I can't be sure without having my laptop in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that if I try to re-open a folder that I already have open, XP just "opens" the existing window -> one window per folder.
Jumping subject slightly, I think there are a number of things that could be done to improve Nautilus - one of them is to restore the location bar. Otherwise, which one of the $BIGNUM "src" directories am I actually looking at here?
If by "very quick" you mean "extremely slow", then yes, Windows 2000 is "very quick" in 128MB.
My old work machine uses Win2K with 128MB. It's appallingly slow. Open more than one or maybe two applications, and you get a swap-fest every time you try and switch what you're doing.
Why on earth should you have to use gconf to turn off a feature like that? I can't help thinking that every software author with "oh, just change the setting in gconf" as a response should be hit with a wet herring.
Sometimes, it's not learning a new way so much as realizing the old way of doing something was broken or not up to snuff compared to the new way.
You forgot to add the crucial clause - "broken or not up to snuff" in your opinion.:-) Mine, or other people's, may well be different.
With the new menu, Windows tracks what you use most often and it's always with in 2 clicks for commonly used apps - Start --> App
Except that it isn't, if you regularly use more than a few programs. Then you have to play the "is the program there? no, then I have to fight the menu system" game. Plus there's another factor to consider - if you *do* have sufficiently few programs that it keeps them all on the list, does it always keep them in exactly the same order?
At least the 'start menu' system isn't as daft as the "personalised menus" used in Word et al these days. With those, nothing I want is ever at the first step - I always have to expand it, making an extra step and increasing the complexity of the task.
With the new style, you click start, and the "All Programs" option is at the bottom of the list [...] the option will *always* be located the same distance from the first click
Which, oddly enough, is also the case with the older menu system. <shrug>
But that would involve loading Nautilus, locating the right directory, locating the right file, and bringing the application window up. As opposed to just entering a path and filename.
I'm all for user-friendly, but user-friendly doesn't mean automatically removing options that basic users don't want, it just means make sure the basic users don't have to worry about them, while still making them easily available to those who do want them.
In all honesty, what would have been wrong with leaving the dialog as it is, but including a text-box with tab-complete on directories and files, for people who actually knew where the file was and what it was called?
And I'm still not clear on how Nautilus spatial mode differs from (for example) Windows Explorer, but that's a whole other thread...
Strange, words are 32-bit or 16-bit here. Words are just "collection of bytes", IME, which is why it's always useful to clarify with the designer how big a word is before doing anything.;-)
>The quantum channel is only used to exchanged a >randomly generated key that is as long as the >message.
If you can exchange the one-time pad over the link, why not just send the message over it? After all, you'd know if anyone had managed to intercept a byte.
I'm pretty sure there was a good reason, but unfortunately I can't remember the details from reading 'the code book' a few years ago.:/
Yes, and yes, in that order. You've released it under the GPL, but you still own the copyright, unless you've assigned it to the FSF or someone. It's still your code, you own it, and you can do what you like with it, including dual-licence.
If they were trying to be "an unofficial organ of the FSF", or "for GNU zealots only", then they wouldn't be ditching glibc documentation, would they?
Basically, this is because a resolution was passed extending the social contract past software into everything else. Whether everyone who voted for it really thought that one through or not is a whole other discussion, but fundamentally Debian has always stuck to their principles. That's quite rare these days.
Like the subject says, it's not just video decode - you also have to take account of the time required for composition of multiple layers, manipulation, resizing etc. It adds up, and usually video is the dominant path through a system (in that all the other outputs add buffering to compensate for the latency).
And yes, an audio decoder underflowing sounds bad. That's why we go to great lengths to avoid it happening.:-) Being in the lab when it's being tested is no fun at all though.
Having said that, I don't know if this is what the TVs are doing. It sounds like they're building in compensation to the sets, which doesn't sound like a great idea for things like playing games.
From playing around with Shazam here, I suspect that it makes quite strong use of vocals to try and identify songs. Classical tracks don't often have vocals...
Disclaimer: I'm just guessing here. But Shazam's been very reliable for me for most songs, except those without singing. (Or really obscure ones.)
Actually, I think they applied for a patent on it, so you could always look it up at the patent office.:-)
Although (if doing hardware stuff) you do then have the trouble of making sure that the runtime gives you all the flexibility you need - aligned, often physically contiguous, non-cached buffers, for example, in the case of DMAs.:)
Miles/MPH is the only 'official' measurement left in imperial, as far as I can remember. People measuring weight in stones and so on is kind of a hangover, and as more people grow up who were only taught metric in schools, it's slowly growing more common to use kg, litres etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You could try getting it from the taps?
I can't be sure without having my laptop in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that if I try to re-open a folder that I already have open, XP just "opens" the existing window -> one window per folder.
Jumping subject slightly, I think there are a number of things that could be done to improve Nautilus - one of them is to restore the location bar. Otherwise, which one of the $BIGNUM "src" directories am I actually looking at here?
That's an impressively tall conclusion to leap to from a standing start.
The folder behaviour you describe is precisely what XP does.
But (with reference to your first paragraph) that's what I have with KDE. I don't see how it's any different.
If by "very quick" you mean "extremely slow", then yes, Windows 2000 is "very quick" in 128MB.
My old work machine uses Win2K with 128MB. It's appallingly slow. Open more than one or maybe two applications, and you get a swap-fest every time you try and switch what you're doing.
Yep, I do that first thing, now. Took me a while to find it though. Cheers anyway. :)
Why on earth should you have to use gconf to turn off a feature like that? I can't help thinking that every software author with "oh, just change the setting in gconf" as a response should be hit with a wet herring.
Sometimes, it's not learning a new way so much as realizing the old way of doing something was broken or not up to snuff compared to the new way.
:-) Mine, or other people's, may well be different.
You forgot to add the crucial clause - "broken or not up to snuff" in your opinion.
With the new menu, Windows tracks what you use most often and it's always with in 2 clicks for commonly used apps - Start --> App
Except that it isn't, if you regularly use more than a few programs. Then you have to play the "is the program there? no, then I have to fight the menu system" game. Plus there's another factor to consider - if you *do* have sufficiently few programs that it keeps them all on the list, does it always keep them in exactly the same order?
At least the 'start menu' system isn't as daft as the "personalised menus" used in Word et al these days. With those, nothing I want is ever at the first step - I always have to expand it, making an extra step and increasing the complexity of the task.
With the new style, you click start, and the "All Programs" option is at the bottom of the list [...] the option will *always* be located the same distance from the first click
Which, oddly enough, is also the case with the older menu system. <shrug>
But that would involve loading Nautilus, locating the right directory, locating the right file, and bringing the application window up. As opposed to just entering a path and filename.
I'm all for user-friendly, but user-friendly doesn't mean automatically removing options that basic users don't want, it just means make sure the basic users don't have to worry about them, while still making them easily available to those who do want them.
In all honesty, what would have been wrong with leaving the dialog as it is, but including a text-box with tab-complete on directories and files, for people who actually knew where the file was and what it was called?
And I'm still not clear on how Nautilus spatial mode differs from (for example) Windows Explorer, but that's a whole other thread...
Strange, words are 32-bit or 16-bit here. Words are just "collection of bytes", IME, which is why it's always useful to clarify with the designer how big a word is before doing anything. ;-)
If I'm busy at work and they're talking loudly next to me, yes. Note that's just at work.
No, because in general loud conversation when I'm trying to think is irritating. Nowt to do with the one-sided-ness.
>The quantum channel is only used to exchanged a
:/
>randomly generated key that is as long as the
>message.
If you can exchange the one-time pad over the link, why not just send the message over it? After all, you'd know if anyone had managed to intercept a byte.
I'm pretty sure there was a good reason, but unfortunately I can't remember the details from reading 'the code book' a few years ago.
Yes, and yes, in that order. You've released it under the GPL, but you still own the copyright, unless you've assigned it to the FSF or someone. It's still your code, you own it, and you can do what you like with it, including dual-licence.
If they were trying to be "an unofficial organ of the FSF", or "for GNU zealots only", then they wouldn't be ditching glibc documentation, would they?
Basically, this is because a resolution was passed extending the social contract past software into everything else. Whether everyone who voted for it really thought that one through or not is a whole other discussion, but fundamentally Debian has always stuck to their principles. That's quite rare these days.
Will there be a new website to download them from, or will they be on the Mono site, or the Novell site...?
Like the subject says, it's not just video decode - you also have to take account of the time required for composition of multiple layers, manipulation, resizing etc. It adds up, and usually video is the dominant path through a system (in that all the other outputs add buffering to compensate for the latency).
:-) Being in the lab when it's being tested is no fun at all though.
And yes, an audio decoder underflowing sounds bad. That's why we go to great lengths to avoid it happening.
Having said that, I don't know if this is what the TVs are doing. It sounds like they're building in compensation to the sets, which doesn't sound like a great idea for things like playing games.
That's a bit strange - I've had an SBLive card for years, and never had any trouble with it.
From playing around with Shazam here, I suspect that it makes quite strong use of vocals to try and identify songs. Classical tracks don't often have vocals...
:-)
Disclaimer: I'm just guessing here. But Shazam's been very reliable for me for most songs, except those without singing. (Or really obscure ones.)
Actually, I think they applied for a patent on it, so you could always look it up at the patent office.
Because if I'm in a club and they're playing a song, having a car radio with me doesn't help much.
Although (if doing hardware stuff) you do then have the trouble of making sure that the runtime gives you all the flexibility you need - aligned, often physically contiguous, non-cached buffers, for example, in the case of DMAs. :)
Miles/MPH is the only 'official' measurement left in imperial, as far as I can remember. People measuring weight in stones and so on is kind of a hangover, and as more people grow up who were only taught metric in schools, it's slowly growing more common to use kg, litres etc.
Why do you call them 'English' units, when everyone else knows them as Imperial units? :-) We stopped using most of them some time ago.
I think how funny it is strongly depends on your point of view; personally, I can't stand it. The actor will probably make a good Arthur, though.