No matter how you view it, by not providing a patch, they are the ones to blame.
I might believe this if we didn't see a big slashdot MS-bashing session every time a new virus starts making the rounds which can be stopped by installing months-old security updates.
For the record, I don't think that Flash in itself is bad -- it has its uses. I do, however, think that it is an extremely poor choice for an HTML replacement, which is the primary role in which it's used. Yes, the Flash-based website may look a little "better" (although I usually don't equate "flashiness" with being better), but unless it's also cross-browser compatible, respects user browser settings, includes accessibility features, has a user interface consistent with my browser and other web sites, it's worse than a standard HTML-based website.
However, I've never been interested in anything that legitimately uses Flash, and so I see no reason to install and use it.
We don't have misconceptions about the coffee lawsuit. It's just that most of us believe that it's common sense not to dump boiling liquids on yourself, and if you do it, it's your own damn fault. And the fact that the damages were only reduced, rather than overturned completely, helps demonstrate how out of control our legal system is.
Simply put, designers are going to want a method of presenting their material in a non-browser determined environment similar to print.
Tell you what -- I think I'll stay in the early nineties, when we actually thought there was more to the web than being a glorified print advertising medium, and that content was more important than style -- especially when that style is achieved at the expense of usability.
I've already remapped capslock to ctrl, what do I do for esc?
'^[', of course. With control in a sane place, that becomes very easy to do. Alternatively, I suppose that you could remap the control key to escape -- although I prefer making mine Mod3 and using it for various window-management bindings.
If I really nitpick, then "white light" does not exist at all,
Well, your first part was right, although this isn't quite there. We define "white light" to be light that we percieve as white, so of course it exists. However, you can say that "white light" does not refer to any particular wavelength or spectrum of light; so it's not really defined physically.
You might want to rewatch seasons one and two before making that statement. The acting in the early episodes is painfully bad. Fortunately, it improved dramatically as the show progressed.
Has it occurred to anyone that supporting non-l337 g33kz using KDE as a primary desktop will be made more difficult just because it's impossible to keep track of all the dopey names for things?
No, it hasn't occurred to anyone. You've imagined the posts to every other KDE/Gnome article that complain about exactly the same thing.
Many millions of lives could be saved if nuclear power became universal, and oil became a useless pollutant best left in the ground.
Nuclear power doesn't replace oil; it replaces coal. Oil accounts for only 2% of US electricity production, while nuclear accounts for 20%, and coal 50%. (Source) Of course, coal has its own problems, and getting rid of coal-fired plants is still a good goal.
Despite the grandparent poster's claims, large civilizations which are limited by lightspeed are a very common theme in science fiction -- especially classic science fiction. Although I can't recall any books offhand that deal with the specific situation you mention, I'm sure that there are dozens.
By that logic, Apache should be exploited far more often than IIS.
Not neccessarily. Although Apache has more total installs, which one is Joe "Look ma! I've got my own webserver!" Clueless more likely to be using -- and is therefore a better target? Most webservers are administrated by people with some technical knowledge, so the web server market is not a analogy to the desktop OS market.
A Unix-based OS is probably more secure than windows, but the fact of the matter is that there are still quite a few security problems. For instance, a common tactic right now is to install spyware along with other programs... how will using linux prevent that?
However, you should NOT have the right of refusal.
However, should he be required to help you, or even make it easy for you?
Disregarding whether or not remixing music without permission is legal, I still think that people or companies should be able to use DRM if they like. I don't believe that bypassing DRM for legal purposes should be against the law -- so I don't like the DMCA -- but I also think that companies should be permitted to use any technical means that they wish to secure their IP. (Within the bounds of the law, of course.)
Wireless power transfer to consumer devices, while possible, is probably at least several decades out; and although wireless data transfer might be up to the task within the next ten years, I wouldn't count on it just yet. Physical connections are going to be with us for the forseeable future.
I'm not going to bother with a point-by-point rebuttal, but: you're completely focused on today's technology. I'm talking about tomorrow's technology. Saying "go buy a laptop" is silly -- that's what I'd do if I wanted to solve the problem today, but that doesn't make it an ideal solution.
That sounds a bit like Windows Dominance and all the/. stories lately.
If the limit had been raised to ten gigabytes, everyone would be complaining about how they're using their vast cash reserves to drive everyone else out of the webmail market. If they had left the limit at two megs, the complaint would be that they're just using their market dominance and not innovating. If they got rid of hotmail completely, everyone would be whining about how their five-year-old address was disappearing, and if they sold the hotmail domain to Google, the conspiracy theorists would have a field day.
No matter what the situation, you guys always seem to know Microsoft is at fault. It's just the reason why that changes.
Ok, now why would you want your power supply in the wall?
Well, let's see: power supplies make the computer bigger, reducing space in the room; they're also noisy and hot, which you would like to seperate from the user. A typical house has dozens of devices that convert from AC to DC; by consolidating those, you make the devices simpler, cheaper, and higher quality. Perhaps you can't see a use for not having to have a seperate wall wart for every single thing you own, but I sure can.
But if you're playing Half-Life 2, it doesn't make any sense to do the processing separately from the local computer.
Not everyone plays Half-life 2 very often. Web browsing, word processing, and everything else can be done easily with a thin client today.
In ten years, we'll be playing games more demanding than Half-life on our wristwatches. Putting that processing power in a monitor will be trivial.
Finally, it seems to make perfect sense to me to move video processing into the video device.
And how is the cabling problem getting worse?
Fifteen years ago, there were a grand total of four cables coming out of my computer. Today there are eight, and I don't have nearly as many gadgets as some. More and more, we want things to talk to each other -- and that means wires between them.
I've just given you a couple off-the-top-of-my-head reasons why it would be nicer, and a couple possible solutions to potential problems -- I don't pretend to have solved everything. I don't quite see why you're so eager to dismiss this. Do you deny that it would be more convenient to be able to plug a couple things into the wall and have it all work?
Well, I didn't say it would be easy. (In fact, I specifically said that there are lots of problems to solve.) But all of these problems have solutions. For instance, of course you can't have a central 5V power supply -- but you can certainly move the transformation from the computer to inside the wall. Many of us use remote displays already -- having a computer which connects to a monitor over a network really just requires a smarter monitor. And don't forget that we can transfer lots of data wirelessly; we wouldn't necessarily need to transfer everything over the wire.
I don't think that this will happen overnight, or even in the next ten years. But like I said, the problem of cabling is currently getting worse, not better. Eventually, things will have to change.
Actually, I've thought that this should be carried further.
Right now, everything has lots of cables coming out of it, and has to convert electricity to whatever it happens to use. It's ugly and difficult to maintain, and as electronics grow in importance, it's been getting steadily worse.
What if we replaced that with just a centralized system and universal wall jack? Imagine that instead of connecting your computer to the outlet, the monitor to the outlet, the monitor to the computer, the modem to the phone jack, the network cable snaked through the wall to the cable modem, the sound card to the speakers... you just plug each one with a single cable into the wall. The computer would get its 12V and 5V lines, other things might get 120VAC, they would be connected to an internal network that is used for communication between the different peripherals, and so forth.
Obviously, quite a few problems would need to be solved before this could work, but the technology to do it exists already -- it's just an engineering problem.
To make paper you plant acres of the fastest growing trees you can find (usually in a fallow field) and water the crap out of them to get them to a harvestable size in a few short years. You then pulp the little guys and make paper.
That's terrible! Does anybody know if there's a "People for the Ethical Treatment of Vegetation" organization around that protests the torture and killing of small trees?
Slashdot Mirror
I might believe this if we didn't see a big slashdot MS-bashing session every time a new virus starts making the rounds which can be stopped by installing months-old security updates.
For the record, I don't think that Flash in itself is bad -- it has its uses. I do, however, think that it is an extremely poor choice for an HTML replacement, which is the primary role in which it's used. Yes, the Flash-based website may look a little "better" (although I usually don't equate "flashiness" with being better), but unless it's also cross-browser compatible, respects user browser settings, includes accessibility features, has a user interface consistent with my browser and other web sites, it's worse than a standard HTML-based website.
However, I've never been interested in anything that legitimately uses Flash, and so I see no reason to install and use it.
We don't have misconceptions about the coffee lawsuit. It's just that most of us believe that it's common sense not to dump boiling liquids on yourself, and if you do it, it's your own damn fault. And the fact that the damages were only reduced, rather than overturned completely, helps demonstrate how out of control our legal system is.
Tell you what -- I think I'll stay in the early nineties, when we actually thought there was more to the web than being a glorified print advertising medium, and that content was more important than style -- especially when that style is achieved at the expense of usability.
'^[', of course. With control in a sane place, that becomes very easy to do. Alternatively, I suppose that you could remap the control key to escape -- although I prefer making mine Mod3 and using it for various window-management bindings.
Well, your first part was right, although this isn't quite there. We define "white light" to be light that we percieve as white, so of course it exists. However, you can say that "white light" does not refer to any particular wavelength or spectrum of light; so it's not really defined physically.
My guess is that they'll take a well-deserved vacation, and go cross-country skiing in Hell.
You might want to rewatch seasons one and two before making that statement. The acting in the early episodes is painfully bad. Fortunately, it improved dramatically as the show progressed.
No, it hasn't occurred to anyone. You've imagined the posts to every other KDE/Gnome article that complain about exactly the same thing.
Despite the grandparent poster's claims, large civilizations which are limited by lightspeed are a very common theme in science fiction -- especially classic science fiction. Although I can't recall any books offhand that deal with the specific situation you mention, I'm sure that there are dozens.
You're defending Enterprise, and then turn around and accuse somebody of "lack of imagination"?
Not neccessarily. Although Apache has more total installs, which one is Joe "Look ma! I've got my own webserver!" Clueless more likely to be using -- and is therefore a better target? Most webservers are administrated by people with some technical knowledge, so the web server market is not a analogy to the desktop OS market.
A Unix-based OS is probably more secure than windows, but the fact of the matter is that there are still quite a few security problems. For instance, a common tactic right now is to install spyware along with other programs
Microsoft would be bad if they cured cancer.
However, should he be required to help you, or even make it easy for you?
Disregarding whether or not remixing music without permission is legal, I still think that people or companies should be able to use DRM if they like. I don't believe that bypassing DRM for legal purposes should be against the law -- so I don't like the DMCA -- but I also think that companies should be permitted to use any technical means that they wish to secure their IP. (Within the bounds of the law, of course.)
Wireless power transfer to consumer devices, while possible, is probably at least several decades out; and although wireless data transfer might be up to the task within the next ten years, I wouldn't count on it just yet. Physical connections are going to be with us for the forseeable future.
I'm not going to bother with a point-by-point rebuttal, but: you're completely focused on today's technology. I'm talking about tomorrow's technology. Saying "go buy a laptop" is silly -- that's what I'd do if I wanted to solve the problem today, but that doesn't make it an ideal solution.
If the limit had been raised to ten gigabytes, everyone would be complaining about how they're using their vast cash reserves to drive everyone else out of the webmail market. If they had left the limit at two megs, the complaint would be that they're just using their market dominance and not innovating. If they got rid of hotmail completely, everyone would be whining about how their five-year-old address was disappearing, and if they sold the hotmail domain to Google, the conspiracy theorists would have a field day.
No matter what the situation, you guys always seem to know Microsoft is at fault. It's just the reason why that changes.
Well, let's see: power supplies make the computer bigger, reducing space in the room; they're also noisy and hot, which you would like to seperate from the user. A typical house has dozens of devices that convert from AC to DC; by consolidating those, you make the devices simpler, cheaper, and higher quality. Perhaps you can't see a use for not having to have a seperate wall wart for every single thing you own, but I sure can.
Fifteen years ago, there were a grand total of four cables coming out of my computer. Today there are eight, and I don't have nearly as many gadgets as some. More and more, we want things to talk to each other -- and that means wires between them.
I've just given you a couple off-the-top-of-my-head reasons why it would be nicer, and a couple possible solutions to potential problems -- I don't pretend to have solved everything. I don't quite see why you're so eager to dismiss this. Do you deny that it would be more convenient to be able to plug a couple things into the wall and have it all work?
Well, I didn't say it would be easy. (In fact, I specifically said that there are lots of problems to solve.) But all of these problems have solutions. For instance, of course you can't have a central 5V power supply -- but you can certainly move the transformation from the computer to inside the wall. Many of us use remote displays already -- having a computer which connects to a monitor over a network really just requires a smarter monitor. And don't forget that we can transfer lots of data wirelessly; we wouldn't necessarily need to transfer everything over the wire.
I don't think that this will happen overnight, or even in the next ten years. But like I said, the problem of cabling is currently getting worse, not better. Eventually, things will have to change.
Actually, I've thought that this should be carried further.
... you just plug each one with a single cable into the wall. The computer would get its 12V and 5V lines, other things might get 120VAC, they would be connected to an internal network that is used for communication between the different peripherals, and so forth.
Right now, everything has lots of cables coming out of it, and has to convert electricity to whatever it happens to use. It's ugly and difficult to maintain, and as electronics grow in importance, it's been getting steadily worse.
What if we replaced that with just a centralized system and universal wall jack? Imagine that instead of connecting your computer to the outlet, the monitor to the outlet, the monitor to the computer, the modem to the phone jack, the network cable snaked through the wall to the cable modem, the sound card to the speakers
Obviously, quite a few problems would need to be solved before this could work, but the technology to do it exists already -- it's just an engineering problem.
Not to mention the money you save on light bulbs...