot of trouble and bad feelings among users. Imagine that I download a copy of Firefox with my nice AMD Athlon. Then I want to share this awesome software with my friends (always share Firefox with your friends, people) so I give him my copy of the installation problem. However, it doesn't work on your computer! How odd. And what a turn off.
Yes, it would work, and there are work-arounds (the installer says "Hey, you'll have to get another! Click here.") but I don't think it's worth it. The software should just work.
As I understand it, the Thunderbird spam filter is bayesian. This means that you have to teach it. To begin with it won't be very good, but as you mark your email as spam or non-spam it learns what both types look like. Given the right stimuli, this can work very well.