I had to resort to plastering the guy's block of units with the screen captured photo of the location, *and* deduce his employer's name, and send the address there with an explanation. Turns out the guy just 'found' it and was meaning to return it anyway. Uh-huh.
So anyway, when the cops take the report, tell them (when they ask) that the ipad contains information which may be of use to terrorists. Your porn stash might give aid and comfort, right? At that point, I imagine, they will be bashing the door down to get it back.
Finally, and most surprisingly... Apple will happily continue to allow the thief to download new software (including, of course, reflashing the device) even if you inform them of the theft, and even if you accompany it with a police report of the theft... why should Apple care, they're making money both sides of the deal, right? Apple 'support' 'explained' to me that it was technically impossible for them to refuse to allow a thief to make use of Apple's facilities to reflash the iPad into a valuable commodity. Apple 'support' admitted that there was a hard-wired serial number, that the iTunes crapware could read it, and that it could send it to the servers, but... no... technically impossible. It'd be a different story if someone were stealing something of theirs, I guess.
Someone infected with the 1918 flu strain has a significantly better chance of recovery under modern medical care than their 1918 counterpart.
Change that to "marginally better" and I might agree with you. There is still no effective treatment against a cytokine storm reaction, which is what primarily killed people in 1918.
Isn't there also the problem that you need uninfected people to administer the modern medical care. Sure, that's why RNs and MDs are among the first to be immunised, but still it wouldn't take much to bring down the health systems even in an advanced country.
"Some day, you will be able to carry a phone, and dock it to a keyboard, mouse and display and use it as a full desktop with all your apps and data. Or use it as a tablet, in a different dock." - M.Shuttlesworth.
This is the 'vision.' With a simple dock, and a healthy dose of kool-aid, you will be able to turn a mouse into a finger, and a big wide screen with no touch capability at all into a touch-sensitive screen. The only thing missing is the part where a mouse behaves even slightly like a finger, and a display behaves even slightly like a touch screen.
Then, instead of relaxing your forearm on a desk and making small precise hand gestures with a mouse, you will be able to either use the mouse to drag the cursor (which you can hardly see) across large distances to precisely hit a sensitive area which you can also hardly see. OR, you will be able to wave your arms around wildly while gesturing at this vertical surface with your fingers... except of course your forearm and upper arm muscles will quickly tire from all the effort.
We tried this in the lab, and the results are in: hand-waving is the way of the FUTURE!
From the previous Slashdot article about this debacle (the one where Shuttlesworth says "power users" are all wankers for not loving the Unity) one is directed to https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/882274/comments/36 and then http://design.canonical.com/2010/11/usability-testing-of-unity/ which states that the usability of Unity was tested on 15 people, where "Of the 15 participants recruited, 13 were Windows users, 1 was a Mac user, and 1 used both Windows and Mac. None of the participants was familiar with Ubuntu."
It states that the usability of Unity was tested on 15 people, where "Of the 15 participants recruited, 13 were Windows users, 1 was a Mac user, and 1 used both Windows and Mac. None of the participants was familiar with Ubuntu."
A large proportion of US Aid takes the form of tied loans for the purchase of military equipment. I guess if the arms were used to liberate the oppressed (q.v. Shaw's Major Barbara) that could be considered aid, but I am pretty sure this isn't the usual practice.
* Tcl has Safe Interpreters - as someone else noted - you can selectively hide, block or emulate commands in a cascade privilege model, so you can have a sandbox within a sandbox, if you want to. You could write a safe interpreter which executed third party code in a completely untrusted environment. That was a big feature of the Tcl Plugin for FF too. Very advanced security model.
| Can someone comment on ANY technical advantages that Tcl would have over Javascript
Good question. I'll have a bash at answering this, but of course it's just personal prejudice really, and it's all arguable:
* Tcl has unicode built in from the ground up - makes a difference if you're not an English speaker. * Tcl is string based, all values are strings, it's very good at string manipulation. * Tcl is event driven from the ground up - good at networking and interaction. Coroutines in the core. * Tcl isn't locked into OO, although you can use the blessed OO when you want to. * Tcl is elegant, has truly excellent introspection, it's extensible. * Tcl has heaps of webby and networking stuff, libraries full of it. * Tcl has Tk - and NaTcl will soon have NaTk - which gives you a really excellent GUI definition language. * If I had to give a beginner a task and had a choice between JS and Tcl, I think I'd go for Tcl. So much of JS is beginner code, and perhaps the world would be a better place if it weren't. * Tcl is fast to develop in, and (contrary to some opinions) quite good at large complex systems.
I could go on about it all day, but the bottom line is I know both JS and Tcl, I would prefer to use Tcl. YMMV, and you should use whichever language suits you.
Tcl has libraries to parse, manipulate, and generate SVG. http://wiki.tcl.tk/TclSVG
We find Tcl easier than Javscript to write such utilities in. YMMV, of course. Being able to bring those facilities to bear for web applications is part of the motivation for NaTcl, so there's no implied choice or preference for Canvas over SVG, just that we haven't had time to adapt and write SVG generators... now we have that opportunity.
Tcl 8.6 has coroutines, which are also tremendously useful for interactive (and networking) programs. They function as green threads, very lightweight and fast.
Closures will come, but they're not so important when you have coroutines.
Uh...the GUI builder is called HTML and the Tk library is called the DOM. Did you only ready the Tcl part of the headline?
Not quite. We have a Tk front-end which generates HTML and CSS sufficient to present a very nice GUI in browser-native look and feel.
At the moment, it runs on the server. We will be porting it to NaTcl next.
In my experience, it's much simpler and neater than DOM and HTML.
The NaTcl balls demo runs here at 40fps, as fast as the original JS version, and respectable.
So, the point of using another scripting language is that you might prefer it to JS. You might find Tcl faster and better to develop in than JS. It seems to me to give you that choice, which otherwise you did not have.
What you say about the standard agnosticism is true, and indeed the HTML spec mentions Tcl as a scripting language.
<quote><p>What will stop adoption is not the language itself. It's the fact that, for 99.9% people out there, Javascript is more than enough. Python would probably have a better chance of ever being used - and even it doesn't stand much a chance against the js establishment.</p></quote>
One of the first arguments in favour of scripting languages is that they were measured to be five times faster to develop in than C.
It may be that JavaScript has inherited some of those impediments to code writing from C.
You state, quite correctly, that there are a lot of JavaScript fragments out there, and an 'establishment' of frameworks.
However, the quality of a lot of the JS is fairly low, and it may just be that the need for frameworks is driven to some extent by the Javascript language itself, not merely the need to cope with IE.
I think this experiment in alternatives to javascript may yield very interesting results. We have found, for example, that Tk is a very good language and framework for laying out Web GUIs.
chrome, google-chrome --no-sandbox
on OSX use/Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google\ Chrome --no-sandbox
navigate to about:flags and enable native client, save it.
on OSX (at least) you will need to restart Chrome after enabling native client
Try http://wiki.tcl.tk/_natcl/balls.html
Problems?
If you get missing so file error on the console, it's a know issue with chrome rpms and debs not including the NaTcl plugin. http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/issues/detail?id=1416
Can you run these non-tcl demos? http://code.google.com/chrome/nativeclient/docs/examples.html... if not, there's something wrong with your chrome installation.
When a country has decided to abandon (when expedient) the legal principles which give its legitimacy, all kinds of instability ensues.
I'm not surprised that people are left to speculate on what the US might do, because the US has recently and clearly demonstrated itself to be capable of gross and persistent violations of human rights (water boarding is torture) of due process (extraordinary rendition) and of deception, equivocation and spinning like a big old ferris wheel to justify these transgressions.
You can't really blame OP for fearing the worst when it comes to the USA's behaviour in these matters.
The trial can be held in camera in Sweden, the court can decide to publish nothing but the judgement (none of the evidence) and the UK judge deciding upon extradition is ok with that, citing that trials involving juveniles can be embargoed in the UK, and the Swedes just have a different idea of what needs to be made public.
So: that there will be a Swedish trial doesn't mean justice will be seen to be done.
"It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them."
You say, "But no one leaks video of the hundreds of encounters where a copter shots a bunch of insurgents." and imply that this means most of the people viewer therefore lack a real ability to assess the video.
What you say is true, but it is incomplete.
The US military intentionally and openly prevent the publication of such videos, they 'embed' journalists instead of allowing them to investigate, *precisely* so the populace lacks any ability to form a contextual framework within which to assess 'operation crusade' or whatever the military expedition in the middle east is now called.
I've heard lots of old hawks bleating that Vietnam was lost at home, that the population's objections to an unjust war made it unwinnable. The people at home aren't allowed to see what is being done in their name, because they might not like it, and might wish to exercise their democratic rights to stop doing it.
So it seems to me that what is needed is more of these videos, more wikileaks, more transparency, and more democracy. Not. Less.
Slashdot Mirror
I had to resort to plastering the guy's block of units with the screen captured photo of the location, *and* deduce his employer's name, and send the address there with an explanation. Turns out the guy just 'found' it and was meaning to return it anyway. Uh-huh.
So anyway, when the cops take the report, tell them (when they ask) that the ipad contains information which may be of use to terrorists. Your porn stash might give aid and comfort, right? At that point, I imagine, they will be bashing the door down to get it back.
Finally, and most surprisingly ... Apple will happily continue to allow the thief to download new software (including, of course, reflashing the device) even if you inform them of the theft, and even if you accompany it with a police report of the theft ... why should Apple care, they're making money both sides of the deal, right? Apple 'support' 'explained' to me that it was technically impossible for them to refuse to allow a thief to make use of Apple's facilities to reflash the iPad into a valuable commodity. Apple 'support' admitted that there was a hard-wired serial number, that the iTunes crapware could read it, and that it could send it to the servers, but ... no ... technically impossible. It'd be a different story if someone were stealing something of theirs, I guess.
Apple Scum.
My next iPad will be a Samsung.
Someone infected with the 1918 flu strain has a significantly better chance of recovery under modern medical care than their 1918 counterpart.
Change that to "marginally better" and I might agree with you. There is still no effective treatment against a cytokine storm reaction, which is what primarily killed people in 1918.
Isn't there also the problem that you need uninfected people to administer the modern medical care. Sure, that's why RNs and MDs are among the first to be immunised, but still it wouldn't take much to bring down the health systems even in an advanced country.
... and pick gnome classic when you log in. This is gnome classic on gnome 3.
And it is nothing like gnome2 in terms of flexibility, configurability, support for the plugins we came to depend upon.
Gnome jumped the shark, Ubuntu followed them. I'm jumping ship.
"Some day, you will be able to carry a phone, and dock it to a keyboard, mouse and display and use it as a full desktop with all your apps and data. Or use it as a tablet, in a different dock." - M.Shuttlesworth.
This is the 'vision.' With a simple dock, and a healthy dose of kool-aid, you will be able to turn a mouse into a finger, and a big wide screen with no touch capability at all into a touch-sensitive screen. The only thing missing is the part where a mouse behaves even slightly like a finger, and a display behaves even slightly like a touch screen.
Then, instead of relaxing your forearm on a desk and making small precise hand gestures with a mouse, you will be able to either use the mouse to drag the cursor (which you can hardly see) across large distances to precisely hit a sensitive area which you can also hardly see. OR, you will be able to wave your arms around wildly while gesturing at this vertical surface with your fingers ... except of course your forearm and upper arm muscles will quickly tire from all the effort.
We tried this in the lab, and the results are in: hand-waving is the way of the FUTURE!
From the previous Slashdot article about this debacle (the one where Shuttlesworth says "power users" are all wankers for not loving the Unity) one is directed to https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/882274/comments/36 and then http://design.canonical.com/2010/11/usability-testing-of-unity/ which states that the usability of Unity was tested on 15 people, where "Of the 15 participants recruited, 13 were Windows users, 1 was a Mac user, and 1 used both Windows and Mac. None of the participants was familiar with Ubuntu."
This is jumping the shark with *lasers*
Tested, you say? Read this and weep: http://design.canonical.com/2010/11/usability-testing-of-unity/
It states that the usability of Unity was tested on 15 people, where "Of the 15 participants recruited, 13 were Windows users, 1 was a Mac user, and 1 used both Windows and Mac. None of the participants was familiar with Ubuntu."
If a Corolla looked enough like a Civic as to potentially cause confusion among buyers, then yeah. You'd get something exactly like that.
No, that would be trademark infringment - the 'potentially cause confusion' test derives from the tort of 'passing off' one thing as another.
If GNU had chosen HTML instead of info for its documentation, perhaps HTML would have been alive.
No ... wait ...
A large proportion of US Aid takes the form of tied loans for the purchase of military equipment. I guess if the arms were used to liberate the oppressed (q.v. Shaw's Major Barbara) that could be considered aid, but I am pretty sure this isn't the usual practice.
Oh, one more!
* Tcl has Safe Interpreters - as someone else noted - you can selectively hide, block or emulate commands in a cascade privilege model, so you can have a sandbox within a sandbox, if you want to. You could write a safe interpreter which executed third party code in a completely untrusted environment. That was a big feature of the Tcl Plugin for FF too. Very advanced security model.
| Can someone comment on ANY technical advantages that Tcl would have over Javascript
Good question. I'll have a bash at answering this, but of course it's just personal prejudice really, and it's all arguable:
* Tcl has unicode built in from the ground up - makes a difference if you're not an English speaker.
* Tcl is string based, all values are strings, it's very good at string manipulation.
* Tcl is event driven from the ground up - good at networking and interaction. Coroutines in the core.
* Tcl isn't locked into OO, although you can use the blessed OO when you want to.
* Tcl is elegant, has truly excellent introspection, it's extensible.
* Tcl has heaps of webby and networking stuff, libraries full of it.
* Tcl has Tk - and NaTcl will soon have NaTk - which gives you a really excellent GUI definition language.
* If I had to give a beginner a task and had a choice between JS and Tcl, I think I'd go for Tcl. So much of JS is beginner code, and perhaps the world would be a better place if it weren't.
* Tcl is fast to develop in, and (contrary to some opinions) quite good at large complex systems.
I could go on about it all day, but the bottom line is I know both JS and Tcl, I would prefer to use Tcl. YMMV, and you should use whichever language suits you.
Tcl has libraries to parse, manipulate, and generate SVG. http://wiki.tcl.tk/TclSVG We find Tcl easier than Javscript to write such utilities in. YMMV, of course. Being able to bring those facilities to bear for web applications is part of the motivation for NaTcl, so there's no implied choice or preference for Canvas over SVG, just that we haven't had time to adapt and write SVG generators ... now we have that opportunity.
Tcl 8.6 has coroutines, which are also tremendously useful for interactive (and networking) programs. They function as green threads, very lightweight and fast. Closures will come, but they're not so important when you have coroutines.
Uh...the GUI builder is called HTML and the Tk library is called the DOM. Did you only ready the Tcl part of the headline?
Not quite. We have a Tk front-end which generates HTML and CSS sufficient to present a very nice GUI in browser-native look and feel. At the moment, it runs on the server. We will be porting it to NaTcl next. In my experience, it's much simpler and neater than DOM and HTML.
Tcl 8.6 has full native OO.
The NaTcl balls demo runs here at 40fps, as fast as the original JS version, and respectable.
So, the point of using another scripting language is that you might prefer it to JS. You might find Tcl faster and better to develop in than JS. It seems to me to give you that choice, which otherwise you did not have.
And NaTcl uses the speed of NaCl to achieve that.
It's a good thing.
That's possible - the browser has to be able to download the .nexe (executable) from the server. A corporate firewall could presumably object to that.
What you say about the standard agnosticism is true, and indeed the HTML spec mentions Tcl as a scripting language.
<quote><p>What will stop adoption is not the language itself. It's the fact that, for 99.9% people out there, Javascript is more than enough.
Python would probably have a better chance of ever being used - and even it doesn't stand much a chance against the js establishment.</p></quote>
One of the first arguments in favour of scripting languages is that they were measured to be five times faster to develop in than C.
It may be that JavaScript has inherited some of those impediments to code writing from C.
You state, quite correctly, that there are a lot of JavaScript fragments out there, and an 'establishment' of frameworks.
However, the quality of a lot of the JS is fairly low, and it may just be that the need for frameworks is driven to some extent by the Javascript language itself, not merely the need to cope with IE.
I think this experiment in alternatives to javascript may yield very interesting results. We have found, for example, that Tk is a very good language and framework for laying out Web GUIs.
http://wiki.tcl.tk/NaTcl
/Applications/Google\ Chrome.app/Contents/MacOS/Google\ Chrome --no-sandbox
... if not, there's something wrong with your chrome installation.
Excerpt:
Try it out :
Get chrome (we use 10.0.648.204)
Kill all currently running chrome instances.
chrome, google-chrome --no-sandbox
on OSX use
navigate to about:flags and enable native client, save it.
on OSX (at least) you will need to restart Chrome after enabling native client
Try http://wiki.tcl.tk/_natcl/balls.html
Problems?
If you get missing so file error on the console, it's a know issue with chrome rpms and debs not including the NaTcl plugin. http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/issues/detail?id=1416
Can you run these non-tcl demos? http://code.google.com/chrome/nativeclient/docs/examples.html
Native Client is open source. So any browser, even IE, could incorporate it.
In that important respect they are very different.
Yeah it does. There are a few things you need to do on chrome invocation, detailed in the wiki page.
When a country has decided to abandon (when expedient) the legal principles which give its legitimacy, all kinds of instability ensues.
I'm not surprised that people are left to speculate on what the US might do, because the US has recently and clearly demonstrated itself to be capable of gross and persistent violations of human rights (water boarding is torture) of due process (extraordinary rendition) and of deception, equivocation and spinning like a big old ferris wheel to justify these transgressions.
You can't really blame OP for fearing the worst when it comes to the USA's behaviour in these matters.
The trial can be held in camera in Sweden, the court can decide to publish nothing but the judgement (none of the evidence) and the UK judge deciding upon extradition is ok with that, citing that trials involving juveniles can be embargoed in the UK, and the Swedes just have a different idea of what needs to be made public.
So: that there will be a Swedish trial doesn't mean justice will be seen to be done.
I think it's easy enough to understand *this*:
"It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them."
You say, "But no one leaks video of the hundreds of encounters where a copter shots a bunch of insurgents." and imply that this means most of the people viewer therefore lack a real ability to assess the video.
What you say is true, but it is incomplete.
The US military intentionally and openly prevent the publication of such videos, they 'embed' journalists instead of allowing them to investigate, *precisely* so the populace lacks any ability to form a contextual framework within which to assess 'operation crusade' or whatever the military expedition in the middle east is now called.
I've heard lots of old hawks bleating that Vietnam was lost at home, that the population's objections to an unjust war made it unwinnable. The people at home aren't allowed to see what is being done in their name, because they might not like it, and might wish to exercise their democratic rights to stop doing it.
So it seems to me that what is needed is more of these videos, more wikileaks, more transparency, and more democracy. Not. Less.