The new overlay feature is causing twinkling (and brief lockups) for me on Windows too.
Something was tricky here. This is the feature they needed. Hopefully it includes support for webcam overlays, so we'll be able to get some Snow Crash style CIC Globe action up in here.
If anyone knows of a good source for high quality buildings & overlays, I am all ears. These features will be great if someone else wants to do all the work.
There's no reason not to implement an association table is there?
Not that I know of.
but the "alternative" of having one column contain one or more delimited values is bad form
Yeah, see, never would have occurred to me. And screw portability: ON DELETE CASCADE better have an analog on any RDBMS I use, otherwise I can't imagine being able to keep all my balls in the air.
As regards the usage of M:M... That's just for high level conceptual modeling right? Surely you are not actually going to implement that way but will instead insert an intersect object AKA associative table, right?
Uh... is there some other way to implement a M:M relationship? Some way besides an association table?
It's so weird being at my particular middling level of SQL proficiency. I can never tell if I don't understand people talking about SQL on the web because they have ten times the understanding I do (they work at Amazon & frequently use normal forms I've never heard of), or because they don't have a tenth of the limited understanding that I do (never been acquainted with a relational diagram of any kind).
The only person that I know with whom I can talk about SQL and understand anything is one of my coworkers. But both of us know that we're often stabbing around in the dark trying to find the right answer for our weirder joins & whatnot. If you see what I mean. 'Scuse the rambling.
Ok, Betamax died. But did Sony lose money on Betamax? Or minidisc? Or memorystick? Seems to me like that stuff was doomed to tiny market share, but guaranteed to be high margin. Because no one else sold the stuff. Right?
So maybe they're repeating a money printing strategy that's worked for them for decades. We might get chaffed buttocks from it, but that doesn't mean Sony is losing.
It scales differently in IE and in firefox, and it scales differently depending on your font size.
IMHO, it works great in firefox. The center column gets squished and eventually covered up if the font size is huge and the window is beneath the minimum width. Not really a concern, imho. The fonts can get pretty big before this is an issue.
In IE, the minimum width isn't respected & depending on the size of the window, the center column can get forced down in the page below the sidebars. That's kindof hinky, and I imagine they'll fix it before release.
Why not take the top 5 designs and offer them in the preferences. That IS of course the beauty of designing a website with CSS.
No, no it really isn't. The CSS Zen Garden isn't the point of CSS. The reason to use CSS is so that you can change the design without changing the programming (as much). The reason to have multiple themes available for a website is so that you can use the same software on different websites and have them look different. So that http://my1stblog.example.com/ can look different from http://mysistersblog.example.com/ while both running Wordpress. Otherwise, themes are an idiotic waste of time.
The relevant quotes. Further on Gibson, Blade Runner, & Heavy Metal from The Blade Runner FAQ:
Did Blade Runner influence William Gibson when he wrote his cyberpunk classic, "Neuromancer"? Did Blade Runner influence cyberpunk in general?
It seems that both William Gibson and Ridley Scott were, at the time, both very much influenced by much of the visual styles and artwork featured in the magazine "Heavy Metal", notably the work by French artist Jean Giraud, AKA "Moebius". One story in particular, called "The Long Tomorrow", written by Dan O'Bannon and drawn by Moebius, was a major influence on the visual design of BR. Ironically, this story was in fact a parody of early American Film Noir.
Gibson, in an interview by Lance Loud in an article on the 10th anniversary of "Blade Runner" for the magazine "Details" (October 1992 issue), had the following to say:
"About ten minutes into Blade Runner, I reeled out of the theater in complete despair over its visual brilliance and its similarity to the "look" of Neuromancer, my [then] largely unwritten first novel. Not only had I been beaten to the semiotic punch, but this damned movie looked better than the images in my head! With time, as I got over that, I started to take a certain delight in the way the film began to affect the way the world looked. Club fashions, at first, then rock videos, finally even architecture. Amazing! A science fiction movie affecting reality!"
"Years later, I was having lunch with Ridley, and when the conversation turned to inspiration, we were both very clear about our debt to the Metal Hurlant [the original Heavy Metal magazine] school of the '70s--Moebius and the others. But it was also obvious that Scott understood the importance of information density to perceptual overload. When Blade Runner works best, it induces a lyrical sort of information sickness, that quintessentially postmodern cocktail of ecstasy and dread. It was what cyberpunk was supposed to be all about."
Also, here is an excerpt from an introduction Gibson wrote for the graphic novel adaptation of his own "Neuromancer" book:
"So it's entirely fair to say, and I've said it before, that the way Neuromancer-the-novel "looks" was influenced in large part by some of the artwork I saw in 'Heavy Metal'. I assume that this must also be true of John Carpenter's 'Escape from New York', Ridley Scott's 'Blade Runner'", and all other artifacts of the style sometimes dubbed 'cyberpunk'. Those French guys, they got their end in early."
My understanding is that most installers, especially installers for Windows XP logo applications, require admin privs. If I've got that wrong, I'd be fascinated to know.
I know there are a ton of apps that don't need to be installed like that in order to run, but they aren't the issue I was thinking of.
You had two points, and I didn't miss either of them.
Even if less malware is written for Macs right now, there is no guarantee that someone maybe even in the near future will target them.
Which everyone knows is a fact, and is what I said originally. Also, the person I originally responded to was obviously aware of this as well. You think that it is important that it is theoretically possible for there to be malware on OS X, and I think that it is important that right now, there is zero malware for you to get on your Macintosh.
Given enough time, this most likely *will* happen
You haven't shown this. The only thing that I can imagine would make it "likely" is if it were profitable. That would require a significant increase in the number of vulnerable OS X machines. If Apple proceeds to sell a completely unprecedented number of Macintoshes and get their installed base of OS X machines to be 20% of computers in the world, and do so without plugging their security holes, then this would be a problem. You tell me how likely you think that is. Otherwise, malware on your OS X box: extremely unlikely for the indefinite future.
the best security policy for enterprise networks and individual users to follow
You seem to be refering to your earlier point that there is some security reason to not use administrator access on Mac OS X. Due to the way security is implemented on OS X, this is not the case. Administrators on OS X are effectively sudoers. Any hole in this scheme is a security vulnerability that Apple users should complain about as a bug. There is no security reason in theory or practice that local users should not be administrators.
I know this, the person I was responding to knows this, and everyone else knows this too. That is central to my entire point, which is that no matter why it's more secure, your Apple computer is still actually almost guaranteed to not be compromised.
There is no security reason for preventing a user from having Admin rights on a Macintosh computer, and there is no conceivable reason for an Apple user to desire that Apple should prevent their employees from having Admin rights.
The only reason that they might possibly need to do this is on actual servers or multi-user computers, and I assure you that they do so. It wouldn't even help them enact idiotic corporate policy, because you do not need admin rights to install applications in any secure operating system aside from Windows.
Not quite true. In Unix, so long as a user has a home directory with executable rights, they can install and run any application or dependencies for that application. In Windows, applications must be installed by someone with machine-wide permissions.
In practice, of course, no one knows how to install application on Unix so it simply isn't done by non-savvy end users. In Windows, the CEO has admin rights so he can install whatever new thing he wants over the weekend. By himself.
But there's a technical capability for limited users in Unix that is not available in Windows.
The difference isn't in the pain for people like us. We've already figured out that Windows Defender is the way to go. We've already used Spybot S&D + Teatimer, Lavasoft Adaware, and then moved on. We've figured out how to avoid your computer's performance being totally crippled by antivirus. And things have been great for a while.
Apple users didn't have to think about that. They can plug their iMac directly into their DSL modem. I mean, I wouldn't, but they've been able to since they first got a DSL modem. Like eight years ago.
So yeah, it can change. And if Apple doesn't clean up its act before they get, say, 20% of the installed base (think about how many OS revisions they'll get through first), then the security picture will change, and change badly. I am highly skeptical that this will ever happen.
The problem is that the studios will not allow anyone to sell music online without DRM. FairPlay was Apple's solution to this problem.
Bullshit. I mean, it's true bullshit, but it is burying the lead to an extent that it is effectively not true. Apple sells music now. While the iTMS might not be profitable now, it's hugely more profitable than if there were a popular and simple means for people to share music with each other. So Apple is delighted to throw the DRM monkey wrench in there, even if their DRM is circumventable, lenient, and fair-ish.
W.R.T. DRM, Apple is part of the oligarchy now. They have a vested interest in reducing the functionality of your computer, and preventing huge, incredibly beneficial software tools and networks. Yes, their close contact with RIAA companies would probably require this anyway, but now it is also in their interest as a company. To maintain the iTMS as the most exceedingly convenient way to get music & TV. Obviously it is not the ideal architecture, but it will be the only one that everyone uses.
You & I have almost identical anti-malware configurations. I use Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, Microsoft Update, and my regularly updated Norton Antivirus (via Google Pack) has never seen a virus. I consider this a completely workable security solution, at least until my free 6 months of antivirus runs out. Even this completely workable solution, however, is significantly more crap than an Apple user has to think about.
How about this: It is extremely unlikely for any Apple user to get malware of any kind unless there are dramatic changes in the malware universe.
Sure, those changes could happen. We know the vulnerabilities are there. We know it's about market share & not being the lowest-hanging fruit. So to speak. The reputation Apple has is not due to any kind of misunderstanding. Not among Apple weenies, anyway.
Their marketshare is going up significantly. It might have gone up 50%, to 6% of new computer sales. 50 Fortune 500 companies could switch new purchases to Apple and it still wouldn't be a huge deal for virus, spyware, and phishing companies. There would still be way more cash available in the effectively infinite unsecured PCs on the internet.
apparently everyone seems to conveniently forget a couple facts
No one forgot a thing. We were all paying attention when those vulnerabilities were made public. It's a big deal. You're right. But it doesn't change the fact that you are almost completely guaranteed that your OS X machine will not get pwnd, even if your practices are relatively lax.
And I've gone years without my PC getting infested either. But I have spent a lot of time thinking about anti spyware applications, antivirus, software firewalls, and NAT in the interrim. We both know that Apple users have had an easier time with security, and will continue to do so indefinitely unless there are significant changes in the malware world. McAfee's scaremongering is just saying, "There could be changes." Yes, we knew that too.
GSM phones carry a list of providers, ranked generally according to how much they'll charge your provider if you make a call on their network.
That's exactly what I was talking about. Where I live, some providers couldn't work anything out for a while, so some phones wouldn't use some towers at all. Sure, the phone got new information about which towers it had access to, but it didn't get information about which networks it was allowed to connect to.
I'm sure I could have manually updated my phone, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the comparison being made by this question is flawed. Two ostensibly identical phones from the same service provider can get different service, mostly based on how recently the phone was purchased.
they don't seem to be working on improving call quality - just adding stupid features.
I disagree.
The latest free phone I got from Verizon has three "extra" features: speakerphone, flashlight, and three built in games. My understanding was that Verizon's whole business model was that phones were crippled but could download expensive shit. This phone can't download anything. It's great.
Every phone I've purchased has had better reception than the one before it, aside from when I've accidentally downgraded providers.
That's the main reason that this question is somewhat flawed. Newer software on your phone will frequently improve reception, sometimes just because the new software is aware of more towers. So purchasing the same phone from the same provider at a later date can get you better reception.
And I wouldn't be too surprised if bugs crept into these updates once or twice. So basically, get the best provider, and then try different phones until it works. Do not be shy about returning those things immediately.
Slashdot Mirror
The new overlay feature is causing twinkling (and brief lockups) for me on Windows too.
Something was tricky here. This is the feature they needed. Hopefully it includes support for webcam overlays, so we'll be able to get some Snow Crash style CIC Globe action up in here.
If anyone knows of a good source for high quality buildings & overlays, I am all ears. These features will be great if someone else wants to do all the work.
No need to diss hookers, dude. What they do is honest.
Just definitely stay away from MRI machines with that thing.
It's so weird being at my particular middling level of SQL proficiency. I can never tell if I don't understand people talking about SQL on the web because they have ten times the understanding I do (they work at Amazon & frequently use normal forms I've never heard of), or because they don't have a tenth of the limited understanding that I do (never been acquainted with a relational diagram of any kind).
The only person that I know with whom I can talk about SQL and understand anything is one of my coworkers. But both of us know that we're often stabbing around in the dark trying to find the right answer for our weirder joins & whatnot. If you see what I mean. 'Scuse the rambling.
Ok, Betamax died. But did Sony lose money on Betamax? Or minidisc? Or memorystick? Seems to me like that stuff was doomed to tiny market share, but guaranteed to be high margin. Because no one else sold the stuff. Right?
So maybe they're repeating a money printing strategy that's worked for them for decades. We might get chaffed buttocks from it, but that doesn't mean Sony is losing.
I know, but it boils down to the same thing. It's the same concept of posessing ideas that you originated.
Copyright jackasses are marketting their kindergarten-level understanding of intellectual property to actual kindergarteners.
Fuck you. My pony is better than your stupid pony.
It scales differently in IE and in firefox, and it scales differently depending on your font size.
IMHO, it works great in firefox. The center column gets squished and eventually covered up if the font size is huge and the window is beneath the minimum width. Not really a concern, imho. The fonts can get pretty big before this is an issue.
In IE, the minimum width isn't respected & depending on the size of the window, the center column can get forced down in the page below the sidebars. That's kindof hinky, and I imagine they'll fix it before release.
My understanding is that most installers, especially installers for Windows XP logo applications, require admin privs. If I've got that wrong, I'd be fascinated to know.
I know there are a ton of apps that don't need to be installed like that in order to run, but they aren't the issue I was thinking of.
There is no security reason for preventing a user from having Admin rights on a Macintosh computer, and there is no conceivable reason for an Apple user to desire that Apple should prevent their employees from having Admin rights.
The only reason that they might possibly need to do this is on actual servers or multi-user computers, and I assure you that they do so. It wouldn't even help them enact idiotic corporate policy, because you do not need admin rights to install applications in any secure operating system aside from Windows.
Not quite true. In Unix, so long as a user has a home directory with executable rights, they can install and run any application or dependencies for that application. In Windows, applications must be installed by someone with machine-wide permissions.
In practice, of course, no one knows how to install application on Unix so it simply isn't done by non-savvy end users. In Windows, the CEO has admin rights so he can install whatever new thing he wants over the weekend. By himself.
But there's a technical capability for limited users in Unix that is not available in Windows.
The difference isn't in the pain for people like us. We've already figured out that Windows Defender is the way to go. We've already used Spybot S&D + Teatimer, Lavasoft Adaware, and then moved on. We've figured out how to avoid your computer's performance being totally crippled by antivirus. And things have been great for a while.
Apple users didn't have to think about that. They can plug their iMac directly into their DSL modem. I mean, I wouldn't, but they've been able to since they first got a DSL modem. Like eight years ago.
So yeah, it can change. And if Apple doesn't clean up its act before they get, say, 20% of the installed base (think about how many OS revisions they'll get through first), then the security picture will change, and change badly. I am highly skeptical that this will ever happen.
W.R.T. DRM, Apple is part of the oligarchy now. They have a vested interest in reducing the functionality of your computer, and preventing huge, incredibly beneficial software tools and networks. Yes, their close contact with RIAA companies would probably require this anyway, but now it is also in their interest as a company. To maintain the iTMS as the most exceedingly convenient way to get music & TV. Obviously it is not the ideal architecture, but it will be the only one that everyone uses.
You & I have almost identical anti-malware configurations. I use Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, Microsoft Update, and my regularly updated Norton Antivirus (via Google Pack) has never seen a virus. I consider this a completely workable security solution, at least until my free 6 months of antivirus runs out. Even this completely workable solution, however, is significantly more crap than an Apple user has to think about.
How about this: It is extremely unlikely for any Apple user to get malware of any kind unless there are dramatic changes in the malware universe.
Sure, those changes could happen. We know the vulnerabilities are there. We know it's about market share & not being the lowest-hanging fruit. So to speak. The reputation Apple has is not due to any kind of misunderstanding. Not among Apple weenies, anyway.
And I've gone years without my PC getting infested either. But I have spent a lot of time thinking about anti spyware applications, antivirus, software firewalls, and NAT in the interrim. We both know that Apple users have had an easier time with security, and will continue to do so indefinitely unless there are significant changes in the malware world. McAfee's scaremongering is just saying, "There could be changes." Yes, we knew that too.
I'm sure I could have manually updated my phone, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the comparison being made by this question is flawed. Two ostensibly identical phones from the same service provider can get different service, mostly based on how recently the phone was purchased.
The latest free phone I got from Verizon has three "extra" features: speakerphone, flashlight, and three built in games. My understanding was that Verizon's whole business model was that phones were crippled but could download expensive shit. This phone can't download anything. It's great.
Every phone I've purchased has had better reception than the one before it, aside from when I've accidentally downgraded providers.
That's the main reason that this question is somewhat flawed. Newer software on your phone will frequently improve reception, sometimes just because the new software is aware of more towers. So purchasing the same phone from the same provider at a later date can get you better reception.
And I wouldn't be too surprised if bugs crept into these updates once or twice. So basically, get the best provider, and then try different phones until it works. Do not be shy about returning those things immediately.
> If Apple is anything more than a consumer widget company now, ZFS should definitely be under consideration.
ZFS could bring new features and reliability to iPods.
So even if Apple is just a consumer widget company...
Except that Star Wars, Seinfeld, and Doom were good in the first place. I complain about Eva because it had all those horrible qualities itself.