"75% More Efficient Lights"--does the breakthrough mean that the lights produced are 75% more efficient, or that 75% more lights are being made that are efficient?
I've been waiting for this to change from 'vapor' to 'solid' ever since I read about it in CES coverage in January, when it was supposed to ship 'in a month or two'. At the time, sites were saying it'd be available with a TV tuner and GPS. I see the tuner mentioned on Asus' (ridiculously crappy) site but not the GPS. Anyone know about that?
250k? Instead of images, they should move to a file that's naturally larger and gives them more room to work... like movies! I can't wait until one movie is hidden inside another. Like I can download "The Fast and the Furious" but it's actually got "3:10 to Yuma" inside. Then maybe they can make a VLC plugin so when I open the container movie I see the hidden movie instead.
No idea. Maybe for the same reason I got a 'flamebait' here for saying 1) Apple is happy with their current profitable business and 2) different people like different things?:-)
PS: I miss the old days when you could click on one of your comments and see the % of troll/funny/insightful/flamebait/etc mods you got.
No, no, no, the way things work in America NOW is to coast on your laurels for a few decades, make one bad decision after another, then wait for the BAILOUT!
...STOP ABUSING the hosts file like a clueless idiot! Seriously, 14MB of plain text that needs to be parsed for every lookup? That's the most retarded thing I've ever seen.
At those proportions, there are WAY more efficient methods...
I use a custom/etc/hosts to block ads. I don't need to block them all, I'm happy with/etc/hosts blocking most. I don't know what happens when a hosts file gets as huge as the GP is describing but on a modern multi-gigahertz machine, my file gets parsed basically instantly. And, in fact, it actually worked just fine on my 800 MHz G3 iBook six years ago. So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads.
...if you know that domain evil.invalid is hostile, you can't afford to miss some hosts below it. Otherwise, what's the point?
I agree that it's not perfect, but it's not like I run around engaging in any risky behavior just because I have a custom/etc/hosts file. Something is better than nothing. You're making two things black and white. LOTS of things aren't perfect--that doesn't mean they're completely worthless. Your car isn't as safe as a tank, so why bother driving at all, right?
And anyways, diverting traffic to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 is changing semantics in so many ways. Suppose you start running a local HTTP server for testing purposes and all that traffic is suddenly hitting it. It's just wrong.
Well, first of all, I don't care about being theoretically "wrong" if the actual, real-life result is "just fine." I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom/etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an/etc/hosts-related problem. (The only thing I could see that might cause an issue would be logging, but that's easy enough to fix in httpd.conf.) In fact, it's better than fine. I've got a custom 404 page which says "Another blocked ad!" so I get a little happy reminder every time I see it in an iframe instead of an ad. And, if I ever get around to it, I'll make that page a PHP script that asks "Do you want to unblock this page?" because my wife occasionally hits it when she clicks on a Google ad, or you run into occasional dumbness like if you go to wellsfargo.com and click on "Sign up now" in the left column the link goes to https://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/6878-38920-3408-45 -- wtf?!?!?
"Blocking" hosts by listing them in the hosts file is an evil evil evil ugly hack conceived by clueless idiots that can't manage to run a local proxy where you could block domains with simple regular expressions and only for protocols which need them blocked. Or running a local DNS cache where you could blacklist domains so you get a semantically correct (for your purpose) NXDOMAIN error.
Yeah, but it works. And it's easier than installing and maintaining yet more software. (I've tried a couple proxies in the past and both were non-trivial to get working.) And regarding this: "Or running a local DNS cache where you could blacklist domains"--didn't you just say "you should instantly realize that security doesn't work with blacklists"?
All I know is that whenever I go to another computer and get swamped by ads, I'm reminded of how great my little system is.
One more thing: if all you want to do is block an ad or a software update or a validity check, WHO GIVES A FUCK if you get a "semantically correct NXDOMAIN error"?!?!?!? I don't lie awake at night wo
I think OS X will only really beat MS if either A) Apple releases -cheap- computers or B) Licenses it out to other OEMs that make cheap computers.
For the one hundred hojillionth time... APPLE DOESN'T WANT TO BEAT MS! I mean, sure, if they "won" they'd be happy, but they are RIDICULOUSLY PROFITABLE RIGHT NOW and they don't need to change. Look at who "won"* in the PC world: HP, Dell, Compaq--you think Apple wants to be involved in that race to the bottom? (Let alone "win"?) Apple is a LUXURY BRAND. Do you think BMW execs lie awake at night worried that they aren't selling as many cars as Toyota?
Here's just one example of how well Apple is doing, and this is from 2006, before the iPhone even existed: "Apple's [retail] stores have hauled in annual sales per square foot of $4,032, compared with Best Buy's $930, Neiman Marcus' $611, and luxury store Tiffany & Co.'s $2,666." (The original article is gone but there are many reports about it.)
I can't see people flocking over to Apple when PC hardware is dirt cheap.
HAHAHAHA! DUDE! Wake up! The answer is right in front of you. GO TO A DAMN APPLE STORE and start asking questions of customers! Never mind, Apple probably won't like that, but hint: you don't even have to bother. Just sit outside and watch how many people walk out with large boxes. THERE'S YOUR ANSWER! Just because "OMG TEH ECONOMY IS CRASHING!!!111" doesn't mean NO ONE has money. And many that do are willing to pay for a GOOD computing experience.
In other words: Apple is doing just fine, WITHOUT your "advice".
Also: Apple supporting other OEMs would KILL their profitability. Do you know why you can install ANY version of OS X on ANY supported Mac and EVERYTHING that came with the machine--video, networking, sound, wireless, etc.--all work without installing a SINGLE driver? Because Apple controls the hardware and they can include everything. Do you think they WANT to start testing a million other kinds of (cheap, variable-quality) hardware? HELL NO!
If I had almost no money, and my Mac laptop died, I'd quit eating out for a year if that's what it took to replace it with a Mac instead of a PC. OS X is THAT GOOD, and Windows is THAT BAD. To me**, anyway, and that's all that matters.
* besides MS, which doesn't make PC systems, so it's not quite a (you'll pardon the expression) apples-to-apples comparison.
** and to the millions of people who buy Apple computers every year. And that's all Apple needs.
There are lots of problems with exchange/outlook but the fact is, the feature set is pretty complete. Microsoft did a lot of boring work to make lots of things happen, like the ability to invite people to meetings, collect responses, send updates when they get changed, deal with timezones, etc etc etc. People who rely on it (and there are literally millions) would really have their work impacted by not having all those features.
Has anyone else realized that since about the beginning of this decade, Microsoft has slowly begun a transition to competing on quality, rather than simply leveraging their monopoly and sitting on their laurels?
No.
Windows XP. There is simply no comparing XP to previous "home" versions of Windows in terms of quality. Yes, I know it's largely Windows 2000 with a new skin, but the important thing here is that they discontinued their crufty, broken, DOS-based line that didn't even have true multitasking and replaced it with something stable and mature (in comparison).
Right. And they were largely done with that in mid-2000. Like you said, XP was just 2000 with some polish. Some better features, some worse (*cough*Control Panel*cough*) so I'd say they broke even overall. Then, they followed it up with Vista (eventually), which has some under the hood improvements but the UI blows. And requires tons of hardware for no reason.
Visual Studio
Doesn't matter. Most of the world doesn't write apps.
Internet Explorer: 6 was simply a joke, the laughingstock of the web... IE7 was a big step in the right direction
Again, the only people who disliked IE6 were certain kinds of web coders. IE7 might have had under-the-hood improvements but they REMOVED THE MENUS and otherwise dicked around with the UI for NO GOOD REASON. I literally don't know a single person who uses IE8. I don't represent the whole world but here's what I see: 1) corporate users who use whatever the company dictates. Usually WinXP/IE6. Many companies are moving to Firefox. 2) Power users who abandoned IE years ago. They fix their families' computers and they've moved everyone to FF as well. 3) Home users who don't know or care about what browser they're using BUT they also never run software updates so they've still got 6 or 7 too.
Search: MSN search was useless abandonware; now they are really trying with Bing.
And they were "really trying" with previous attempts, too. Bing has not yet taken over the world, and it has very little chance of doing so. The only people who ever have or ever will use Bing are IE users who don't know to go to Google. I've never met someone in person who intentionally did searches from the location bar in IE. If they type in "yahoo" and it takes them to a search results page with "www.yahoo.com" as the first match and they click on that, I wouldn't really use that as an example of Microsoft doing great work.
User interface: Vista brought in a modern, powerful shell complete with modern, powerful command-line utilities.
I don't get what you're saying here. When you say "shell" do you mean the Explorer? Vista's "shell" is no better than XP's overall--maybe a couple improvements, but just as many steps back. If you're referring to the CLI tools, again... no one outside of Slashdot gives a fuck.
Windows 7 has made several improvements on the GUI side.
And that's your supporting argument for "Look how much great work MS has done in the past decade"--"several improvements" to an OS that isn't out yet, nine-and-a-half years into the decade we're discussing?
But in, say, 2000, who'd have thought Microsoft would have come so far?
I'm sure I'm not the typical user, but for me, the best Windows box I ever had ran Windows 2000 and Office 97--smooth, stable, ran like a Swiss watch.
Because that's what the computer I use at work has on it? Because I've got everything set just the way I like it in 10.4? Because 10.5 doesn't work reliably with the 802.1x VPN we have at my night job? Because my sub-800 MHz Macs are still chugging along nicely, thankyouverymuch? Don't get me wrong, I like 10.5 just fine, but between home and my two jobs I own or use seven Macs, and about half are still on 10.4, and will stay there for quite a while.
10.4 is my least favorite OS X of the last several years. I hate spotlight and there's nothing in 10.4 that I prefer over 10.3. (Other than some better stability and networking improvements.) I liked the old 'find' a million times more for many reasons. 10.5 has some changes that I hate (the Dock and sidebar) but Time Machine is the best thing ever and Quick Look has turned out to be surprisingly useful. If I could run 10.3 plus Time Machine and Quick Look on an Intel Mac I'd use that forever.
Works for images, too. Take two images which may or may not be identical, put them on separate layers, then invert the colors of the top one and drop its opacity to 50%. If you're not looking at a perfectly uniform field of 50% grey*, the images aren't the same. Great way to tell if something's been 'shopped, or even resaved as a JPG again (since each resaving introduces new artifacts.) Automate this process with a webcam and you've got motion detection.
And speaking of sound, this is how Dolby Surround originally worked with just 2 channels of audio. Combine the left and right channels for "center"; invert one and add them (to get the difference) and that's your "surround." Back before I had a surround amp, I bridged two channels of my amp into speakers wired in series to make this happen.**
You're right: science FTW.:-)
* or something close. Just tried it with identical images and some pixels were 127-127-127 and some were 128-128-128. YMMV.
** can't find any suitable images so I'll try with a one-line ascii art:
Amp L Pos [+]-----[+] rear L spkr Pos | rear L spkr Neg [-]-----[+] rear R spkr Pos | rear R spkr Neg [-]-----[-] Amp R Neg
The good news: Google apps are all out of beta!
on
Google Apps Leave Beta
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Don't forget he wrote it on an old typewriter and was well known for NOT being a computer nerd.
It took the power of eBay to get William Gibson online. "I went happily along for years, smugly avoiding anything that involved a modem. Email address? Sorry. Don't have one... Then I found eBay. And I wanted to go back."
I use caps lock daily. Never for typing, but to make tools "precise" in Photoshop. (Yes, I know I can set them to be precise all the time. No, I don't want to. I like the visual feedback of knowing instantly which tool I have. I just need "precise" mode every so often.)
Jackson had a huge soft spot for charitable causes. He gave millions of his own money and helped raise millions more to support advocacy groups ranging from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to the American Cancer Society. His efforts prompted a listing in the 2000 Guinness Book of World Records for most charities supported by a pop star. [emphasis mine]
He donated $1.5 million to a burn center, the proceeds from a settlement he received from PepsiCo after sustaining second-degree burns to his scalp while filming a 1984 TV commercial for the soft-drink giant. Later that year, he donated an additional $5 million to charity from his share of the Jackson 5's Victory Tour. Also that year, he was honored by President Reagan for his contributions to combat drug and alcohol abuse.
Jackson also co-wrote with Lionel Richie We Are the World, the star-laden 1985 single that sold 20 million copies, raising millions for famine relief.
Slashdot Mirror
The world needs more Lojbanists!
"75% More Efficient Lights"--does the breakthrough mean that the lights produced are 75% more efficient, or that 75% more lights are being made that are efficient?
I've been waiting for this to change from 'vapor' to 'solid' ever since I read about it in CES coverage in January, when it was supposed to ship 'in a month or two'. At the time, sites were saying it'd be available with a TV tuner and GPS. I see the tuner mentioned on Asus' (ridiculously crappy) site but not the GPS. Anyone know about that?
250k? Instead of images, they should move to a file that's naturally larger and gives them more room to work... like movies! I can't wait until one movie is hidden inside another. Like I can download "The Fast and the Furious" but it's actually got "3:10 to Yuma" inside. Then maybe they can make a VLC plugin so when I open the container movie I see the hidden movie instead.
Somebody quick, get XZibit on this right away!
"Repulsive Force Discovered In Light"--well DUH. Anyone who's ever been in a strip club at closing time has witnessed this phenomenon.
Bzzt, wrong. They're mostly genitals.
1400 gmail accounts?
All praise St. Moore and the disk wizards at IBM. From 2001: Build a 1 TB server for $5,000!
No idea. Maybe for the same reason I got a 'flamebait' here for saying 1) Apple is happy with their current profitable business and 2) different people like different things? :-)
PS: I miss the old days when you could click on one of your comments and see the % of troll/funny/insightful/flamebait/etc mods you got.
LOL. Or, another way to look at it, is we could have put up a dozen more space stations for what we've spent on that war so far.
No, no, no, the way things work in America NOW is to coast on your laurels for a few decades, make one bad decision after another, then wait for the BAILOUT!
Mine is only 216k and comes from here.
At those proportions, there are WAY more efficient methods...
I use a custom
I agree that it's not perfect, but it's not like I run around engaging in any risky behavior just because I have a custom
And anyways, diverting traffic to 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 is changing semantics in so many ways. Suppose you start running a local HTTP server for testing purposes and all that traffic is suddenly hitting it. It's just wrong.
Well, first of all, I don't care about being theoretically "wrong" if the actual, real-life result is "just fine." I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom
"Blocking" hosts by listing them in the hosts file is an evil evil evil ugly hack conceived by clueless idiots that can't manage to run a local proxy where you could block domains with simple regular expressions and only for protocols which need them blocked. Or running a local DNS cache where you could blacklist domains so you get a semantically correct (for your purpose) NXDOMAIN error.
Yeah, but it works. And it's easier than installing and maintaining yet more software. (I've tried a couple proxies in the past and both were non-trivial to get working.) And regarding this: "Or running a local DNS cache where you could blacklist domains"--didn't you just say "you should instantly realize that security doesn't work with blacklists"?
All I know is that whenever I go to another computer and get swamped by ads, I'm reminded of how great my little system is.
One more thing: if all you want to do is block an ad or a software update or a validity check, WHO GIVES A FUCK if you get a "semantically correct NXDOMAIN error"?!?!?!? I don't lie awake at night wo
I think OS X will only really beat MS if either A) Apple releases -cheap- computers or B) Licenses it out to other OEMs that make cheap computers.
For the one hundred hojillionth time... APPLE DOESN'T WANT TO BEAT MS! I mean, sure, if they "won" they'd be happy, but they are RIDICULOUSLY PROFITABLE RIGHT NOW and they don't need to change. Look at who "won"* in the PC world: HP, Dell, Compaq--you think Apple wants to be involved in that race to the bottom? (Let alone "win"?) Apple is a LUXURY BRAND. Do you think BMW execs lie awake at night worried that they aren't selling as many cars as Toyota?
Here's just one example of how well Apple is doing, and this is from 2006, before the iPhone even existed: "Apple's [retail] stores have hauled in annual sales per square foot of $4,032, compared with Best Buy's $930, Neiman Marcus' $611, and luxury store Tiffany & Co.'s $2,666." (The original article is gone but there are many reports about it.)
I can't see people flocking over to Apple when PC hardware is dirt cheap.
HAHAHAHA! DUDE! Wake up! The answer is right in front of you. GO TO A DAMN APPLE STORE and start asking questions of customers! Never mind, Apple probably won't like that, but hint: you don't even have to bother. Just sit outside and watch how many people walk out with large boxes. THERE'S YOUR ANSWER! Just because "OMG TEH ECONOMY IS CRASHING!!!111" doesn't mean NO ONE has money. And many that do are willing to pay for a GOOD computing experience.
In other words: Apple is doing just fine, WITHOUT your "advice".
Also: Apple supporting other OEMs would KILL their profitability. Do you know why you can install ANY version of OS X on ANY supported Mac and EVERYTHING that came with the machine--video, networking, sound, wireless, etc.--all work without installing a SINGLE driver? Because Apple controls the hardware and they can include everything. Do you think they WANT to start testing a million other kinds of (cheap, variable-quality) hardware? HELL NO!
If I had almost no money, and my Mac laptop died, I'd quit eating out for a year if that's what it took to replace it with a Mac instead of a PC. OS X is THAT GOOD, and Windows is THAT BAD. To me**, anyway, and that's all that matters.
* besides MS, which doesn't make PC systems, so it's not quite a (you'll pardon the expression) apples-to-apples comparison.
** and to the millions of people who buy Apple computers every year. And that's all Apple needs.
There are lots of problems with exchange/outlook but the fact is, the feature set is pretty complete. Microsoft did a lot of boring work to make lots of things happen, like the ability to invite people to meetings, collect responses, send updates when they get changed, deal with timezones, etc etc etc. People who rely on it (and there are literally millions) would really have their work impacted by not having all those features.
AFAIK, the last version of Firefox for OS 9 was 1.2.1.
Has anyone else realized that since about the beginning of this decade, Microsoft has slowly begun a transition to competing on quality, rather than simply leveraging their monopoly and sitting on their laurels?
No.
Windows XP. There is simply no comparing XP to previous "home" versions of Windows in terms of quality. Yes, I know it's largely Windows 2000 with a new skin, but the important thing here is that they discontinued their crufty, broken, DOS-based line that didn't even have true multitasking and replaced it with something stable and mature (in comparison).
Right. And they were largely done with that in mid-2000. Like you said, XP was just 2000 with some polish. Some better features, some worse (*cough*Control Panel*cough*) so I'd say they broke even overall. Then, they followed it up with Vista (eventually), which has some under the hood improvements but the UI blows. And requires tons of hardware for no reason.
Visual Studio
Doesn't matter. Most of the world doesn't write apps.
Internet Explorer: 6 was simply a joke, the laughingstock of the web... IE7 was a big step in the right direction
Again, the only people who disliked IE6 were certain kinds of web coders. IE7 might have had under-the-hood improvements but they REMOVED THE MENUS and otherwise dicked around with the UI for NO GOOD REASON. I literally don't know a single person who uses IE8. I don't represent the whole world but here's what I see: 1) corporate users who use whatever the company dictates. Usually WinXP/IE6. Many companies are moving to Firefox. 2) Power users who abandoned IE years ago. They fix their families' computers and they've moved everyone to FF as well. 3) Home users who don't know or care about what browser they're using BUT they also never run software updates so they've still got 6 or 7 too.
Search: MSN search was useless abandonware; now they are really trying with Bing.
And they were "really trying" with previous attempts, too. Bing has not yet taken over the world, and it has very little chance of doing so. The only people who ever have or ever will use Bing are IE users who don't know to go to Google. I've never met someone in person who intentionally did searches from the location bar in IE. If they type in "yahoo" and it takes them to a search results page with "www.yahoo.com" as the first match and they click on that, I wouldn't really use that as an example of Microsoft doing great work.
User interface: Vista brought in a modern, powerful shell complete with modern, powerful command-line utilities.
I don't get what you're saying here. When you say "shell" do you mean the Explorer? Vista's "shell" is no better than XP's overall--maybe a couple improvements, but just as many steps back. If you're referring to the CLI tools, again... no one outside of Slashdot gives a fuck.
Windows 7 has made several improvements on the GUI side.
And that's your supporting argument for "Look how much great work MS has done in the past decade"--"several improvements" to an OS that isn't out yet, nine-and-a-half years into the decade we're discussing?
But in, say, 2000, who'd have thought Microsoft would have come so far?
I'm sure I'm not the typical user, but for me, the best Windows box I ever had ran Windows 2000 and Office 97--smooth, stable, ran like a Swiss watch.
Because that's what the computer I use at work has on it? Because I've got everything set just the way I like it in 10.4? Because 10.5 doesn't work reliably with the 802.1x VPN we have at my night job? Because my sub-800 MHz Macs are still chugging along nicely, thankyouverymuch? Don't get me wrong, I like 10.5 just fine, but between home and my two jobs I own or use seven Macs, and about half are still on 10.4, and will stay there for quite a while.
10.4 is my least favorite OS X of the last several years. I hate spotlight and there's nothing in 10.4 that I prefer over 10.3. (Other than some better stability and networking improvements.) I liked the old 'find' a million times more for many reasons. 10.5 has some changes that I hate (the Dock and sidebar) but Time Machine is the best thing ever and Quick Look has turned out to be surprisingly useful. If I could run 10.3 plus Time Machine and Quick Look on an Intel Mac I'd use that forever.
Works for images, too. Take two images which may or may not be identical, put them on separate layers, then invert the colors of the top one and drop its opacity to 50%. If you're not looking at a perfectly uniform field of 50% grey*, the images aren't the same. Great way to tell if something's been 'shopped, or even resaved as a JPG again (since each resaving introduces new artifacts.) Automate this process with a webcam and you've got motion detection.
And speaking of sound, this is how Dolby Surround originally worked with just 2 channels of audio. Combine the left and right channels for "center"; invert one and add them (to get the difference) and that's your "surround." Back before I had a surround amp, I bridged two channels of my amp into speakers wired in series to make this happen.**
You're right: science FTW. :-)
* or something close. Just tried it with identical images and some pixels were 127-127-127 and some were 128-128-128. YMMV.
** can't find any suitable images so I'll try with a one-line ascii art:
Amp L Pos [+]-----[+] rear L spkr Pos | rear L spkr Neg [-]-----[+] rear R spkr Pos | rear R spkr Neg [-]-----[-] Amp R Neg
The bad news: they're all entering 'Gamma'
Weren't Loudcloud and Ning also attempts to find the next Netscape?
Marc has done some good work but his fame and fortune were mainly the result of luck and being in the right place at the right time.
Don't forget he wrote it on an old typewriter and was well known for NOT being a computer nerd.
It took the power of eBay to get William Gibson online. "I went happily along for years, smugly avoiding anything that involved a modem. Email address? Sorry. Don't have one... Then I found eBay. And I wanted to go back."
Hmm... I think you're on to something. Maybe if the screen and keyboard were attached... perhaps with a hinge...
Lawyer: "Mr. Finn, would you please tell us what you know about ninjas?"
Mr. Finn: "Certainly. 1. Ninjas are mammals. 2. Ninjas fight ALL the time. 3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people."
That, and my GOD he's got a lot of porn!
Seriously, though, I agree with the parent. /etc/hosts ftw!
I use caps lock daily. Never for typing, but to make tools "precise" in Photoshop. (Yes, I know I can set them to be precise all the time. No, I don't want to. I like the visual feedback of knowing instantly which tool I have. I just need "precise" mode every so often.)
For all the grief we give about Bill Gates, at least he is doing something for humanity that is good other than spend money on luxuries.
Score: -1, factually incorrect. From USA Today's coverage:
Jackson had a huge soft spot for charitable causes. He gave millions of his own money and helped raise millions more to support advocacy groups ranging from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to the American Cancer Society. His efforts prompted a listing in the 2000 Guinness Book of World Records for most charities supported by a pop star. [emphasis mine]
He donated $1.5 million to a burn center, the proceeds from a settlement he received from PepsiCo after sustaining second-degree burns to his scalp while filming a 1984 TV commercial for the soft-drink giant. Later that year, he donated an additional $5 million to charity from his share of the Jackson 5's Victory Tour. Also that year, he was honored by President Reagan for his contributions to combat drug and alcohol abuse.
Jackson also co-wrote with Lionel Richie We Are the World, the star-laden 1985 single that sold 20 million copies, raising millions for famine relief.